Twentieth-century analysis of trade unions is, of course, more sophisticated in its understanding of the internally stratified nature of unions as social phenomena. Yet, in most of the renditions of economists and sociologists, “modern” analysis is far more one-sided than Marx’s and Engels’s instinctive understanding. The internal dynamics and contradictions of trade union life have been buried in a series of static theories, from Beatrice and Sidney Webb’s glorification of union bureaucracy and Robert Michels’s declaration of its inevitability in his “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” through the “institutional” analyses of the American Wisconsin School and the 1950s “maturity” theorists. All shared a belief in the inevitability and desirability of bureaucracy and stable labor relations. All imagined the direction of development to be a one-way street toward order and the professionalization of labor relations.11 Marx and Engels, in contrast, saw something deeper beneath the organizational surface, in the living force of the workers themselves. The focus on the working class as the fundamental force in the struggle against capital; the recognition of the common interests of that class that lend it the potential, through struggle, to grow from “class in itself” to “class for itself”; the orientation, through this focus, toward the potential of basic trade union struggles as an aspect of class activity—all these aspects of Marx’s and Engels’s analysis both flowed from and led to their consistent awareness of where the class was rather than where they, and certainly their contemporary fellow socialists, might have liked it to be.
This crucial orientation toward existing class realities is expressed in the Manifesto in its presentation of the “theoretical conclusions of the Communists . . . [which] merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”12 As Engels wrote later, discussing the impact of the concept of historical materialism, “Communism now no longer meant the concoction, by means of the imagination, of an ideal society as perfect as possible, but insight into the nature, the conditions and the consequent general aims of the struggle waged by the proletariat.”13
This orientation on the part of Marx and Engels toward the “actually existing” consciousness and organization of the working class, rather than toward some separate, idealist construction of socialism, has been widely dismissed as implying a simplistic conflation of class activity with revolutionary consciousness. Certainly, the blithely determinist logic of the Manifesto’s statement that “what the bourgeoisie . . . produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the fall of the proletariat are equally inevitable” appears to sum up the crude historicism for which Marxism has been most frequently lampooned.14 But what intervenes between such “inevitability” and the reality of reformism is, of course, the issue of class consciousness, the subjective arena of which objective social and material realities can at best be regarded as an erratic and unpredictable undercurrent—a “determinant in the last instance.” The consistent orientation of Marx and Engels toward such objective material conditions as generators of working-class struggle and organization has been well noted; their awareness of the complex balance between such factors and the nature and progress of working-class consciousness and realpolitik has perhaps received less attention.
While, as we have pointed out, Marx and Engels failed to develop any explicit theory of the mutually influential relationships between concrete working-class conditions and class interests, activity, and consciousness, they were clearly aware of the importance of more than simply the “economic base” in conditioning such relationships. The essentially dialectical nature of the Marxist view of class consciousness, though never fully explicated, was rooted firmly in an awareness of the interrelation between material realities and the uneven, erratic, but always materially based development of such consciousness. In The Poverty of Philosophy, written a few years before the Manifesto, Marx developed the famous distinction between class “in itself” and “class for itself,” which bases the development of class consciousness not in theoretical abstractions but in the concrete requirements of capitalism and the organizational forms thus generated:
Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital had created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests.15
The crucial reference here is to some earlier paragraphs in which Marx enunciates a description of the significance of working-class “combinations” very similar to that put forward in the Manifesto: “In England they have not stopped at partial combinations which have no other objective than a passing strike, and which disappear with it. Permanent combinations have been formed, trade unions, which serve as ramparts for the workers in their struggles with the employers.”16
The significance of this argument is that “economistic” struggles are not dismissed, as by so many socialists in Marx’s time and since, as removed from any connection with political consciousness and socialism; rather, they are identified as the central elements in the development of more explicit class consciousness and thus, potentially, a wider politicization. In this sense the conception of “class for itself” does not have to be confined to those historical moments when the working class consciously recognizes its historic mission at the wholly political level of state power; it refers to a transitional dynamic, a pull through the materially based necessity of basic struggles for what are objectively class interests toward the beginnings of a conscious, subjective awareness of class identity.
Of course, this “pull” does not automatically take the form of an uninterrupted progress toward class unity, as implied by the enthusiastic young authors of the Manifesto. Bur the crucial insight around which Marx and Engels built their political lives was that the roots of any meaningful movement toward socialism by the class defined in terms of its potential for social transformation lie in the objective realities of class conflict that push workers, whatever their subjective consciousness, into resistance against capital.
Whatever the optimism of the clarion call rolled out in the Manifesto, it is these crucial insights we invoke in calling for a return by the left to “class consciousness”—for a shift of emphasis away from programmatic rectitude on the one hand and theoretical fixation on text or “discourse” on the other to the perhaps difficult recognition that the key to socialist advance lies in that most despised and least acknowledged expression of “socialism from below,” basic material class struggles.
Contradictory Consciousness
The zeitgeist of the 1840s, when meetings of thousands of workers inspired by the “People’s Charter” took place on the Yorkshire moors, and even of the second decade of the twentieth century, when American workers traveled miles across the Great Plains to attend socialist tent meetings in equal numbers, seem to belong to another world from that of late-twentieth-century consumerism and individualism. In this “postmodern” age, consciousness of so “fundamentalist” a category as class appears to have shrunk to a scarcely discernible pulse, a sluggish bleep on the blank screen of a commodity-based culture pushed relentlessly to the wildest shores of the “global village.” And yet there remains a countervailing force, all the more significant for swimming against this overwhelming ideological stream. The persistence of highly conflictual economic struggles entered into by workers whose subjective consciousness may be profoundly reformist, not to say conservative, continues to confound prophets of “postindustrial” stability and to demonstrate, as we argue below, a transformative potential in terms of both consciousness and praxis.
Recent events in the United States, such as the change in leadership of the AFL-CIO, the waging of a number of climactic strike struggles and, at the time of