The review
L.B.
Some Preliminary Thoughts About Modern Class Structure. 11.12.99. http://www.kersplebedeb.com
аааааааа On my view the article represents Уfresh
spiritФ in Marxism. Author, apparently, is Afro-American or Mexico immigrant in USA Ц anyhow, he (she) is closely
acquainted with the life of these sections.
However, it is necessary to mention shortcomings of
the article, which are rather considerable sometimes.
1. Author rightly acknowledges that modern УcommunistsФ
apply Marxism not dialectically, that they not take into account the changes in
class structure that occurred in last decades. But author said nothing (or next
to nothing) about the point, that opportunism of modern УcommunistsФ consists
not only in non-dialectically applying of Marxism, not only in blind repeating
of old formulas, but in disregarding of nuts and bolts (fundamental) of Marxism
too. Thus, author criticizes only right-wing deviation that arouses suspicion,
that author himself is subjected to left-wing deviation. а
2. Author rightly acknowledges that class
distinctions often take place within family too on the basis of sex (gender)
(English social-reformist sociologist Antony Giddens wrote about this 25 years
ago, see Antony Giddens. Sociology. Stratification and Class
Structure). Author rightly acknowledges that
gender division and class division into proletariat and labor aristocracy often
overlap. But L. B. said nothing about other side of womenТs living conditions,
besides their oppressed position, namely their limitation by household chores, paltry
domestic concerns and the like, that tear women away from class struggle of
proletariat. In this sense one may probably compares women with peasantry in
some respects: peasant may be more poor, than urban poor person, but
limitation of peasant by the village bounds, lack of the numerous possibilities
of business and culture links, intercourse, that town gives, make the peasantТs
psychology backward, petty-bourgeois. It is similar in regard to women Ц the
more so as womenТs limitation by the УhearthФ is УsanctifiesФ by prevailing in
society patriarchal-bourgeois moral, which condemns a woman, who penetrates
into areas, entry into which is УallowedФ only for men. Naturally, I say about
this not in order to urge Marxists to refuse to deal with proletarian women,
but in order to take into account this fact in dealing with them.
Furthermore, L. B., who acknowledges stratification within
oppressed nations and races and the emergence of middle class even among them, says
almost nothing about stratification within women, about the emergence of a new
womenТs middle class during last decades Ц those women, who Уrise in the worldФ
not as a passive appendage of a husband, but at the expense of their talents in
various areas (naturally, including luring (captivating) of bourgeois males).
In this point Antony GiddensТ study was
more detailed.
L. B., who give little
attention to this fact, by that objectively acts in favor of female middle
class.
On the other hand, new
womenТs proletariat also emerges along with emergence of new womenТs middle class during last
decades. Social activity and non-vision of own vocation in limitation by
Уkitchen, bedroom and nurseryФ make similar new womenТs proletariat to new womenТs middle class, but the
difference between them Ц that new
womenТs proletariat in contrast to new womenТs middle class have no
illusions about possibility of breaking out of oppressed condition within the
limits of capitalism. Just as it is time
for communists to discard out of date view on oppressed nations as savages, it
is time to discard out of date view on women as narrow-minded (philistine) tale-bearers
(gossips) one and all. In this sense L. B. is undoubtedly right.
3.
Author rightly acknowledges increasing of middle classes, labor aristocracy not
only in rich nations, but even in poor ones. However, L. B. cover up the fact
that middle classes in poor nations (in the sense Уurban middle classesФ, I
donТt mean peasantry of the poor nations, which have petty-bourgeois psychology
in spite of their misery), firstly, constitute significantly smaller part of
population, than middle classes in rich nations (some times, 10, 100 and even
more times smaller), secondly, they are on the significantly lower level of
living conditions than middle classes in rich nations. For instance, I have
showed in my work УOn the issue УWhat is to be done?Ф againФ (5th
December 2007) in terms of statistical data, that proportion of large-scale
enterprise workers (which may be considered as labor aristocracy) in Indonesia
(not the most backward nation among poor nations) by order of magnitude smaller
than in China (not the most advanced nation among rich nations). But for L. B.
it turns out that there is no difference between Los-Angeles and Afghanistan, as
if labor aristocracy exists anywhere equally. From this one may concludes, that
contradiction between oppressive nations and oppressed ones have disappeared at
all.
In
fact, middle classes in poor nations emerge only so far, as these nations are
on the threshold of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, which open up
possibilities for economic development and promote entry of these nations into
imperialist stage. In other words, so far, as these nations are on the
threshold of entry into imperialist stage (although, it is clear, that they are
far from entering into this), they show the presence of middle classes Уin embryoФ (in their infancy).
Apparently,
L. B. confronts the example of Mexico and other Latin American countries, which
are relatively developed among oppressed nations, and many of them already show
imperialistic features (Brazil already have entered into imperialist stage at
all). But to transfer conclusions, which have derived from these nations, to
the all oppressed nations, is wrong.
4.
The assertion of L. B., that middle classes are needed for imperialist
bourgeoisie in addition still as vast stratum of consumers to saving from
overproduction, is mistake. It is old populist (УnarodnikФ) mistake, which was
refuted already by Lenin in his early works; to put it more precisely, it is old
mistake in a new version.
5. L. B. rightly criticizes УcommunistsФ who consider low strata of
proletariat as lumpen-proletariat. But, on the other hand, L. B. characterizes lumpen-proletariat,
probably, rather vaguely, covering up its splitting, actual belonging of its
top (upper strata) to the middle class and even to bourgeoisie (gangsters,
bandits, who privileged by physical strength, prostitutes, who privileged by
beautiful exterior, children of rich parents etc.), and its bottom (lower
strata) Ц to the proletariat. It is clear, that it should be exclude
dependents, which live at the expense of the state or of the relatives (disabled
persons, mentally diseased persons, uncommunicative introverts etc.) from the
latter group: their poverty makes them related to the proletariat, but their
nonparticipation in the economic process, their parasitism make them alienated
from the proletariat. If one speaks about lumpen-proletariat as declassed elements,
i.e. belonging to no class, not participating in commodity-money relations, one
should mean just such persons by that.
L.
B. acknowledges in one place, that lumpens often in fact play the role of
supervisors over proletariat, i.e. they are in fact labor aristocrats, in other
places L. B. names them broken proletarians, who stand lower than proletariat
in contrast to labor aristocracy, which stands higher than proletariat. This
point has viewed vaguely, i.e. L. B. partly repeats here the mistake of many
УcommunistsФ, who donТt distinguish between a pauper (or even simply
proletarian), on the one hand, and a gangster, on the other hand. L. B. says
nothing about physical strength as a privilege of street bandits.
It
is also seems to be not exactly, that lumpen-proletariat is mainly male class.
If Уlumpen-proletariatФ means paupers, i.e. dying, ruining themselves by
drinking representatives of proletariat and partly middle class, then,
evidently, the number of women here no less than the number of men. If
Уlumpen-proletariatФ means criminals, then, probably, the number of women here
less than the number of men, however, it can hardly be said that Уlumpen-proletariat
is mainly male classФ here too. It is clear, that there are only a few women in
that УprofessionsФааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
among crime ones, which needs physical strength (bandits, robbers), but
there are not a few women in other crime УprofessionsФ (theft, drug trade,
prostitution etc.)
6.
Perhaps, the most serious mistake in this article is reckoning Taliban among УwarlordismФ.
Obviously, the author is weakly familiar with this matter. On the contrary, it
is rightly to name North Alliance (former fighters against Soviet occupation,
then puppets of Russia, India and Iran)
УwarlordismФ, rather than Taliban, which comes to power through the struggle
against North Alliance. This mistake suggests
that the author is inclined to consider every dictatorship, even proletarian, revolutionary-democratic
one as reactionary one, i.e. it causes a suspicion him of left-wing deviation,
anarchism.
It
is necessary to emphasize, that the article was written by L. B. at 1999, that
is before beginning of Уglobal war against terrorismФ, i.e. this matter was not
yet made clear.
National-liberation
movements of the old type Ц Nasser in Egypt, Kaddafi in Libya, Baath in Iraq,
Islamists in Sudan, which came to power at 1989, and the like were in fact УwarlordismФ.
All of them have subsequently turned into puppets of imperialists, particularly
Russian and Chinese ones. But Taliban, which is the movement of the lower
classes (= proletariat and poorest peasantry), not of army officers and clergy
(= middle classes), have Уopened a new pageФ in national-liberation movement.
Bourgeois science acknowledges the following: ааааааааааааа
УЕAnother
distinctive feature of the Taliban revolution is the nature of the Taliban
leadership itself which differs significantly from most, if not all,
experiences of governance in the Islamic World. While most revolutionary
upheavals in the Middle East were led by military officials (Egypt, Syria,
Iraq Е etc.), or urban-based
senior religious figures (Iran),
the Taliban primarily consisted of talibs
(students of madrasah Ц A. G.) or
mullahs who originally graduated from religious schools or local seminaries
in the rural areas of Afghanistan.
Other Taliban recruits were refugees in Pakistan and had originally left
the country at a very young age during the anti-Soviet uprisingЕ
Е
the Taliban movement originates from a social background that contrasts sharply
to former revolutionary Islamic movements. Across the Middle
East, Islamists usually recruit among the intelligentsiaЕ In
contrast, the Taliban movement is the only contemporary Islamic movement whose
basis is a network of traditional rural madrassasЕФ (Dr. Kareem Kamel. Conceptualizing Revolutionary Outcomes: The Taliban
Movement and the International System).
7. In my opinion, L. B.Тs views on national question are insufficiently
precise in general. It is the same with regard to У4 periods in national
questionФ.
Firstly,
one could say about period of transition from feudalism to capitalism and
formation of national states as about the first period only with respect
to УWestФ (to West Europe, and also to USA
and Russia).
For УeasternФ countries Ц former colonies and semi-colonies Ц this period is the
third period too at the same time; for many УeasternФ countries (for modern
neo-colonies) this period still not came to the end.
Secondly,
it is erroneous to confine inter-imperialist rivalry within the second period,
because this rivalry not stopped since then (although it not went into УhotФ
(violent) phases, as at the first half of 20th century).
Thirdly,
it is correct only in part to name the third period Уthe blade of proletarian
revolutionФ: first, because it was the transition from feudalism to capitalism
in many respects, as I said above; second, because colonialism is changed into
neo-colonialism, i.e. formation of national states is far from ending in fact (with the exception of India,
China, Brazil, which have entered into imperialist stage, and, in some degree,
Iran). Third period is just the bourgeois revolution as distinct from the
proletarian one in relation to modern
period of national-liberation movement (so-called УInternational
terrorismФ).
Fourthly,
L. B. wrote, that now, at fourth period, Уnational and race borders are
weakenedФ, that Уimperialists have УmulticulturalФ, transnational strategyФ.
ItТs right only in following senses:
1) imperialists promote certain persons or clans from oppressed nations, but promote one of several tens or even of
several hundreds, according to the level of economic development of given
nation, according to the level of its national-liberation struggle (illustrative
example of this Ц former rioters or even simply bandits from among Chechens and
Dagestans, like Beslan Gantamirov and the like). It is as distinct from essentially more broad, massive (with
respect to the coverage of population) bribery within own, imperialist,
nations. 2) At more advanced oppressed nations, as they already enter into imperialist stage and are not oppressed in
many respects, their own middle class emerges. 3) Certain part, though not
large, nevertheless far from zero, of representatives of oppressed nations and
races, who have assimilated into superpowers, turn out members of middle class
or even bourgeoisie.
But
this claim of L. B. is erroneous, if one interprets it in the sense, that the
gap between oppressed nations and oppressive ones is reduced.
We
see that L. B. confuses correct understanding that old colonialism was changed
by neocolonialism (with all the ensuing consequences) with erroneous opinion,
that national oppression is weakened. Dialectic applying of Marxism is mixed
with old petty-bourgeois nihilism in national question. Apparently, L. B.
confronts the example of Afro-Americans in USA,
the example of Mexico,
and transfers those examples on all oppressed nations. From this his phrases
follow, which could be interpreted both as dissociating from nationalism of
Afro-American labor aristocracy (Maoists and the like) and as the refusal to
support movements of wide proletarian and near-proletarian masses in the 3rd
world, Taliban and the like.
However,
despite this, I consider that advantages of this article probably outweigh its
disadvantages. Its main advantages:
1)
Rather exact answer to
the question: УWhat is proletariat today?Ф, correct views on proletariat and
labor aristocracy in superpowers Ц views, which coincide with my views in
general.
2)
Correct view on the
ownership under modern capitalism, recognizing the fact that collective ownership
of class (or group) of capitalists (not only stock ownership, but also УpublicФ
ownership as in former USSR
and in China)
is in fact the same capitalist ownership.
A.
Gachikus
February
23, 2009 ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
аа аааааааааааааааааааааааа
а аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
а ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
аа ааааааааааааааааааааа
