It isn't materialistic cause it isn't based on historical materialism or Marxism. The claim that only class is able to create a working movement is false. Look at the peasants, look at the Nazis. Even the claim that only the working class is able to create a working movement within capitalism is false.
Why is it false? Cause capitalists, nationalists and racists are also able to create working movements and - unless you reduce your meaning of class - you ought to accept reality.
Does this mean that other movements are able to create a real existing movement which overthrow capitalism but the working class as its foundation? No, it doesn't.
It isn't materialistic cause it is a claim that is connected to little, it has a lot of weak points going for it and no historic underpinning. If you think it does, you ought to read more theory and be actually involved in practice as well (to get the theory you read).
I have no problem working together with people who have ideas like that of OP, but I have a problem working with people who have those ideas which aren't quite the orthodox Marxist view or might even be wrong revisionist readings of Marx, if they try to get hegemony by reducing the plurality of view points which actually increases the strength of the potential movement.
We have centuries in which we see that class reductionist movements have a lot of problems and are more often than not failing. Luckily who I asked whether they are sure of their thought isn't that kind of class reductionist.
No you took the most bad faith reading of my comment and are actually going to argue that I'm wrong because "there have been movements other than workers movements!!!"
Yeah no shit, that isn't what I was saying. Everyone else seemed to get that other than you. To even acknowledge intersectionality kinda inherently means acknowledging movements other than class movements.
Yeah, very good faith arguing going on by you (in this and the other comments). You seem to think that your point is truth, but it isn't. How you defend it instead of broadening your thought (to understand how there can be a synthesis of movements and how these might actually be stronger than a semi-class reductionist workers movement) is nothing you do.
Were one is oppressed all are oppressed is a guiding slogan, that means you ought to look at more than just the direct class position and exploitation. If you don't you are less scientific than Marx or Engels or Bernstein.
Give me a list of real existing events ("name of event","timeframe","location") which underlie your point, that class is the thing to focus on and to trick people into accepting their role as workers. I tell you you can't.
to understand how there can be a synthesis of movements and how these might actually be stronger than a semi-class reductionist workers movement
That is what I said in my first comment. That intersectionality is important, but realizing that despite all of the different identities that are out there relating to each other as a worker ALONGSIDE our personal identities will most likely bring about real systemic change.
Give me a list of real existing events (“name of event”,“timeframe”,“location”) which underlie your point, that class is the thing to focus on
I'm not gonna do that because that's not what I said.
trick people into accepting their role as workers.
I think you're too focused on the word trick, so let me tell you now just as a precaution that I will not be waving my hands in front of people and speaking incantations to them so that they forget their identities and only view themselves as workers. I don't think that would work and I think it would be pretty alienating.
Show me a classical Marxist text that only “class is able to generate a working movement”
What do you mean by a working movement? Do you mean a movement that works as in is successful in its aim of communism? Or do you mean a movement solely of working class people? Either way, it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism, as it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad. Your thoughts are very confused. Just read Marx.
Ask OP about that, cause I use their phrasing (which is a part of why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, it is dangerously naive to narrow the situations in real existing capitalism down to easy two sides, when in fact the working class can face many specific adversaries - who will not in turn threaten capitalism itself, only the working class when it is the subject actor will + possible climate change).
In Marxist terms we got three answers, we got the answer from the German Ideology
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
We got Engel's who talks very specifically about the emergent proletariat as working class, which is true and focuses on them as one of the two significant in class struggle, but the proletariat as working class isn't the whole working class in itself. Even though over time the term became to mean the whole class.
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
In regards to your claim "it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism", this is close to Marxist doctrine, but doesn't meet it and is utopian as statement in itself.
not the working class can achieve communism, but the working class as subject in class struggle can achieve communism (this means there is more to it, it has to become a working class for itself -> which means movements are necessary before we get to it)
if it were self evident we wouldn't have to have scientific analysis to get to it and wouldn't have so many revisionists in the sense of German social democrats of 1870 and people who forget the warnings about the reaction Marx's highlighted i.e. in the Brumaire 18ths, in the manifest and also volume 1. Only with tools and the right conscious become your claim "self evident". From the basics of Marxism and historical materialism it becomes self evident, however this is not the case for people with wrong subjective conscious.
We also got a good handy phrase to see who is analyzed by Marx directly (though we can expand that a bit, like Engels did - showing that the people doing reproductive work at home are bound into the productive process):
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.
This is handily used by many vulgar and beginning Marxist's to highlight how we all are part of the working class (and it is indeed a handy tool), however naively and wrong would people be, that say that this means there is only the working class (and the others, which would be the capitalists).
The factual and current class structure of societies has to be looked at not from a theoretical point of view, but from the integration of theory and empiricism - so science.
The class structure of England in 1830 was not that of England in the 1870, the class structure of England in 1970 is another beast, too. I.e. the number of workers in the sense of factory workers, changed dramatically (which means we have to look at the global capitalism now, instead of small spheres to understand the productive or exchange sphere). However the basic analysis of Marx still holds.
However the amount of classes, as well as the specific stratification of classes changed (the transnational capitalist class got more influence as example). The main contradiction between capitalists and the working class did not change much (though the class interests of quite a few of the labour aristocracy in England are bound for a few years to come, more with the interests of the national capitalists - who themselves try to keep up a bit of crumbling empire for their own gain - this means that the objective interests of the international working class has to be highlighted before the privileges of the labour aristocracy in the core vanish).
Those points aren't an answer how specific a working class movement would look like, cause the most easy thing to understand how Marx would judge working class movements is to read his articles - not books (those you should've read to have the theoretical framework) - about situations and conflicts complemented by his Critique of the Gothaer program.
There is no need to pull a Lenin and write a narrowed down version of Marx points into a book for a chapo post.
Lets quickly talk about two more things
it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
Is very true basic Marxism and Capital. However the sentence (which is implied) naturally has to sound: Within the historically grown capitalist systems we have the class contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, which are dominant, and within that system only the working class has an objective class interest that is the abolishing of private property.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad
It is clear that you are not an ally of the real existing working class movement (interfering from your posts here) which will abolish the current system. Though you might become one, if you listen more to others and start collective action and soundboard your praxis with people who are actually various intersecting ways exploited by the system.
Maybe… just maybe… because China is a capitalist country ruled by capitalists?
Yeah buddy, it might be that your holy grail and conception of communism might be a bit idealist in nature.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
You really don't succeed at reading. That I quote you who claims China is capitalist and say your view is reductive is not me saying China is communist or not communist or capitalist or not capitalist. You act as if there is no difference between China (2021), the Soviet Union (1924) and the USA (2021).
China is capitalist. Thats a fact. Youre so terrible at trying to sound nuanced or subtle. I can easily tell when someone is actually knnowledgable and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through
How is that idealist? Are you gonna argue that a workers movement isn't gonna work? Should I break out a history book for you?
It isn't materialistic cause it isn't based on historical materialism or Marxism. The claim that only class is able to create a working movement is false. Look at the peasants, look at the Nazis. Even the claim that only the working class is able to create a working movement within capitalism is false.
Why is it false? Cause capitalists, nationalists and racists are also able to create working movements and - unless you reduce your meaning of class - you ought to accept reality.
Does this mean that other movements are able to create a real existing movement which overthrow capitalism but the working class as its foundation? No, it doesn't.
It isn't materialistic cause it is a claim that is connected to little, it has a lot of weak points going for it and no historic underpinning. If you think it does, you ought to read more theory and be actually involved in practice as well (to get the theory you read).
I have no problem working together with people who have ideas like that of OP, but I have a problem working with people who have those ideas which aren't quite the orthodox Marxist view or might even be wrong revisionist readings of Marx, if they try to get hegemony by reducing the plurality of view points which actually increases the strength of the potential movement.
We have centuries in which we see that class reductionist movements have a lot of problems and are more often than not failing. Luckily who I asked whether they are sure of their thought isn't that kind of class reductionist.
Wow that was a lot of writing that said basically nothing.
If you are not able to parse that, that is on you. If you think it says nothing you might want to read more.
No you took the most bad faith reading of my comment and are actually going to argue that I'm wrong because "there have been movements other than workers movements!!!"
Yeah no shit, that isn't what I was saying. Everyone else seemed to get that other than you. To even acknowledge intersectionality kinda inherently means acknowledging movements other than class movements.
Yeah, very good faith arguing going on by you (in this and the other comments). You seem to think that your point is truth, but it isn't. How you defend it instead of broadening your thought (to understand how there can be a synthesis of movements and how these might actually be stronger than a semi-class reductionist workers movement) is nothing you do.
Were one is oppressed all are oppressed is a guiding slogan, that means you ought to look at more than just the direct class position and exploitation. If you don't you are less scientific than Marx or Engels or Bernstein.
Give me a list of real existing events ("name of event","timeframe","location") which underlie your point, that class is the thing to focus on and to trick people into accepting their role as workers. I tell you you can't.
That is what I said in my first comment. That intersectionality is important, but realizing that despite all of the different identities that are out there relating to each other as a worker ALONGSIDE our personal identities will most likely bring about real systemic change.
I'm not gonna do that because that's not what I said.
I think you're too focused on the word trick, so let me tell you now just as a precaution that I will not be waving my hands in front of people and speaking incantations to them so that they forget their identities and only view themselves as workers. I don't think that would work and I think it would be pretty alienating.
Please read Marx. You have a very bad u nderstanding of communism, capitalism, what a working class movement is etc e tc.
What is your foundation of Marxism? Please be specific in two things:
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
Show me a classical Marxist text that only "class is able to generate a working movement"
You cant.
What do you mean by a working movement? Do you mean a movement that works as in is successful in its aim of communism? Or do you mean a movement solely of working class people? Either way, it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism, as it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad. Your thoughts are very confused. Just read Marx.
Ask OP about that, cause I use their phrasing (which is a part of why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, it is dangerously naive to narrow the situations in real existing capitalism down to easy two sides, when in fact the working class can face many specific adversaries - who will not in turn threaten capitalism itself, only the working class when it is the subject actor will + possible climate change).
In Marxist terms we got three answers, we got the answer from the German Ideology
We got Engel's who talks very specifically about the emergent proletariat as working class, which is true and focuses on them as one of the two significant in class struggle, but the proletariat as working class isn't the whole working class in itself. Even though over time the term became to mean the whole class.
In regards to your claim "it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism", this is close to Marxist doctrine, but doesn't meet it and is utopian as statement in itself.
not the working class can achieve communism, but the working class as subject in class struggle can achieve communism (this means there is more to it, it has to become a working class for itself -> which means movements are necessary before we get to it)
if it were self evident we wouldn't have to have scientific analysis to get to it and wouldn't have so many revisionists in the sense of German social democrats of 1870 and people who forget the warnings about the reaction Marx's highlighted i.e. in the Brumaire 18ths, in the manifest and also volume 1. Only with tools and the right conscious become your claim "self evident". From the basics of Marxism and historical materialism it becomes self evident, however this is not the case for people with wrong subjective conscious.
We also got a good handy phrase to see who is analyzed by Marx directly (though we can expand that a bit, like Engels did - showing that the people doing reproductive work at home are bound into the productive process):
This is handily used by many vulgar and beginning Marxist's to highlight how we all are part of the working class (and it is indeed a handy tool), however naively and wrong would people be, that say that this means there is only the working class (and the others, which would be the capitalists).
The factual and current class structure of societies has to be looked at not from a theoretical point of view, but from the integration of theory and empiricism - so science.
The class structure of England in 1830 was not that of England in the 1870, the class structure of England in 1970 is another beast, too. I.e. the number of workers in the sense of factory workers, changed dramatically (which means we have to look at the global capitalism now, instead of small spheres to understand the productive or exchange sphere). However the basic analysis of Marx still holds.
However the amount of classes, as well as the specific stratification of classes changed (the transnational capitalist class got more influence as example). The main contradiction between capitalists and the working class did not change much (though the class interests of quite a few of the labour aristocracy in England are bound for a few years to come, more with the interests of the national capitalists - who themselves try to keep up a bit of crumbling empire for their own gain - this means that the objective interests of the international working class has to be highlighted before the privileges of the labour aristocracy in the core vanish).
Those points aren't an answer how specific a working class movement would look like, cause the most easy thing to understand how Marx would judge working class movements is to read his articles - not books (those you should've read to have the theoretical framework) - about situations and conflicts complemented by his Critique of the Gothaer program.
There is no need to pull a Lenin and write a narrowed down version of Marx points into a book for a chapo post.
Lets quickly talk about two more things
Is very true basic Marxism and Capital. However the sentence (which is implied) naturally has to sound: Within the historically grown capitalist systems we have the class contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, which are dominant, and within that system only the working class has an objective class interest that is the abolishing of private property.
It is clear that you are not an ally of the real existing working class movement (interfering from your posts here) which will abolish the current system. Though you might become one, if you listen more to others and start collective action and soundboard your praxis with people who are actually various intersecting ways exploited by the system.
Yeah buddy, it might be that your holy grail and conception of communism might be a bit idealist in nature.
Yeah, you really are not a communist in any sense, except a vulgar one.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
EDIT : I feel bad for you. You need to log off, not write entire essays to random people on the internet.
You really don't succeed at reading. That I quote you who claims China is capitalist and say your view is reductive is not me saying China is communist or not communist or capitalist or not capitalist. You act as if there is no difference between China (2021), the Soviet Union (1924) and the USA (2021).
China is capitalist. Thats a fact. Youre so terrible at trying to sound nuanced or subtle. I can easily tell when someone is actually knnowledgable and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through
Was Marx a member of the working class?
Edit about your edit; "and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through" you are learning, that was rightly thrown at you not a week ago
No, he was a member of the petit bourgeoisie. Why is that relevant here?
What criteria make him a member of the petit bourgeoisie (till 1843, from 1843 till 1849, after)?
Make your point debatelord.