I appreciate comrade Rosa Janis’s full-blown Cosmonaut article written in response to my letter or short article, even its acknowledgement of my being “an early proponent of the ‘neo-Kautskyism’ that influenced us” (although I was much, much more aggressive than that).
More importantly, I appreciate the disclaimer about the article having a polemical tone. I will endeavour to respond as level-headed as I can. Yells of “stupidpol” or “chauvinist,” without proper disclaimers for constructive discussion, are hardly productive, to say the least.
First and foremost, I would like to clarify that, on sociocultural issues (not political economy), I’m not a working-class social conservative, but rather a working-class social utilitarian or social “opportunist.” This has absolutely nothing to do with Lenin’s use of the term from 1914 onwards, much less any hint of renegacy on my part, thankfully. That said, I favour the greatest good for the greatest number. This submission is not the best place to articulate, for example, my act-utilitarian views on abortion, up to and including the third trimester.
Second, I am also very much aware that today’s working-class elements amongst the Millennial generation, including “Millennial Socialists” and the “Millennial Marxist” subset therein (including me), are unprecedentedly more progressive on sociocultural issues. Not even more socially conservative elements desire to bring back the social conservatism of the 1950s.
Third, I don’t see how the rest of the article’s second paragraph demonstrates that I’ve abused something.
While I do agree with the bottom half of the fourth paragraph, I must disagree with the top half. My class analysis has always been different from the “traditional” Marxist understanding of having a large, heterogenous petit bourgeoisie pool, but is also different from the popularization of the professional-managerial “class.” Very professional workers, like myself, are professional workers, and still belong to the working class. Those who are responsible for productive coordination of labour belong to the coordinator class. Those who are responsible for managing capital belong to the modern bourgeoisie outright, as functioning capitalists (the terminology from Engels). I presented this class analysis even during the earliest days of being a ‘neo-Kautskyism’ proponent.
The fifth paragraph is correct only in reference to chauvinist social conservatism: faith, family, and folk. It is incorrect in reference to non-chauvinist social conservatism, the latter of which forms the basis of working-class social conservatism.
Between the fifth paragraph and the Historical Responses section, I honestly think we are arguing over each other over semantics. Victorian social conservatism was mentioned, and this is, in my opinion, an example of bourgeois social conservatism and not petit-bourgeois social conservatism. Let’s get out of the way my non-political support for legalization and protections for sex workers (i.e., supporting it but outside the context of a class political program). Since this section mentions one detail of non-gendered bodily autonomy (sodomy, as opposed to abortions, which is gendered bodily autonomy), I would also like to mention two things: that the Erfurt Program was thankfully not modified in any way, shape or form to accommodate “Sexual Revolution” agenda items, and that I’m not exactly supportive of nudism.
Now, nowhere in my letter or short article did I suggest accepting chauvinist social conservatism as an authentic class position. I certainly did not say that comrade Paul Cockshott’s views on gender are an example of real working-class social conservatism. I did say that they are not “economistic.”
Moreover, I did suggest accepting non-chauvinist social conservatism as an authentic class position. Again, I am not arbitrarily labelling certain positions petit-bourgeois social conservatism and other positions working-class social conservatism. My semantics are based on enough concrete sociological history.
With more than enough precedents to support my own position, I would like to reiterate that identity issues beyond basic civil rights need to be left out of any worker-class movement’s program. Neither the Eisenachers nor the Lassalleans saw the need for them. Neither Marx nor Guesde saw the need for them. Neither the pre-WWI SPD nor the inter-war USPD saw the need for them. Neither the Old Bolsheviks nor the 1917 Bolsheviks saw the need for them. Unfortunately, even my act-utilitarian views on abortion are not important enough to merit “sociocultural section” consideration. I would also like to reiterate the “opportunist” need to insert a select few Prohibition or Nanny State planks, here and there.
As before in working-class political history, games of chance and gambling should be banned, hooliganism should be deemed a criminal offense, and violent video should be prohibited. Going against Lenin’s grain, for example, that nudism has not been fully legalized may be a good thing. Outdoor golfing is a “1%” sport, and calling for its prohibition for environmental reasons may be an imperative, but a better solution would be to replace outdoor golfing altogether with its ecologically-friendlier and more working-class alternative: indoor golfing.
While Marx may have been argued about the need to replace the wage system altogether, not just to have “fair wages,” and while shorter working hours as a necessity has been discussed, the lumpen “right to be lazy” is not the way to go. This tends to alienate people even from the full potential of, according to socialist Pat Devine, rotating between the managerial, creative, skilled, unskilled, and caring categories of labour. Still, any working-class opposition to the “right to be lazy” is no excuse to entertain “shirkers vs. strivers” garbage, by being prejudiced towards actual lumpen people.
– Jacob Richter
