Mass middle class movements in any period take on a direction that depends on the militance of the working class. In periods of working class quiescence and organizational weakness — conditions of the semi- defeat — mass middle class movements take on a radically antigovernment character even while proceeding an primitive and contradictory slogans. In periods of working class militance, the middle class becomes fascist, as everyone knows. A socialist's orientation concerning the middle class mass movements of the day, should any exist, is determined by this historical inverted relationship between the working class and the middle class. What isn't well understood — at least I didn't understood it until yesterday — is that the 60s radicalization was a middle-class movement which took on a mass character because of the conservatism of the working class. It proceeded on left-liberal and radical slogans, expressing the strength of the labor aristocracy and its ties to the middle class, but it _could_ become radical precisely _because_ the working class wasn't. This of course is the opposite of what I thought back then. The Healyite view was that the radical middle class was a distorted _expression_ off the underlying radicalization of the workers. [I never quite understood how this worked. The workers were radicalizing, but the only sign of this radicalization was magically/ mystically transmitted to the working class, much like sherlock claims the demoralization resulting from the alleged complete defeat of the Russian workers, magically transmitted to the consciousness of unknowing American workers, while absent from the site of its propagation. {After all, fascism is revolution against socialism. Where's the Russian fascism?}] The 60s radicalization was a middle class mass movement, focally against the draft, possible only because the working class was yet deeply conservative. Many conclusions follow, not the least of which that the lessons of the 60s — if there are any — can be applied to the middle class movements of today, which may (unfortunately) dominate the political scene in the U.S. srd

The instructive Schlagger mistake in Germany was the result of failing to appreciate that the petty-bourgeoisie inverted the working class's direction. srd

but the only sign of this radicalization was magically/ mystically transmitted to the working class Should be transmitted to the middle class. srd

but the only sign of this radicalization was magically/ mystically transmitted to the working class Should be transmitted to the middle class. srd An important discussion and you have raised key issues. I will join in. In the meantime: This analysis of the relations among the classes has considerable value not least because of the dialectical materialist method herein, though of course qualifications arising from differences in the imperialist phases then and now are required. The petty bourgeoisie in the Jacobin phase – the establishment of the French nation: “While they were laying out and clearing the road for bourgeois development, the Jacobins engaged, at every step, in sharp clashes with the bourgeoisie. They served it in intransigent struggle against it. After they had completed their limited historical role, the Jacobins fell, for the domination of capital was predetermined.” In the mass actions of the petty bourgeoisie today there are some parallels with the Jacobin phase – and differences. Both involve the nation state – its establishment – and today rescuing it from its demise. Leon Trotsky GERMANY 1931-1932 New Park 1970 pp. 230-236 (DT: my capitalisation) Bourgeoisie, Petty Bourgeoisie and Proletariat ANY serious analysis of the political situation must take as its point of departure the mutual  relations  among the three classes: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (including the peasantry) and the proletariat. The economically powerful big bourgeoisie, in itself, represents an infinitesimal minority of the nation. To enforce its domination, it must ensure a definite mutual relationship with the petty bourgeoisie and, through its mediation, with the proletariat. To understand the dialectic of the relationship between the three classes, we must differentiate three historical stages: at the dawn of capitalist development, when the bourgeoisie required revolutionary methods to solve its tasks; in the period of bloom and maturity of the capitalist regime, when the bourgeoisie endowed its domination with orderly, pacific, conservative, democratic forms; finally, at the decline of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie is forced to resort to methods of civil war against the proletariat to protect its right of exploitation. The political programmes characteristic of these three stages: Jacobinism, reformist democracy (Social Democracy included) and fascism are basically programmes of petty-bourgeois currents. This fact alone, more than anything else, shows of what tremendous—rather, of what decisive, importance the self-determination of the petty- bourgeois masses of the people is for the whole fate of bourgeois society. THE ONLY ROAD 231 Nevertheless, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its basic social support, the petty bourgeoisie, does not at all rest upon reciprocal confidence and pacific collaboration. In its mass, the petty bourgeoisie is an exploited and disfranchised class. It regards the bourgeoisie with envy and often    with    hatred. The    bourgeoisie,    on    the    other hand, while utilizing the support of the petty bourgeoisie, distrusts the latter, for it very correctly fears its tendency to break down the barriers set up for it from above. While they were laying out and clearing the road for bourgeois development, the Jacobins engaged, at every step, in sharp clashes with the bourgeoisie. They served it in intransigent struggle against it. After they had completed their limited historical role, the Jacobins fell, for the domination of capital was predetermined. For a whole series of stages, the bourgeoisie entrenched its power under the form of parliamentary democracy. Even then, not peacefully and not voluntarily.  The bourgeoisie was mortally afraid of universal suffrage.  But in  the last instance,  it succeeded,  with  the  aid of a combination  of violent measures and concessions, of privations and reforms, in subordinating within the _frame_work of formal democracy, not only the petty bourgeoisie, but in considerable measure also the proletariat, by means of the new petty bourgeoisie — the labour  aristocracy.  In August   1914   the   imperialist bourgeoisie   was able,   by means of parliamentary   democracy, to lead millions of workers and peasants into the war. But precisely with the war there begins the distinct decline of capitalism and above all of its democratic form of domination. It is now no longer a matter of new reforms and alms, but of cutting down and abolishing the old ones. Therewith the bourgeoisie comes into conflict not only with the institutions of proletarian democracy (trade unions and political parties) but also with parliamentary democracy, within 232 the _frame_work of which the labour organizations arose. Therefore, the campaign against 'Marxism' on the one hand and against democratic parliamentarianism on the other. But just as the summits of the liberal bourgeoisie in its time were unable, by their own force alone, to get rid of feudalism, monarchy and the church, so the magnates of finance capital are unable, by their force alone, to cope with the proletariat. They need the support of the petty bourgeoisie. For this purpose it must be whipped up, put on its feet, mobilized, armed. But this method has its dangers. While it makes use of fascism, the bourgeoisie nevertheless fears it. Pilsudski was forced, in May 1926, to save bourgeois society by a coup d'etat directed against the traditional parties of the Polish bourgeoisie. The matter went so far that the official leader of the Polish Communist Party, Warski, who came over from Rosa Luxemburg not to Lenin, but to Stalin, took the coup d'etat of Pilsudski to be the road of the 'revolutionary democratic dictatorship' and called upon the workers to support Pilsudski. At the session of the Polish Commission of the Executive Committee of the C. I. on July 2, 1926, the author of these lines said on the subject of the events in Poland: Quote… “Taken as a whole, the Pilsudski overthrow is the petty bourgeois, 'plebeian' manner of solving the burning problems of bourgeois society in its state of decomposition and decline. We have here already a direct resemblance to Italian fascism. These two currents indubitably possess common features: they recruit their shock troops first of all from the petty bourgeoisie; Pilsudski as well as Mussolini worked with extra-parliamentary means, with open violence, with the methods of civil war; both were concerned, not with the destruction, but with the preservation of bourgeois society. While they raised the petty bourgeoisie on its feet, they openly aligned themselves, after the seizure of power, with the big bourgeoisie. Involuntarily, an historical generalization comes up here, recalling the evaluation given by Marx of Jacobinism as the plebeian method of settling accounts with the feudal enemies of the bourgeoisie. . . . That was in the period of rise of the bourgeoisie. Now we must say, in the period of the decline of bourgeois society, the bourgeoisie again needs the 'plebeian' method of resolving its no longer progressive, but entirely reactionary tasks. In this sense, fascism is a caricature of Jacobinism. The bourgeoisie is incapable of maintaining itself in power by the means and methods of the parliamentary state created by itself, it needs fascism as a weapon of self-defence, at least in critical moments. Nevertheless, the bourgeoisie does not like the 'plebeian' method of resolving its tasks. It was always hostile to Jacobinism, which cleared the road for the development of bourgeois society with its blood. The fascists are immeasurably closer to the decadent bourgeoisie than the Jacobins were to the rising bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, the sober bourgeoisie does not look very favourably even upon the fascist mode of resolving its tasks, for the conclusions, although they are brought about in the interests of bourgeois society, are _link_ed up with dangers to it Hence the opposition between fascism and the bourgeois parties. The big bourgeoisie likes fascism as little as a man with aching molars likes to have his teeth pulled. The sober circles of bourgeois society have followed with misgivings the work of the dentist Pilsudski, but in the last analysis they have become reconciled to the inevitable, though with threats, with horse-deals and all sorts of trading. Thus the petty bourgeoisie's idol of yesterday becomes transformed into the gendarme of capital.” End quote… To this attempt at marking out the historical place of fascism as the political replacement of Social Democracy, there was counterposed the theory of Social Fascism. At first it could appear as a pretentious, blustering but harmless stupidity. Subsequent events have shown what a pernicious influence the Stalinist theory actually exercised on the entire development of the Communist International.* Footnote… * While  concealing  the  speech   quoted  above  from  the  Party | and the Comintern, the Stalinist press undertook one of its custom-i ary  campaigns  against  it.  Manuilsky  wrote   that  I  had dared   to 'put on the same plane' fascists and Jacobins, who were, after all, our  revolutionary  ancestors.   The   latter  remark is   more   or   less correct. Unfortunately these ancestors can show more than a few descendants who are  unable to exercise their minds. An  echo  of the  old  dispute  can be  found  even  in  the  latest productions  of Miinzenburg   against   'Trotskyism'.   But   let us   leave   this   subject. End footnote... 234 DOES IT FOLLOW FROM THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF JACOBINISM, OF DEMOCRACY AND OF FASCISM THAT THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE IS CONDEMNED TO REMAIN A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF CAPITAL TO THE END OF ITS DAYS? IF THINGS WERE SO, THEN THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IN A
... read more »