Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:02:57 GMT
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Subject: Re: WORKERS' REVOLUTION


>
>Tannis writes:
>> 
>> I am doing a paper for my political philosophy class at the University of 
>> Regina.  The topic I am exploring is "Why Marx's workers' revolution 
>> hasn't happened yet".  I am interested in people thoughts on this subject
>> 
>
>First of all it is neccessary to argue against non Marxist explanations as to 
>why it hasn't happenned yet.
>
>i) "There is no working class" ( or, there is a working class, but it is
>shrinking ).
>
>To cut a long argument very short :
>
>First, if you look at the purely manual workers, there are an ever
increasing number
>on a world wide scale. There are more workers today in South Korea than
there were
>in the whole world in Karl Marx's time.
>
>Secondly, "white collar" workers are workers. They are subject to the same
>exloitation as "blue collar" workers - speed ups, work becoming more
routinised,
>concentration in larger + larger workplaces, redundancies, lousy pay. They 
>have responded as workers in new industries have always done, by joining Trade
>Unions.
>
>ii) There is a working class, but the working class doesn't want revolution.
>
>Massive upheavals in the core of the system are becoming more frequent, not
>less. eg France and Italy. What prevents them developing into challenges to 
>capitalism as such, rather than just opposition to a particular policy of
>particular capitalist rulers, is that reformist trade union and political
>leaders ( former Communist Parties, Socialist / Labo(u)r Parties ) do their
>best to get these movements under control, into safe, parliamentary channels.
>
>iii) Capitalism may have been crisis ridden in Marx's time, but it isn't
>any more.
>
>This may have been a popular argument in the 1980's - but it's much easier
>to answer now - "open your eyes and look" is my answer, although prehaps
>a little more argument is neccessary for an academic paper !
>
>And then come to a Marxist explanation of why "Marx's workers' revolution
hasn't
>happened yet" , which is essentially :
>
>Revolutions, or at least revolutionary situations, break out periodically in
>every country. These do not result in workers revolutions because political
>parties tied to the capitalist system, in one form or another, get control
>of the potentially revolutionary movement and divert it into non revolutionary
>channels. Genuinely mass revolutionary parties, as the example of Russia in 
>1917 shows, can prevent this. The reason that subsequent revolutions have
failed
>to result in workers revolution is because this crucial, "subjective", element
>has been lacking, and the main reason for this is that the real Marxist
tradition
>of what a workers revolution is has been buried for about 60 years under the
>lies of Stalinism.
>
>Adam.
>
>Adam Rose
>SWP
>Manchester
>UK
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>


Mr Rose:

While one can share your positive analysis of the prespectives of the
working class, and moreover further develop it to show that today's "left
wing" of the proletariat as a class (classes also have their advanced,
middle and backward sections) is now to be found in the countries of the
Third World, while its right wing maybe found in the advanced imperialist
countries, where the class still trail to a large extent behind the
aristocracy of labour, the social-democratic parties, and every sort of
revisionist school of Thought that goes under the undeserved label of
Marxism.  That of couse includes Trotskysm.

On the other hand, the proletarian school of thought, the Marxist -as
orthodox Marxism means in this circunstance - has actually led the class in
the concrete experiences of revolution, democratic (1848 - 1905 - 1917),
socialist (October) - 1949 China) and the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution.  Today, the Peruvian revolution is proving to be worth ten
thousand Trotskyst dilettante scribblers as an inspiration and example for
the WHOLE world proletariat.

The question of the set-backs and defeats of the class and the proletarian
line, are just that: set-backs and temporary falls of a giant that has began
to walk.  Only those who have never done anything except criticise, can
argue in the tone you are using to denigrate - at once and in choir with the
imperialist bourgeoisie - the revolutionary leaders of the class.  Leaders
that committed mistakes.  Yes.  It is impossible to undertake any historical
action in the expectation of never committing any errors.  OUR leaders,
actually were able to commit mistakes ONLY because they were able to
ACTUALLY do something for the class in the historical context.  When you
have done a millioth of what Stalin did for the proletariat, dare raise your
voice and criticise. Otherwise your pedantry - in the light of your CERO
achievements is rather preposterous!


Adolfo Olaechea



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------