"Bourgeoisified" Workers "Enlightened" Petite-Bourgeois

I've been reading the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) and I've come across some very intriguing comments about class structure. They all come from The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat parts 1 and 2 in Part 2 of the Draft Programme. I believe that, taken together, these comments reveal what the class stand of the RCP is.

The first comment in Part 1 comes from the section on International Factors. Discussing how international factors will affect the United Front the Programme says the international situation will affect "the concrete policies that a sucessful revolution might have to adopt, including concessions it (the revolution?) might have to make to better-off strata in order to maintain their support." It's not clear from the context which class these better-off strata come from but it just seems like a bad policy. Especially coming from Maoists who claim to be hyper aware of the possibility of capitalist restoration. Isn't this going from a system where the rich get richer to one where the better-off at least maintain their better offness? It's crazy, it basically says to the petite-bourgeoisie "You can get concessions by threatening to withdraw your support."

This is not the heart of the matter though. In Part 2 the RCP goes deeper in depth on which classes they see backing their revolution. Page one discusses the middle class standard of living being connected to the position of the US in the world economy and then adds "[b]etter-off sections of workers receive benefits too." The implication of course is that better-off workers are benefitting from the position of the US in the world economy. Well everybody in the United States benefits from that position - some more than others of course. But what this comment serves to do is to begin to portray the "better-off" workers as allies of imperialism not as members of the working class who can be won to revolution.

I can already hear the cries of "proof-texting" but that is not what I'm doing. I read several sections of the Draft Programme and these parts cried out to be dealt with. On page 7 there is a discussion of strengths and weaknesses in the proletariat. The strengths are such things as; working in socialized conditions, the rebeliousness of proletarians who are "locked out" of the labor force, the understanding of some immigrants of US imperialism. The first example of a weakness that the vanguard will have to deal with is "the condition of more regular employment can also have some conservatizing influences on workers (fear of losing the job, etc.)" The other weakness is that those locked out may take up semi-criminal activities. Are these people kidding or what? Their stand is that regular employment is a weakness because some conservative influences may develop. Have any of them ever worked at one of these jobs? Have any of them dragged their asses thru the streets looking for work. These jobs with regular employment are what the working class calls "real jobs" you get a job like this and you don't have to (maybe) worry about finding a second one. In addition, regular employment often leads a worker away from conservative thinking. In my limited experience the most class conscious proletarians were in exactly these more secure jobs.


On page 8 under the heading "Three Major Sections" there is this:

"The upper sections of workers are tossed a share of the spoils of international plunder to corrupt them into defenders of the system. But only a relatively small number are permanently corrupted, while a much larger number experience only a temporary benefit at most."

Now I know this is a classic statement of Leninist theory (and I actually enjoy the "pirateness" of it - you know a capitalist ship filled with plunder pulls up to the factory gates and "tosses off" the spoils) but I just don't think it works this way. Workers in certain industries can be paid more because they are more productive due to the amounts of capital invested. And even so capitalists don't give up that extra ( they certainly don't toss it) it has to be won by the workers and their unions. And what is all this about corruption? Sounds more than a little Calvinist to me. Preterite Proles?


Here is the paragraph (pg 9) that pushed me to write this post:

"Another section of the proletariat consists of relatively priviliged 'bourgeoisified' workers. These workers are concentrated in large-scale industries -- like auto and steel, heavy machinery, utilities, the postal service -- and particularly where there have been strong unions " [emphasis added]

The Programme goes on to give a short history of this section of the proletariat that manages to leave out the mass upheaval of the 30s that built those strong unions and in which Communists were very active. This also gives "the dominant position of the U.S. in the world" as the main cause of the better conditions for these workers. To tell you the truth I have no idea what is meant by bourgeoisification. I think I'll ask my Letter Carrier tomorrow when it's about 96 degrees out. Or I could ask a utility guy when he's way up that pole praying he doesn't drop his tool. Oh I know I'll ask an auto worker at the end of a compulsory 58-hr. week of 52 or 60 or 80 cars/hr. "Ms. can you explain bourgeoisification to me?" Does it mean that these workers own some part of the means of production? I'll grant you that they are in possession of them most days but "ownership"? No, they dress, work talk and live like workers. the RCP seems to think that better than average pay and benefits somehow turns one bourgeois.



Finally, after almost writing off a significant section of the proletariat for being conservative, corrupted by imperialist booty and bourgeoisified there is this about the group that one has to see as the RCP's main base:


" At the same time, there is the large number of 'enlightened petty(sic) bourgeoisie' who historically have played important roles in radical and revolutionary upsurges, speaking out or acting against the savage injustices and inequalities and crimes of U. S. Imperialism."


So I see, the working class is just a bunch of parasites living off of imperialism but the enlightened petite bourgeois are the real radicals and revolutionaries. Well they may be radical and they may be revolutionary but it has nothing to do with communism. Enlightenment itself comes from the struggle of the Capitalists to establish their rule. We are way past that now are we not? If you say your aim is communism then you have to base yourself in the proletariat and you have to practice some kind of mass line. It seems to me judging from the way they talk about different classes and sections of classes that the RCP might very well be a revolutionary party but that they really should remove the communist from their name.