Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 15:32:11 GMT From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com> Subject: Re: A Revolutionary Class Rob writes: > > G'day all, > I'm brand new to the list and, judging by the erudition and passion on > display, relatively unschooled in the style and substance of left-wing > discourse. Bollocks to the "style and substance of left-wing discourse". > (a) is the Proletariat satisfactorily defined as all people without access to > the means of production other than through the sale of their labour? I'd answer yes to your question as you have phrased it, but I'm not quite sure what YOU mean by your question. Do you mean, "Is everyone who works for a wage working class ?" , because if that's what you mean, I'd answer, "No, only those people who can only support themselves through the sale of THEIR OWN Labour are part of the Proletariat : people who recieve a wage for supervising other peoples' work are part of the new middle class or sometimes the ruling class". > (b) Whatever the case, does the Marxist view of history actually require that > the proletariat recognise a shared grievance? No. The Marxist view of history sees class consciousness as a living historical thing, a part of and an expression of the class struggle and the various organisations and traditions of any particular group of workers, and as in influence on these things. But, as revolution can only happen in any particular nation state if the all the workers of that country achieve a high degree of class consciousness ie an understanding of the interests of the whole of the working class ( whatever race / sex / religion / sexuality / nationality etc ) on a national and an international scale, it is true to say that a socialist revolution cannot occur without "the proletariat recognis[ing] a shared grievance". > (c) if so, where lies the > hope of such agreed recognition (ie. hasn't capitalism constructed such > variations in the experiences of employees that my Vice Chancellor and I > are unlikely to agree on our respective interests - or the interests of > 'unskilled labourers' or unemployed people)? > Well, stuff your Vice Chancellor. He is a ( junior, peripheral ) member of the ruling class, if your college is of any reasonable size. > > If it is not necessary for a factory worker to agree with me, or for me (a > state white collar employee) to agree with my Vice Chancellor, is there a > problem with positing the transformative potential of the proletariat as > the central historical agent? If so, are finer definitions needed (or have > they already been made > A revolutionary party is required which unites revolutionary workers across any divisions which may exist in the working class. Without such a party, experience tells us there can be no revolution. This party must fight for the interests of the class as a whole, not any one section of it. This by definition includes fighting against the oppression of women, lesbians, gays, blacks etc, whether or not it occurs in a narrowly trade union context. However, whether or not such a party exists, the mass of workers will not overcome their divisions without a high level of class struggle. Revolution is not only necessary in order to take power away from the ruling class, it is also necessary for the working class to overcome the shit of capitalist ideas, and make itself fit to become the ruling class in society. In order to become a revolutionary socialist, you will have to overcome your prejudices about factory workers, and the factory worker will have to overcome his/her prejudices about you. You will have to learn to learn >from each other, in order to fight your Vice Chancellor and their boss better. In the process of these parallel struggles, as they run together as part of a real revolutionary movement, as the state itself becomes involved in the struggle on the bosses side, your colleagues at your college and the other factory workers will come to see themselves as part of the same class. This is so particularly if the relationship between the linked struggles is pointed out to each group of workers by you and a revolutionary factory worker, particularly if you are both members of the same, revolutionary, party. Adam. Adam Rose SWP Manchester UK ---------------------------------------------------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005