Occupy: Revolution fuses many different contributions!
Posted by kasama on October 5, 2011
thanks to Vanissa W. Chan
“The eruption of radical forces among middle classes (especially radical youth and students) has three potentials:
- It is an important force in its own right — often taking on the government and oppression, lighting the sky, contending in the realm of ideas and in the streets.
- It is often important as an initiating force — i.e. encouraging others to come onto the political stage. (Including particularly the poor who often can’t friggin’ breathe without triggering police repression, and who can respond with great excitement when an opening seems to appear.)
- It is often a source of new communist and revolutionary cadre… who develop a largeness of mind and deep revolutionary consciousness and can learn to play a role beyond their initial campus scope of activities.
“Now all of that is only a potential for contributi0ns, not inevitable. We have to actually help make those three things happen. And help mobilize the more oppressed to seize this opening, come onto the stage and into the spotlight. And help train communists from those who are breaking into struggle with great energy and excitement.”
“Think about it: It seems very odd to look at Occupy Wall Street and evaluate it in terms of whether its initiators could lead an actual revolution and lead the creation of a new society. Obviously they can’t. But why is that the issue (or our basis for evaluating their initiative and actions so far).
“No one is expecting Ad-busters (!) to lead a seizure of power.
“And criticizing them for not being able to is kind of silly – a false issue, a red herring. Many positive outcomes are possible from this occupation movement (shaking up the political air, putting radicalism back on the stage, awakening a new generation to political life, rippling and influencing people far from the occupations including in ghetto highschools and immigrant factories.”
* * * * * * * * *
by Mike Ely
Jay Rothermel posted a comment here that featured a snippet from the Speed of Dreams Blog — it consists of Enaemaehkiw Túpac Keshena introducing a quote by Omali Yeshitela.
Keshena writes:
“Revolution? Some prophetic food for thought on the primarily white petty bourgeois “Occupy Location X” Movement from Chairman Omali Yeshitela. The following comes from Social Revolution vs. Political Revolution, a talk given on June 30, 1984 in the course of a political education conference held at the Uhuru House during the Oakland Summer Project.”
Then comes the quote from the long-time activist Omali Yeshitela:
‘The petty bourgeoisie is often radicalized – not withstanding what its complexion is. To see a petty bourgeois force in motion demanding revolution is not necessarily the same thing as seeing a revolutionary force in motion. The petty bourgeoisie is radicalized precisely because of the contradictions of imperialism. Precisely because of the contradictions of capitalism. Precisely because as a class force it is a dying force, and often the contradictions of imperialism accelerate its disintegration. Its impending death is something that comes to its notice and it is then thrust into motion.’
My initial thought on reading this:
First: To say that something is not yet a revolution — or is not itself The Revolution — doesn’t not prove that it can’t contribute to a future revolution and a possible emergence of a new revolutionary movement.
Second: The assertion that there is an “impending death” for middle class is (I believe) not correct.
There are very complex and contradictory trends involved. Yes, the middle classes are pushed down. But they are also expanding in many ways — do to changes in production, technology etc. There was a view that the small owners would be forced “into the working class mass.” And that trend exists. But there is also the development of a new technical middle class, and managerial strata, and those who manipulate information. There has been a major shrinking of middle class hopes because of the recession but also the global competition that has intensified — but i don’t think we can see any “impending death” and the trends or actual outcome of class differentiation is (and the relative size of the working classes) is not yet clear.
Third: To say that the people radicalized in the Occupy XXX movement are drawn into motion by “the contradictions of capitalism and imperialism” is (forgive me) a rather banal and obvious point — Its true, surely, but hardly that challenging or controversial.
And what’s wrong with being drawn into motion by the contradictions of capitalism? Isn’t that true for us all?
Main issue: What is the role of the middle classes in revolution?
Let’s get to the main subtext — we’ve all seen this:
There is a trend of commentary that starts by announcing that the Occupy movement is “white petty bourgeois.” Meaning that many of its participants and organizers are (a) white and (b) middle class (students etc).
And on some level that appears to be true so far. Of course, that may not remain its character…. such things are not written yet. On that point, i think that the future is unwritten.
If high schools walk out on Wednesday in NYC… it might suddenly not be so “petty bourgeois” in composition. Let’s give wings to the thought. Bring on New York’s high school students!
TNL writes:
“What Yeshitela says there is, IMHO, basically correct. The question is what you you conclude from that. Is that the end of the analysis or the beginning.”
After all this introduces the questions:
- How do we evaluate radical outbreaks that are initiated by middle class forces?
- Is it a good thing or a bad things?
- What is the connection (actual and potential) between such events and the ferment of the more oppressed.
What is often implied is that if it is petty bourgeois and white it is flawed, inauthentic, suspect and (somehow) not part of the solution.
That seems extremely one-sided and negative.
Omali is ambivalent at best:
“petty bourgeois force in motion demanding revolution is not necessarily the same thing as seeing a revolutionary force in motion.”
But isn’t that a bit one-sided? Certainly if middle class forces are demanding a revolution, and have deep grievances, and are targeting institutions of capitalism — it suggests those forces (and even the larger strata they are part of) can be part (even an important part) of “a revolutionary force in motion.”
And (more) such outbreaks (first among youth and students) can be part of helping to trigger a larger revolutionary force (including among the more oppressed.)
Would anyone dismiss these historic sit-ins in Greensboro as just a "middle class" thing? And doesn't that ignore their "clarion call" impact?
The civil rights movement started as a student movement (sit-ins, freedom rides, voter registration) along with thousands of undocumented acts by non-students….. but the organized student component (SNCC, CORE etc.) helped trigger something much larger, among the people — and the emerging Black Liberation struggle developed powerful working class components (reaching deep into the ghettos and the poor).
And more: in the broad alliance that creates any profound revolution, there will be sections of the middle classes militantly and actively involved. (And if not, the revolution is unlikely to succeed and stay.) They may be more vacillatory than the most oppressed. They may at times be more susceptible to stopping half way, or compromising, or going for a less radical vision than those with “nothing to lose.” But the fact is that the radicalized middle classes are a potential force for revolution — even if they are often not the most radical or consistent. And so, if you want a radical, socialist, far-reaching revolution of deep change, you don’t want the middle classes as the all-defining force in that process.
So we can say that middle class forces demanding revolution is both a force in its own right, and also can play an initiating role. And also gives rise to revolutionary cadre.
TNL points out (correctly):
“On its own the radicalized petty bourgeoisie (or racially privileged sections of the working class) is not a revolutionary force in the sense that they can not lead a successful social revolutionary process to a revolutionary conclusion. But that doesn’t mean they can’t play a role in a revolutionary process, even a very important one.”
Yes, there is a difference between leading an actual revolution — and being part of creating a new revolutionary mood and movement.
Think about it: It seems very odd to look at Occupy Wall Street and evaluate it in terms of whether its initiators could lead an actual revolution and lead the creation of a new society. Obviously they can’t. But why is that the issue (or our basis for evaluating their initiative and actions so far).
No one is expecting Ad-busters to lead a seizure of power. And criticizing them for not being able to is kind of silly – a false issue, a red herring. Many positive outcomes are possible from this occupation movement (shaking up the political air, putting radicalism back on the stage, awakening a new generation to political life, rippling and influencing people far from the occupations including in ghetto highschools and immigrant factories.
Yes, middle class politics often have some built in illusions. “Take America Back” is a statement coming from a stratum that thinks there were “good old days” — and think their social compact is being broken. It is a statement of those who are “the recently wounded” — and who see their dreams slipping away. Among the more oppressed, the mood is generally different. For Black people, the 1930s or 1950s were hardly “the good old days”! And the American Dream has always looked more like a lie and a nightmare.
So yes, there are middle class expressions of outlook and experience… that are not the most radical orientation toward the system and the problems of society. They often reflect illusions, and a history of relative privilege.
TNL writes:
“One of the consequences of the petty bourgeoisie’s privileges is that they often believe the promises this system makes in terms of their right to speak out and protest and this causes them to act in ways that open political space that other forces can seize on… while the petty bourgeoisie may be a ”dying force” it is by no means a dead one and in fact brings critical resources, skills and organization to any alliances it enters with other classes.”
We can uphold the value (and even importance) of such a struggle — without embracing the illusions of some in its ranks. Right? And we can even help them transform their illusions (as life itself batters the illusions). And when (if) more oppressed join in the struggle — the mix of people can challenge the illusions as well. You want to say there are “good old days” in America in a roomful of Black youth? The blindspots inherent in that are glaring. Do you want to claim we are “taking America back” in a room where many people understand they never had it? When the bitterly exploited and persecuted undocumented brothers and sisters show up, “take america back” suddenly looks like a strange idea — they obviously never had it (except as a bitter oppressor in their home countries) — and “taking America back” to Mexican people has a very different means (as does the very word “occupation”)!
But what is wrong with such cross-fertilization? Can’t even middle class people learn while in motion?
And T NL points out:
“This revolt represent a very serious crisis of legitimacy for this system, not just in the eyes of the petty bourgeoisie but in the eyes of the vast swathes of the working class….”
If middle class students are announcing “the dream is dead” — and pointing out that they have been made into “debt slaves” and are a “lost generation” — isn’t this a powerful mood-creating event for the whole society, including (as TNL says) for those much more poor, and much more lost, and much more trapped into wage slavery? This is how the death of deep illusions starts — including among the working people.
The 3 ways middle class radical outbreaks can contribute to revolution:
The eruption of radical forces among middle classes (especially youth, i.e. radical students) has those three potentials:
- It is an important force in its own right — often taking on the government and oppression, lighting the sky, contending in the realm of ideas and in the streets.
- It is often important as an initiating force — i.e. encouraging others to come onto the political stage. (Including particularly the poor who often can’t friggin breathe without triggering police repression, and who can respond with great excitement when an opening seems to appear.)
- It is often a source of new communist and revolutionary cadre… who develop a largeness of mind and deep revolutionary consciousness and can learn to play a role beyond their initial campus scope of activities.
Now all of that is only a potential for contributions, not inevitable. We have to actually help make those three things happen. And help mobilize the more oppressed to seize this opening, come onto the stage and into the spotlight. And help train communists from those who are breaking into struggle with great energy and excitement.
But a look at history does suggest the importance and positive character of such outbreaks. Middle classes aren’t the leadership or main engine of the world’s most radical revolutions — but outbreaks in the middle classes can play an important role in bringing a revolutionary opening into being, and drawing forward forces who can take it further.
And we (communists and revolutionaries) have a role to play — taking this opening to the oppressed, helping to introduce the most advanced to communist strategies and plans and organizations, helping to weaken the hold illusions within the existing movement.
Class analysis should not be a gimmick for dismissal. It is a guide to action.
Jay Rothermel said
Spot-on, Mike. Youth of various class origins and personal situations are an excellent barometer; OWS is a manifestation of this in the context of economic crises and unprecedented unemployment, especially for youth. But it also expresses something deeping than just BLS stats: a profound dissatisfaction with what we might call – for want of a better word- the Neo-Liberal Order.
The Middle Class, because it is in the middle, can be won to the class perspective persuasively ACTING to resolve the crises of capitalism in favor of the majority.
NB: posting the link to the Kashena blog piece was not meant to be a provocation; I simply intended to share it under that topic to demonstrate that many different continuities on the left see OWS as important, and are now realizing they are obliged to start studying it and writing up their notes. The LLCO statement on OWS, which I posted on my own blog, was another in these “fyi” attempt, as well as the statement I posted by the UK Socialist Action.
Jay
chegitz guevara said
Is it true these people are mostly middle class. A large section of the middle class youth has been proletarianized by, not merely the current crisis, but the massive increase in student loan debt and the lose of the jobs normally expected by such students. The rise of the “hipster” phenomenon, of highly educated, under-employed youth is something which revolutionaries should take note. These are the same people leading the struggle in the Mediterranean.
A bartender and a waiter are workers, even if they have a masters degree.
transconaslim said
Just to let you know, in places like LA, Chicago and Denver individuals in the Occupy movements general assemblies are redbaiting anarchists and socialists who want to put forward a stronger critique of society and are critical of pasifist dogma. In LA this has come in the form of a leaflet identifying 25 anti-authoritarians and wobblies who are being accused of being police provocateurs.
Just something to keep an eye out on, think it would be good to have some news on that and a strong critique.
Abbas Goya II said
The “middle class” is nothing but the organized working class who has earned some rights through generations of class struggles. As such s/he “owns” a house and a car and might travel abroad from time to time.
Bottom line: a worker is someone who has nothing to sell but his/her labor. Find the “middle class” in the US please!
“Youth” in a social context is meaningless unless examined from within the class society. As a whole, “youth” of today is associated with the lack of vision, hopeless, unemployed, educated AND at the same time in greatest need for a vision, hope, employment and further education – aka in need of “having a life”- generation of the LABOR FORCE.
zerohour said
“Is it true these people are mostly middle class.”
It was assumed almost from the beginning that most of them were from the middle class ostensibly because no one else would have the time or the means to be away from a job or a home for an extended period of time. This was based on no investigation and some assumptions about “the middle class.”
What do people really mean when they say “middle class”? Are they defined by income, status, race/ethnicity, home ownership, mental/manual labor? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it’s not possible to quantify this term somehow, there are many studies and books written about this. Some equate the middle class with the labor aristocracy or petty bourgeoisie. However, when I see a large group of people blanketly labelled in such a manner with no basis, it reminds me of those who call their opponents “fascist” or communists who call others “revisionist” regardless of what politics they actually hold.
It’s a means to establish an “us” and a “them”, it’s not a description but an accusation. Taken far enough, it can be used to buttress an argument for abstention from the largest potentially radical movement I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Historically, it’s not the case that revolutionary movements automatically break out first among the most oppressed. Even when they do (like peasant rebellions in Russia or China), it’s not necessarily true that they have the most comprehensive analysis of the system. One can’t even imagine the Black Power without the Civil Rights Movement, but I don’t want to go too far with this. History isn’t just repeating itself. The fact is, there is a great sense of a “system” among the Wall St. protestors, and that it affects most of the US beyond their numbers. However they define it, they put themselves out in opposition to it. Perhaps many of them can do this because they are white (and are less likely to face immediate state repression) and have some degree of financial support enabling some breathing room. What’s wrong with that? What else should they be doing? Isn’t it already valuable that they established this confrontational opening in the midst of Obama-era malaise?
Abbas Goya II said
@Zerohour: You raised a few good points. “What do people really mean when they say “middle class”? Are they defined by income, status, race/ethnicity, home ownership, mental/manual labor?” It all depends on your perspective. I’m talking from a Marxist point of view and I have a clear, distinct definition of workers, middle class and capitalist. As per the mentioned definition, even BARAK OBAMA is a laborer because he does not own the means of production necessary to be called a capitalist and/or middle class.
There is another dimension to it as you raised as well. Where I stand in class struggle is not necessarily because of the definition where in class society I stand, a laborer or a capitalist. While I don’t want to appear as an apologist, millions of workers supported the (capitalist) fascism of Hitler and Mussoluni and Franco. With the same token, I don’t need to be a laborer to represent the worker’s policy. My class id doesn’t make the representative of my class INTEREST. The “id” business -as a proof or refute of policies and as soon it hits the political sphere, is right out a neo-conist vision.
In conclusion, a) yes, there is a distinct definition for each class in society as it pertains to their relation to the capital b) that definition doesn’t automatically grants the member of a class, the representative status of the class.
No matter WHO these “kids” on OWS are, “middle”/”upper”/working class, they represent the WORKING CLASS interest. It also just so happens that they ARE working class members as well.
Wayne said
The only observation I’d include is that there is a very high level of internet access among the participants, and my exposure to the organizing of it has been digital. I’m not sure if that’s other folks’ experience or not.
In any case I don’t think we have a good handle on the reach of the internet into ‘working class’ social bases. And while I get a lot of the internet–a lot–I’m not sure that some of even my shopfloor peers do, esp lower paid folks not doing the desk work. I would guess (but don’t know, though I want to) that in addition to very obvious geographic stratification in terms of consistent web access, there are of course more commonly thought of stratifications: class, race, gender(?).
The public library fucking sucks as a place to have to go if you don’t have a computer or don’t have internet. 60 min max usage around here.
Mike E said
Computers are increasingly passe. More and more people get this on their phones.
More to the point:
My experience is that those without access to the internet also didn’t have access to books.
The people who are unable to reach the internet often couldn’t relate to our printed newspapers either.
The digital divide (which is both real and shrinking) runs parallel to a previous literacy divide.
It is not mainly something new.
What we need, however, is a public medium that is highly revolutionary and highly accessible. Kasama is more of an “iskra project” (aimed at the debates among revolutionaries). It is not designed to be an introductory ramp, or a machinery of communist exposure for a broader audience. We need that, and with the new media — we can make a daily press that reaches every telephone.
Keith said
Mike’s #8 comment is right on.
I think that the term “middle class” is useless.
In Marx the working class are those who produce surplus value. Barack Obama, even though he does not own the means of production is not a worker. He doesn’t produce surplus value. Marx’s definition is very clear and efficient.
I think many of the youth at the occupy events may well be from the working class. I don’t know. Do we have any actual data on it? or are we just making assumptions that young whites are middle class? (again a useless concept derived from bourgeois sociology)
Second, and more importantly, the working class is not a static entity. The essence of the working class is the production of surplus value appropriated by capital, i.e., their labor power is exploited. BNut the way that they look and the kind of work performed is constantly changing along with the revolutions in the productive forces i.e., rapid technological change.
The working class described by Lenin in “What is to be done?” required leaders from bourgeois to bring science and revolutionary consciousness from the “outside.” Without such leaders they would only develop “trade union consciousness.” That working class was a historical stage in the development of the working class. They don’t really have a role in the future. And their jobs are being eliminated by technology. Do we really think there will be auto workers in ten years, or twenty years? Do we really think there will be a postal service in ten years?
At the very least we should define terms like the working class, middle class, and “privilege” before we deploy them in our analysis.
Ross Wolfe said
Mike Ely,
Your point about the necessity of the middle class participating in any lasting global social revolution is entirely correct. Somewhere Marx notes the fact that many of the staunchest supporters of the bourgeois revolution in France in 1789 came from sections of the aristocracy. He then projects that in any future revolution carried out by the proletariat, it is likely (if not indeed necessary) that members of the bourgeoisie will help lead it.
Wayne said
“Computers are increasingly passe. More and more people get this on their phones.”
Wonder if you have any actual data on this? Seems like as figure out these kinds of things, being scientific is really important.
Anyway I wasn’t trying to make a class (or income) observation about the protestors, but rather one about their shared access to a particular resource–the internet.
Red Fly said
Thank you!
I kept wanting to scream this out as I was reading this piece! Mike is usually on point, but this assumption that college students are “petty bourgeois” is increasingly less true these days. Like a lot of working class young people, I was able to go to college by racking up large student debt, not because my parents gave me anything. Both my parents come from the lower rungs of the working class and I grew pretty much dirt poor. And now I have this debt burden and I can’t finish my degree, which I’m close to achieving, because I can’t get any more loans until I start making payments, and I can’t make any payments because I can’t find steady employment.
Mike E said
There are different defintions of classes in the U.S.
I tend to have a narrow definition: where there are sections of people who are wage slaves (and in families defined by wage slavery). This working class has tiers of very distinct kinds. And there are the top capitalists (in various layers too)
And in between them are middle classes of a various kinds — diverse layers of professionals, business people, etc.
In the U.S. it is often not clear what class youth are in (or going to be in). I don’t assume most college students are middle class — but certainly college is the platform for those aspiring to middle classes status — even if many won’t get there.
And more: many people in actual life are in gray areas. Many coal miners I knew had farms, or a bulldozer earth moving business on weekends. Kids have part time jobs and go to school. One parent is a teacher, and another works in a warehouse. And so on.
Class analysis is not a sociological way of “pegging an individual” — it is a way of describing large groups of people (and those categories blend into each other at the edges.) So to me, class is not a way of describing one person…. like this:
Lots of middle class kids in college tended bar (on their way from a middle class origin to a middle class career). that generally didn’t make them workers. But some get stuck in the working class, etc. And yes, most waiters with masters degrees don’t end up as workers…. thought they might do it for a few months, or a summer, or a transition.
We don’t solve the problem by declaring (as some do) that everyone who gets a paycheck is a worker — so the immigrant bussing your tables is a worker, and the professor teaching a class is a worker…. That just avoids complex questions by blurring everything. Yes, the middle classes face proletarianization. And yes upper tiers of the working class have gone through bourgeoisification.
But it is important to understand that the working class in the U.S. is not some firm majority. And the middle classes and the working class are about comparable size in the U.S. — and will both have a major infuence on the direction of change.
And the kneejerk hostility toward middle class people (and often toward the Black middle classes and well as the white) is a form of identity politics — and really removed from strategic thinking.
The middle classes are capable of quite fervent reactionary and racist politics (and as we know so are sections of the working class).
But there are lots of manifestations of middle class activity that we should welcome, and ally with, and seek to raise higher.
some radicals hate students. Some hate people who are educated. and so on. But we communists don’t. We have a larger, generous and strategic view.
PatrickSMcNally said
> Mike is usually on point, but this assumption that college students are “petty bourgeois” is increasingly less true these days.
In fairness to ME, I don’t really think that he was making a major assumption on that point. The initial commentary was written as a response to some “true revolutionaries” of some brand or other who had panned the protest as “petty bourgeois.” One may dispute the validity of that assumption, but there is also the issue of how much one should conclude even if when the assumption is granted. That seems to have been what the debate turned upon. Don’t read more into it than necessary.
Abbas Goya II said
Keith: “In Marx the working class are those who produce surplus value. Barack Obama, even though he does not own the means of production is not a worker. He doesn’t produce surplus value.”
Mike E. “In the U.S. it is often not clear what class youth are in (or going to be in). I don’t assume most college students are middle class — but certainly college is the platform for those aspiring to middle classes status — even if many won’t get there.”
I’m not sure where “In Marx the working class are those who produce surplus value.” This is a un/intentional distortion for the definition of worker when s/he hits the market as opposed to the OUTCOME of his sale (ie the surplus that s/he produces). Worker sells his labor and AS A RESULT s/he produces surplus value. A worker is first and foremost someone who has nothing to sell but his labor, period. Barack Obama doesn’t produce surplus!? An unemployed industrial worker who is in reception of benefits, not only does not produce surplus but s/he is consuming the surplus created by other workers! What exactly is his/her status?
I agree with Keith though when s/he says that “we should define terms like the working class, middle class, and “privilege” before we deploy them in our analysis.”. The “obvious” building block of Marxism is apparently distorted here. If we don’t have that basic building block straight, EVERYTHING you try to build upon it WILL be distorted. Let’s get the basics concepts straight. Mike’s “In the U.S….” is even more distorted. Since when the Marxian definition of worker/middle/capitalist class is based upon the geography of capitalism?
Red Fly said
@Mike
Can you talk more about these layers? I agree that these layers exist, but I’m not sure how to go about defining them. Should it be done by income level? Or occupation (i.e. role in the process of production)? Or both?
I’m assuming when you say layers you’re talking about different intensities of oppression. So for example, given the dangers of coal mining, it is probably fair to say that coal miners are part of a more intensely oppressed layer than low-wage/basic web programmers. If this is the case, should we understand by this that coal miners, overall, have a greater revolutionary potential than web programmers?
What role should the specific hazards of the different occupations play in our understanding of oppression?
I remember you called Mao’s “Analysis of All the Classes in Chinese Society” a model of materialist analysis. I agree. But the class analysis by Mao I like even better is the one where he analyzes just the different layers of the peasantry. I said sometime back that we should conduct our own analysis of the working class in the U.S. using Mao’s investigation of the peasantry as a guide, but going beyond Mao by employing modern social science methods and going into more detail. The feasibility of this would depend in part I think on radical sociologists taking this up as a research project. Perhaps the academic work could be coordinated with on-the-ground research work (surveys, interviews, etc.) by cadre?
Speaking of guides/models for conducting this kind of work, TNL mentioned Domhoff’s Who Rules America? I haven’t read this book, but from the description, and from what others have said about it, it sounds like the kind of fine-grained class analysis that we should be trying to emulate with respect to the working class in America.
We need something like a Maoist version of Domhoff, in which all the layers of the working class are analyzed with respect to their potential for embracing revolutionary politics.
I agree with you that there’s still some fluidity in the classes in America. However, the fluidity is mostly downward these days, as the middle class is shrinking rapidly in this latest crisis.
I also agree that there’s blurring at the edges of these class categories and that this can be important in how it effects individual class consciousness.
Are you sure about this? Is there hard data you’re using to reach this conclusion?