[Marxism] Workerism

[Haines Brown]

Thanks, Walter, for the reply.

> Haines Brown wrote: 

> Walter L. was upset with the workerism of the SWP. Given my comments
> above, I fail to understand his point. I wonder if he would specify
> in what sense the SWP was workerist. More broadly, how is the left
> generally workerist in a negative sense of the word?
> 
> It is not a general problem.

Then you are not tarring the left in general with that brush. Good to
know. On the other hand, my (very speculative) comments below might
point to the opposite conclusion that much of the left is indeed
workerist.

I'm glad you changed the subject line, for I hope that it encourages
others to put in their two cents on the issue. 

> It is strictly limited to groups that have a mechanical
> understanding of Bolshevism. The idea of intellectuals "colonizing"
> industry is an example. So is labeling social movements like gay
> rights as "petty bourgeois".

I glanced at the Camejo article you cited, and this "colonizing
industry" he speaks of is "white collar workers" getting industrial
jobs to be closer to where the action is. He is approving in
principle, but proceeds to criticize the implementation of the
plan. He also later specifies these "white collar workers" as
"intellectuals".

This whole scenario makes me a little uncomfortable, as if I were
indeed being "colonized". The idea of "white collar workers",
intellectuals or not, getting a job at my workplace in order to raise
my consciousness seems patronizing.

I'm not at all sure, but shouldn't the job of intellectuals be to
intellectualize? I almost get the feeling that workerism offers them a
cover for intellectual shallowness. That is, shouldn't they develop
their understanding of capitalism in the present conjuncture and grasp
what is needed to change it?  Intellectuals usually try to present
their ideas in the public arena as best they can, such as by speaking
and writing, distributing newspapers and flyers, etc., and hopefully
those media will be read by the more thoughtful workers.

Why should an intellectual get a blue collar job (unless it pays
better)? There are plenty of workers who seek to know what's going on
about them and think about it critically. The problem seems to be that
no one can really think of an alternative practical course of action
that will clearly lead to significant improvements in the short and
long terms. I don't know that the left really offers that (I put this
in a provocative way in the hope it will encourage a reasoned
rebuttal). 

> The best critique of "workerism" that I have ever seen was Peter
> Camejo's "Against Sectarianism", although I am not sure he even uses
> the term.
> 
> http://www.marxmail.org/camejo.html

Incidentally, the article by Camejo you cited _did_ use the term
"workerism". For example:

> Comrades Mackler and Markey did not change either their views or
> their political activity. They continued the same work
> %G—%@ once labelled "class-struggle" by the party
> leadership. But what the majority faction previously called
> "proletarian" it now calls "petty bourgeois" and what it once called
> "petty bourgeois," such as workerism, is now called "proletarian."
> Thus, Markey and Mackler, without either changing their views or
> activity, went from being examples of proletarian practice to being
> "petty bourgeois," reflecting "alien" class pressures.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM