Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

The revolting proleteriat

Page: (1)2

gozer the destructor

10:40 / 02.04.02

The other night I was drawn into an argument with a working class lefty and we started talking about revolution.

His comments went along the lines of 'the working class are a bunch of fascist, lazy B******s who want a bit more in their wage packet, more police on the streets and wouldn't get involved with any kind of revolt', he said that his years of going round canvassing for votes for the labour party had simply left him with no expectations from the Working Class.

I argued the May '68 situation in France with the worker/student alliance but he put this down to 'a bunch of middle class students throwing a few rocks at the police and a few factories going out on strike, hardly a revolution'-well then, how about Hungary or Czechoslovakia but his only responses were that it was the middle classes or the bourgeoisie who got involved/organised anything...

So, after feeling absolutely crushed (it was about the third argument that night I had been dragged into and lost-the other two because the aggressor kept repeating 'it's just 'cos your so young and naive' I am 25, was kicked out when I was 17 and have provided for myself since! Considerably more than she has ever accomplished, being 40 and never being in debt!) I thought I would raise a few issues about this on the Boards...

1) How much of the Working Class thinks/cares about the world political situation?
2) How much have the Working Class been involved in previous insurrections?
3) Am I 'an exception to the rule' because i'm interested in Anarchy AND come from a Working Class background, as was stated to me the other night?
4) If Guy Debord is right, how can people be distracted from the 'spectacle'?

The Natural Way

10:44 / 02.04.02

Key point here: most middle classers are just as uninterested in 'revolution'. It's not only the proles who're ensnared by the spectacle.

11:20 / 02.04.02

How do you define 'The Working Class'?

gozer the destructor

11:38 / 02.04.02

Those who have to work for a living/do not own the means of production.

The Natural Way

11:41 / 02.04.02

Gozer, that includes most of the middle class.

gozer the destructor

11:46 / 02.04.02

OK, your going to have to point out where I said that what is regarded to as the Middle Classes by Tory Blair are not part of the working class?

The Natural Way

12:17 / 02.04.02

I just wanted to clarify that that was what you meant. So...it's traditional Marxist definition we're going for, is it?

gozer the destructor

12:22 / 02.04.02

Well yeah, I realise that there are cultural differences that can be pin-pointed but I prefer the two-class system (I have issues with Mr Marx, but not with his critique of the capatalist state, just his solutions), although (and keep in mind I haven't finished it yet) I suppose if the 'Spectacle' is viewed by all...does it oppress us all?

12:32 / 02.04.02

1) How much of the Working Class thinks/cares about the world political situation?

A large percentage, I would thing, certainly going off my own upbringing, This, of course, being the world political situation as presented in the mainstream press and TV current affairs programmes. I would imagine the working classes are up to date on current affairs - after all, this is the target market of the Sun and Mirror, which between them are the biggest selling national newspapers in Britain. The "working classes" are traditionally the most militant - how many factory strikes or Jarrow marches were organised by university graduates on work placement for the Easter break?

2) How much have the Working Class been involved in previous insurrections?

Almost all of them. From Wat Tyler's Peasant Revolt to the Poll Tax Riots - although the latter will forever be represented by images of shiftless crusties hurling stones at riot police, the grassroots movement agains the poll tax was begun by the working classes, and most of the peaceful demonstrations against the tax were organised by "normal" people.

3) Am I 'an exception to the rule' because i'm interested in Anarchy AND come from a Working Class background, as was stated to me the other night?

Possibly not the exception to the rule, but in a minority. The "working classes" are, by definition, led by a strong Protestant work ethic. The value of a day's pay for a day's work is appreciated. The "working classes" might whinge about those in charge, but remember they died in Tolpuddle to have trade unions legalised and died to get the vote. The "working classes" like to do things through tbe proper channels, because they believe that's the decent thing to do. Yes, the "working classes" want a bit more in their paypackets. They would be fools not to. The "working classes" like having leaders because then there is someone accountable and someone to blame, and someone to vote out when it all goes wrong.

4) If Guy Debord is right, how can people be distracted from the 'spectacle'?

They would have to be convinced that the sideshows of the Spectacle aren't necessarily the rewards for hard work.

12:41 / 02.04.02

If the working and middle classes for the most part don't give a toss, and are effectively one and the same thing under the 'means of production' test, then I think we could safely put them into the same boat. And to an extent (and also to be horrifying glib), all most people want is that tomorrow should be very much like today.
In terms of revolution, I'd tend to look more at what has been referred to as the underclass, and the disenfranchised. People who'd have something to gain.

With reference to the world political situation, most of the people in the pub on the estate where I used to live were certainly reasonably aware, and would talk about it a fair bit. They'd never get off their arses though, as they would have found the current Israel/Palestine issue more of an amusing excuse to air prejudices about ragheads and jews. The most political they'd ever get was regarding their trade union, and once again, that was with respect to gain.

Are you the exception to the rule? I don't think so. There's plenty of people like you.

I think class is something of a red herring. Particularly when it comes to world politics, it seems to get in the way rather than have much that's useful to offer.

gozer the destructor

12:47 / 02.04.02

Thanx for an extensive reply.

In response to the first point, if you agree that this education regarding current affairs is drawn from the likes of the sun (and recently improved) mirror do you think that those tabloid papers express the views that people have or do they control the views of their target audience (to a greater or lesser extent as I realise that some debate takes place in the workplace)

Regarding involvement, I agree with the Wat Tyler point (I thought of that this morning a little too late), but with regards to leadership-do you think that is because we are educated to follow, to be told what to do and rarely have to rely on our own decision skills that we allow ourselves to be governed?

The final thing about the spectacle makes me think of some of the comments my friends come out with about 'things not being that bad...'

gozer the destructor

12:50 / 02.04.02

How do you define underclass?

13:01 / 02.04.02

Christ, don't mention the underclass. We had a big row about that a while ago. I'll try to find the thread and link to it.

As far as whether the national popular press GIVES its readers what they want or TELLS its readers what they want, that's a whole separate argument. As someone working in the journalism industry, I'd say it's a bit of both. I'm constantly surprised by the Sun publishing features on stuff they wouldn't have done ten years ago, and I know a lot of people who do or have worked on the Sun, and they're the nicest left wing radicals you could hope to meet. What that means in the mix of things, I'm not sure.

And yes, I do believe we're educated to follow. I just wonder how many generations it would take to re-educate people.

As an aside, the problem with discussing "the working class" as a single entity is that they're patently not. The working class is full of decent, honest people and utter scumbags. Like every other level of society, I suppose.

13:04 / 02.04.02

I am a pedant. Please bear with me...

... this is relatively unimportant, BUT - Wat Tyler et al were not working class in the Marxian sense. They were peasants in a pre-capitalist society. They were oppressed, but they weren't working class. Tolpuddle Martyrs, Blanketeers, Peterloo demonstrators, yes; Wat Tyler, no.

Less nitpicking thoughts to follow.

13:07 / 02.04.02

Point taken. The working class as such didn't exist until after the Industrial Revolution anyway. I just thought it was a suitable parallel to draw as far as civil disobediance led by the people on the lower rungs of society goes.

gozer the destructor

13:09 / 02.04.02

It's a fair enough criticism given the definitions at the start-I also wonder if the Poll Tax riots class a true insurrection-this being the case...have there been any started by the working class? I don't know much about the Zapatista movement but they were peasants as well, wern't they?

13:22 / 02.04.02

I would say, actually, that Wat Tyler et al are relevant, but that perhaps the thread shouldn't be drawn up within Marxian parameters - maybe we should be thinking about 'those at the top of the socio-economic scale who govern' versus 'everyone else who works'... to draw a ridiculously broad picture...

gozer the destructor

13:36 / 02.04.02

I think it's a good idea-who knows we may be able to cobble together a critique of modern socio-economic structure that is more relevant than Marx, Dubord etc, whilst I was reading last night I was thinking that Debords stuff is thirty years old and is well before the internet-he talks about one way media as though there is no other-I think that the internet has changed this to an extent, however people don't trust the internet as much as the long standing mediums of thought and expression like newspapers, tv etc, 'because of all the crap on it'...

14:45 / 02.04.02

I can only speak for those of the working class I'm familiar with, but with regards to my state (Oklahoma) I've noticed a sharp contrast in political agenda and viewpoint from the working class of my father's generation and my generation. Most were pro-union Dixiecrats who towed the party line of equality and equal and decent wage. Of late though there's been a prevelant attitude of 'I'll get what's mine and screw the other guy'. Unions are not only falling apart from the inside from lack of support/interest but also by corporations and law-makers who push the carrot on a string agenda that if you're pro-union, you'll make less money. Nevermind that unions protect worker's rights and have been for years now. Hijacking the Protestant work ethic just mentioned previously, the current Republican ethos is that even blue-collar workers can join in the champagne parties of the rich, if you're just willing to abandon those archaic old dogmas of employee solidarity.

As recently as last year, legislation was passed in Oklahoma that made individuals capable of recieving all the benefits reaped from a union without ever having to join one. If the unions raise your wage, nifty, you get the wage hike too but you're not required to join/participate/ pay union dues to those said unions. Which is just one toehold into breaking them apart completely.

I don't mean to derail the thread but it makes me sad to see people refute the one thing that's kept corporations from making people share-croppers again.

14:51 / 02.04.02

There's just not much revolution left in the working class where I'm from. And little care in the world political situation for sure. Except what affects their employers or their paychecks.

gozer the destructor

14:57 / 02.04.02

The interesting thing about the unions over here is that even after Thatcher tried to demolish them in the eighties, they still have some power (the TUC affording the Labour Party a £10 million overdraft) however, in the long run unions led by full-time union leaders rarely work-out that well for the workers and definitely promote reform within the current system rather than a radical breaking away-the 1926 general strike led to a situation were the Government offered rule to the unions and yet they turned this down saying they only wanted a pay rise for their workers.

Recently the leaderships of the bigger unions in this country have been passed onto 'the radical far-left' or SWP members, so who knows what will happen on that score? and the leadership of the TUC will soon be coming up for graps as John Monks goes European to further his career.

It is a symptom of the system we live under that the workers will be less and less solidarity minded and more and more interested in what they can get out of it.

18:27 / 02.04.02

What is so special about the "Working Class" that it has a revolutionary duty or that it should have a special interest in world affairs?

19:05 / 02.04.02

if there is any hope, it lies in the proles.

19:57 / 02.04.02

I suppose the suggestion is that the most obviously 'oppressed' should have the most reason to rise up. But this certainly raises another issue - is middle class rebellion any less 'authentic' than working class rebellion? Is it conceivable to say that people who fight for causes because they believe it to be the right thing to do aren't still worthy and important political figures- even though they themselves have no personal investment except for the betterment of mankind in general?

Horus lord of force and fire

20:53 / 02.04.02

I haven't read this thread - I just wanted to say that I thought the thread title read 'the revolting poltergeist' and I had images of a poltergeist in Suffolk that throws shit around the room.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:02 / 02.04.02

It's also a matter of opportunity- the old cliche about being "kept down" is, to an extent, true. As with the point made by (I'm not sure who- I can only see about the last five posts) about the poll tax riots being forever dominated by images of crusties, and the constant Daily Mail reader's (and yeah, I know I'm over-simplifying and that it's a crass generalisation, but fuck it) refrain "but they're all sponging off the state anyway"- people without jobs have more time. This is why the Newbury occupations were mostly crewed by "dole-ies"- they were the only people physically and logistically able to man a camp 24/7. (Yeah, some of us went up on weekends to give supplies/cooking utensils/booze etc, but we weren't the ones really doing the hard work).

21:36 / 02.04.02

Let's not assume thinking about the political situation in the world is some sort of intellectually superior thing to do. All the people in any given place know what's going on, but it's a lot to take in, and the system is designed not to accept the actions that they make. The system is very much orientated towards the status quo.
With hard-core socialists/marxists/anarchists, etc, what I've noticed is a real insecurity in belief. That's to say that in New Zealand, there are 28 registered political parties, and none of them are the approximately fifty communist/socialist worker splinter and bitch-at-each-other parties, because they did just that: Someone threw a few loose words around about Trotsky, and off goes a splinter group. Someone else says "lenin sucks" and there goes another. When you add in the people who go and say stuff like "that was a few self-interested students throwing stones", you can see that these people might somewhere hold the key to a worker's paradise, but they really don't have the unity to pull it off, because they're all going "no, no, no. In order to effectively control the means of production, we must completely control the means of distribution as well, what you don't understand..."
And, then you bring the working class back into it, and if they get any steps above bewilderment and being pissy, I will be well surprised. It's very nice to say it's them that's holding the revolution back, but the people who want them to riot and get subsequently angry when they don't seem to be doing all in their power not to have to take a gander in their back yard.

05:52 / 03.04.02

Very quick summary of the Marxian protocol:

1. The proletariat are the class with most to gain from revolution.
2. After the revolution, the proletariat will be the only class (because simultaneously producers/labourers & owners of the means of production) and hence a universal class, whose class interest is freedom from exploitation.

This posits that class interest is at the basis of revolutionary agency, and that revolution can only come about thru the unified struggle of a coherent and self-identical class which knows itself & its own interests. This carries a risk of dissipating revolutionary energies into 'purifying' the revolutionary subject - getitng rid of false consciousness, etc - since the vision seems to be that when the proletariat is conscious, unified, & pure enough, revolution will come about almost of its own accord.

Or so I gather. I have a problem with this, partly because the vision of a unified, revolutionary working-class tends to assume a white, straight, male working-class subject and overlook a lot of the other lines of oppression that cut across and undermine the kind of proletarian unity Marx and other middle/upper-class intellectuals/revolutionaries fantasized about.

I'm reading Empire atm which looks like a brilliant post-Marxist sort of a guide to revolution. I'll let you know if it says anything specifically about class (it hasn't really yet.)

06:16 / 03.04.02

Tom: Is middle class rebellion any less 'authentic' than working class rebellion? Is it conceivable to say that people who fight for causes because they believe it to be the right thing to do aren't still worthy and important political figures- even though they themselves have no personal investment except for the betterment of mankind in general?

When I was at uni, I used to take the piss something horrible out of the kids who were straight out of public school and suddenly started wandering around proclaiming 'je suis un revolutionaire'. Something of a different motive, I know, but that's what it seemed like.
Now, I'm not so sure. Part of me considers the desire to better mankind an honourable reason to get involved. Another part of me watches the news and says 'what the fuck is Jeremy Hardy doing in Palestine?'

In line with the point I made earlier, I don't think there's no real difference between the working and middle class when it comes to this sort of question. Both are trapped, only one lot is doing slightly better than the others. Same essential problem, nicer housing.

I think the next problem would be how you could get both classes to agree and recognise each others' motive.

gozer the destructor

06:28 / 03.04.02

Mike, when I first got interested in left-wing politics I was amused at the calls for unity and yet the incessent bickering and back-biting that goes on between these groups, I personally think that a lot of it is to do with a fear of what progress will lead to...its a lot different handing out newspapers every weekend to dealing with a situation like the poll tax riots everyday...there is also a sense of elitism and a feeling that these people need to prove their intelectual credibility/ability to argue/ability to slag off any theory they find doesn't fall into their sense of logic.

Whether revolutionary prospects are with the proles or the more educated middle classes/borgeousie revolutionary parties I don't think is the issue...I really think that Debord has a fair point with his idea of the 'Spectacle'...the people who live within this system need to realise they can control it and not just the other way round.

And last point, a quote from Debord.

"Revolutionary theory is now the sworn enemy of revolutionary ideology-and it knows it"

06:52 / 03.04.02

On Empire and proletariat:

Empire does discuss the proletariat, but in a historical sense only. Negri & Hardt state that because of the emergence of biopower, because of the changed relationships of production and a multitude of other reasons, it is no longer relevant or even sensible to speak of a proletariat, a working class, as a revolutionary subject.

They instead (as far as I understand) use a post-modern analysis on society to divide and sub-divide the various sections and strata of society and locate in these sections a kind of cross-division of unity in interests, in tactics and in demands. This unity they call the multitude.

"The multitude" is a term that in pre-marxist England was used of what was later re-coined as the working class, but in a purely negative sense. Whereas "the working class" implies a class consciousness and possibility of struggle, "the multitude" was an insult, on par with "the great unwashed" or whatever. My guess is that this is a conscious choice of terminology..

Anyway, the multitude is exactly that, multitudous. It has a myriad of faces, and it is what Subcommandante Marcos refers to when he speaks of himself as being "black in Los Angeles", "a woman alone on any dark street" and so on.

Does it exist? Of course it does, but it must also be created by its parts.

gozer the destructor

07:05 / 03.04.02

"Does it exist? Of course it does, but it must also be created by its parts."

Are you refering to an individual awareness of situation to create a unified class and if so, how?

07:34 / 03.04.02

No, not creating a unified class, because it isn't one. The structure of struggles has changed, as has the central means of production, as a result of the struggles of the proletariat. The proletariat forced its own abolishment by capital and state, by being effective in its struggles. The factory proletariat won, and was done away with as a revolutionary class.

What we have now is better, in that individual productive units, "workers", have more experience of self-management. This experience of self-management, "freedom", is one of the ways capital bought off the proletariat. It is freedom, but also a fragmentation that causes the class no longer to exist. This doesn't mean, however, that revolutionary potential no longer exists - but the "old" marxist theories can no longer be used to see it.

That is the project of Empire, I think: to give us some "new" tools that date back to the 1970's instead of the 1840's, to the Italian Autonomist experience rather than to the First International experience.

Of course, those tools also need to be updated, but it is interesting that they were quite efficient in predicting the "network society" of today, and in showing us some of the possibilities of maneuvering in it.

gozer the destructor

07:56 / 03.04.02

Your using points of reference im not at home with here so you may have to dumb it down a shade...what is the means of production if not central?...the 'freedom' of the workers resulting from 'self-management'-could you explain this please... fragmentising the class therby producing a new situation where the workers are what? do you mean that workers are alienated from each other due to competition of placements? or due to ignorance of other workers role in the machine that society has become? also what is the experience of the itallian autonomists?...Im not being pedantic, I'm just unsure what you mean?

17:01 / 03.04.02

I'm assuming that back in the day, the hope in the proletariat was there because they were 40-80% of the population(?). What are the numbers now? If the largest group in society is the middle class, shouldn't the hope lie in them? Or is there something actually in the poorer classes that is more powerful than the upper?

Page: (1)2