Re: To Nancy Brumback

[nancybrumback@xxxxxx]

From: Hari Kumar <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:31:35 -0400
  Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sender: owner-marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I said: <<This is why I keep saying
(though I haven't said it on this list yet) that those who want social
change have to stop focussing on the working class to the exclusion of
all others.">>

I am sorry to have been so ambiguous. What i meant is "focussing on the working
class as the leader of all others."

Hari said: <<Nancy, how would you interpret Lenin's famous phrase
that the Bolshevik must learn to be "the Tribune of the oppressed
 people">>

I would interpret it as meaning that again, the bolshevik is the leader of the
oppressed people and must accept that position. The corollary is that the
oppressed people must learn to accept the working class as their leader. But I
feel that instead of following any particular group in order to make social
change, we must learn to lead ourselves -- i.e., we must learn to become
self-governing. To me, that is a vital part of revolution -- to be able to
participate in the making of decisions that affect our lives.

<<... Someone has already cited the
Manifesto in this regard to you - it is full of references to the non-WC
who would follow the WC.>>

That post was to PEN-L, at ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg70630.html

I did respond to the post, at ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg70652.html

For anyone who didn't read my post or doesn't have time now, in response to the
references to Marx's writing to prove points, i said i wasn't interested. I'm
really not here to debate points of doctrine. I respect marx a great deal, but
after studying him for 20 years outside the orbit of any marxist party, i feel
that he did not have all the answers, that some of his points are exactly
right, and that some are plain wrong.

<<The relevant rejoinder is that such people may not be interpreting M,E,L
as they themselves had intended. Besides they may be 'blind' to reality
- which is the central point that you wish to make. But these peoples'
blindness, does not invalidate the thesis that the WC are central to
successful revolution.>>

this is a large point of disagreement between you and me, unless you are
defining the WC broadly as in Zweig, as anyone is not capitalist and not middle
class, which i don't think you are -- i think you are referring to the portion
of the working class which is directly engaged in the capitalist production of
commodities.

<< ... it is perhaps worth reiterating why it is
that the WC are indeed central to many visions of revolution. I will not
attempt to be complete/fully-referenced etc. However, my view woudl be
that an emphasis on the WC (let me say right now that includes
agricualtural workers who are 'poor peasants') - is totally justifiable
from the standpoint of revolution. My view is that this reflects the
following:
i) The WC has in large part, accepted a non-individual, a collective
task/discipline/approach, mainly because of 'modern' methods of
production - the term 'modern may be questioned by some who would wish
to cite evidence of gang-work & production-line work dating to much
earlier than the capitalist era, but I will stay with that term for now...>>

I think that the last 20 years has shown that many people besides your working
class are capable of organizing themselves and getting things done ... the
women's movement, gay movement, and environmental movements ... and i know some
will believe i am committing cross-class heresy with this statement, but i
would rejoin that just as most people in the country are not capitalist class
and not middle class, the same applies to these movements -- the majority of
the activists are working class. I'll have more to say on this later.

<<ii) Mass production is key to enabling the distribution of wealth; NO
social wealth is produced without the WC;>>

I disagree with this statement as well. Marx's definition of surplus value
completely leaves out the value of (1) all the labor of women in the family,
(2) all the labor of anyone else who is unpaid or underpaid, and (3) all of the
consumed natural resources of the 500 (5000?) years. I have been discussing
this problem with various marxists for many years now, and i already know that
someone will come back with the comment that, no, i'm wrong and marx is right
because he is only describing the situation under capitalism, where it is
perfectly true that women and others are not paid for their labor, and the
capitalist use of natural resources is not paid either. But i say that the
discussion is not about what's exchange value and what's use value, it's about
what is surplus value. And i think surplus value winds up containing a monetary
accounting for all those so-called use values that the capitalists don't pay
for. Externalized costs, some people call them. More on this another time, also.

<<iii) The W.C. has nothing to lose "but its chains";>>

Maybe when Marx wrote the Manifesto, and the working class was suffering
horribly, but not now, when workers, women, and nature are exploited freely in
the underdeveloped so that a portion of our working class can continue to live
in the comfort to which it has grown accustomed. If we are going to define the
working class as Zweig does, then we must also recognize that economic
differences persist in that class just as they persist in the entire society. I
just think that at different times and different places throughout history,
different segments of the working class, whether defined in terms of income,
race, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity or whatever, are going to be
willing to listen to socialist ideas.

<<I am a scientific worker - whose participants
have a 'false conciousness' that they are somehow not workers. In
reality, that is all they (& I) are.>>

And isn't it too bad that they don't realize it. This is exactly why
revolutionists need to relate to them in terms of what else they are besides
workers, and teach them the facts about their condition: that they are workers,
and the capitalist class is their real enemy.

thanks for reading all this,

nancy

ps. I will respond soon to everyone else's comments on the thread, "World Party 
of the Revolution." Right now, i chose to answer hari's because his was more 
adamantly supportive of one sector of the working class)from the rest. Right 
now i'm working on a deadline and i don't have much time for my lists.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.