Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 14:13:13 -0800 (PST)
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: fascism, etc.


CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS

   I had argued:
 
[   I think Louis has a narrower definition of "class consciousness"
[than I do. I would argue that any form of consciousness that
[contributes to the fighting strength of the workers in the class
[struggle is an attribute of class consciousness. This includes
[the growing mutual acceptance and harmonious relations among workers
[who are men and women, Black and white, immigrant and US-born.

   Then Louis came back:

>Louis: It is not a narrower definition. It is a Marxist definition. 
>The nationalism of the oppressed is not class consciousness. Feminist 
>consciousness is not class consciousness. Although these forms of 
>consciousness arise on account of the tendency of capitalism to create 
>superexploited sectors, the response of these sectors does not 
>automatically translate into class consciousness.

   Note that I said nothing in my argument about "nationalism"
or "feminism." I only mentioned gains of unity across racial
and sex barriers within the working class. Louis said nothing
about these phenomena. Once again, Louis has not really exposed
any difference between us.

   Then Louis added:

>For example, black workers tend to identify their interests as common to 
>the entire black population. This means that they will cast their vote 
>for Jesse Jackson in an uncritical manner. It also led to a lot of 
>confusion over the Clarence Thomas nomination. It has also led to a 
>number of civil rights leaders having the wrong position on immigration. 

   But this racial exclusiveness to which Louis refers has
nothing to do with the achievements in the area of greater
working-class unity. Louis refers to "civil rights leaders."
As far as I know, the civil rights movement ended nearly
thirty years ago. And I haven't noticed it being resurrected.
Perhaps Louis knows something I don't.
   It is true that some Black people tend toward racial
separatism. But why not also mention that there are many
who do not? Why only mention the negative aspects of the
situation, and ignore the positive? It is as though Louis
is devoting himself to the proposition that revolution is
impossible.
   In explaining the lack of political class consciousness,
Louis points to:

>1) The role of racism, which is tied up with the history of slavery in 
>this country. White workers tend to see their interests as "white" 
>based. In a defensive response, black workers tend to be black-issue 
>oriented.

   This is not very helpful, because it says nothing about
whether there are any changes going on, and if so, how to
identify them, and how to explain their implications for the
class struggle. Is the working class just as divided by race
as 30 or 40 years ago? What has happened, and why? In my view,
the civil rights struggles helped get Black workers into many
workplaces from which they had previously been excluded,
elevated their status in working-class communities, factories,
unions, and in politics generally, and brought Black workers
and white workers closer together. Not only did people of
different races get to know each other (often for the first
time), but there was also a growing feeling of mutual
respect which had previously been unachievable on any large
scale.
   Much of what Louis had to say in this particular posting
had to do with why US workers are relatively backward in
contrast to European workers, and what is unique about US
history that gives rise to particular obstacles to the
formation of political class consciousness in this country.
His points here are well-taken. But we, as Marxists, need
to focus more on the elements of progress in the formation
of working class consciousness, and the reasons for these
changes. If we are Marxists, we have got to be thinking
about what battles are looming ahead, and what kind of
shape the working class is in as it approaches these
conflicts. If you listen carefully to what Louis says,
you might get the impression that he believes the
working class is doomed to defeat because it has
nothing to fight with.
   We know that capitalism provokes the workers to
radicalize. Oppression breeds resistance. We should also
recognize what strengths the working class has as it
faces the coming battles. I believe that the working
class--worldwide--is much stronger today than it was
in the 1920s, in spite of the lack of "politics."

   In a later post, Louis made this comment:

>Louis: It's interesting that Jim Miller, a sympathizer of the American 
>SWP, and Adam Rose, a member of the British SWP have a common assessment 
>of the period we are in. This goes with the territory. "Marxist-Leninist" 
>groups have to have a raison d'etre. That raison d'etre is that 
>revolution is just around the corner. That is the only way you get people 
>to pay $50 a week sustainers, sell newspapers in front of plant-gates, go 
>to meetings 5 times a week, etc. This type of forced march leads to 
>individual burn-out and splits like the kind that took place in your 
>Canadian outfit. The left needs to preserve its cadre, not squander them 
>on adventures based on some guru's pipe dream.

   As far as the $50 a week sustainers are concerned, isn't it
possible that people value the organizations they belong to,
and are willing to help pay the bills? And not everyone pays
$50 a week, only those who can afford it and are strongly
motivated. How much one pays is a function of both the
pocketbook and consciousness.
   Marxists have never taken a cynical approach to the
commitment of activists to their party. The SWP in the
US respected the loyalty of the rank-and-file members
of the Stalinist organization to their party, even though
it could be seen that such devotion was misdirected.
   I was a member of the CPUSA in the 1960s, and was then
recruited to the SWP. The people who attracted me to the
SWP took note of my serious attitude toward the Stalinist
organization I was in, and saw that as a virtue. If only
such seriousness could be transferred from the CP to
the SWP, they reasoned, that would be progress. And so
it was. (Although Louis might not fully agree with this,
he might see at least a grain of truth.)

   On a slightly different topic, Rakesh made this point:

>In one of Carchedi's earlier books, I remember that he argued against
>Lenin's idea that workers learned the discipline necessary for united,
>decisive Party action from the habits they develop on the factory floor. 
>Carchedi attempted to demonstrate the anti-democratic implications of such
>a form of political organization. 

   I don't recall Lenin's argument here. If someone knows
where to look that up, I'd like to read it. And I haven't
read Carchedi. But I think there is a link between
cooperative labor under capital and the development of
some of the elements of class consciousness. Among other
things, workers brought under the command of a single
capitalist, organized according to a division of labor
within the workshop, learn about cooperation in its most
elementary forms, although many peasants already know
much about this if they have lived under the lingering
influence of the communal agrarian relations (the mark,
the obshchina, etc.)
   In their early rebellions (Luddism, sabotage) they
get a feel for the power of acting in unison. This is a
consequence both of their concentration under one roof
as well as their longing for freedom. Whereas before, as
peasants escaping traditional, personal bonds, they sought
freedom in a big farm, held as private property; now, as
propertyless proletarians they have no recourse but to
take advantage of their strength of numbers, and in this
they rely upon something which capital has already handed
to them: the discipline of joint work, the suppression of
anarchistic impulses.
   So there is much in what Rakesh has said on this
point. Perhaps I was a bit off the mark in my previous
post on this topic. At the same time, however, I think
we can all agree that the demeaning servility inculcated
into the psychology of the laboring masses by the
bourgeoisie and its various police and ideological agents
is one of the greatest obstacles to be overcome. And this
slavishness, too, is very much a part of the conditions
of the factory, something that is commonly shared, and
commonly resisted, by the wage-slaves.

   Rakesh added:

>I was attempting to suggest that while struggles may be entirely defensive,
>it is also true that through them people do sometimes change themselves as
>much as they change their circumstances.  

   This is the whole point of communism: humanity's goal is
its own self-development. And it is through the initial
defensive struggles waged by working people that they learn
more about themselves and their own human capacities, as well
as the more practical details of tactics, identifying allies
and enemies, etc.
   It is through fighting for their liberation from capitalist
slavery that people come to know that their lives are worth
something to themselves, and that they are not just put on
this earth to serve someone else's purposes. As workers, they
begin to see themselves as the exploited class. But they will
not resist exploitation unless they see their lives as having
some inherent value to themselves, and feel the need to
develop and express their own human potential.

FASCISM AND THE BOURGEOISIE

   Louis then broaches the topic of the dangers fascism holds
for the bourgeoisie:

>What Bonapartism and fascism have in common is that they are 
>double-edged swords. While in the "last instance" they serve to defend 
>private property relations, they do so in a manner that attacks the 
>perogatives of the capitalist class as a whole. The German capitalist 
>class backed a movement that was led by a madman and brought chaos 
>and ruin upon itself. Many of Hitler's military moves were done 
>unilaterally and finally took on a suicidal aspect. Elements of the 
>German bourgeoisie tried to decapitate the Nazi government, but it 
>was too late after war began. Hitler was able to suppress the General's 
>revolt and other forms of bourgeois resistance and pushed forward.

   Louis is thinking that fascism is very risky for the
bourgeoisie. But what choice did the German capitalists
have in the late 1920s? Hitler's movement grew spontaneously
as a result of the particular features of the crisis in
that part of the world. The capitalists started to pay the
Nazis' bills as they increasingly saw no other hope for a
solution. No, they didn't like it. Yes, some of them tried
to get rid of Hitler at various points. But he was their
savior, their knight in tarnished armor. It was Hitler who
finally made the workers go back to work.
   Does Louis think that the Nazis dragged Germany into war
against the interests of the German ruling class? I don't
see how they could have avoided war. War was forced upon
them not by Hitler, but by the logical development of the
world situation. Or, it could be better stated that both
Hitler and the war were forced upon them. I believe this
was Trotsky's view, but I haven't looked it up recently.
   We should never allow ourselves to fall into thinking
that, "if only the cooler heads in the ruling class had
prevailed, all that foul business could have been avoided."
Fascism is not a mistake which brings only "chaos and ruin"
to the capitalist class. At a certain point of protracted
crisis, the bourgeoisie has no other option. True, Germany
lost the war. But that was not foreordained. And the
main bastions of German finance capital were preserved,
although there were some losses to capital in the eastern
1/3 of the country.
   We should look forward to the future of the imperialist
countries with this thought in mind: "fascism is no mistake;
it is a deadly threat. Only the mass movement of the workers
can stop it." (But as I've said before, the rise of a mass
fascist movement is not on the agenda in the immediate
future for the imperialist countries.)

Jim Miller
Seattle


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