[WS:] The M&E argumetn that Charles quotes seems to assume fungibility of the proletariat (i.e that one "unit" of proletariat can be substituted with another "unit" e.g. in a different country.) Only on that assumption it sis possible to claim "universality" of the proletarian movement. No fungibility - no universality, as different "units" will pursue its unit specific struggles rather than a universal one.
If modern history is any indicator, it appears that the proletariat is anything but fungible in every respect, from skill level to market/social position, to identity and ideological value systems. That lack of fungibility of proletariat is the chief reason of the dominant position of the capitalist minority.
^^^ CB: Yes, divide and rule. Since the writing of the Manifesto, the bourgeoisie , too, have learned from Marx, Engels and Lenin. If their slogan was "Workers of the world , unite", the slogan of the bourgeoisie has been "Divide the workers in every way possible". As Wojtek indicates , they have had great success at that project, not surprising since they control and dominate all the educational and mass communication media within the system. The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes, as the Manifesto notes. The ideas of the Manifesto have , of course, especially been prevented from influencing most of the Proletariat.
So, that's where we are. But objectively, there is no other path to the end of capitalism without somehow uniting masses of people against it. I small minority can't do it.
^^^^^^^
Thinking of a "universal" (i.e fungible) proletariat as a pre-condition for overthrowing the rule of capital seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. A more realistic view is to emulate existing successful attempts to gain a hegemonic position. Capitalists are a minority but they have dedicated cadres of their "organic intellectuals and politicians" who implement policies favorable to capitalist hegemony and neutralize opposition to those policies. it does not matter whether capitalists are unified or engage in a bitter competition with one another - as long as their "organic" cadres of intellectuals and politicians are successful in maintaining capitalist hegemony.
^^^^^^^ CB: The capitalists may have some divisions, but _relative_ to the working class and on critical class struggle issues, they are substantially and effectively united. The idea that the proletariat can emulate the bourgeois ignores that the bourgeois control and dominate the education systems and all mass communication ( propaganda) systems, not to mention can make holding a job dependent upon not advocating socialism or even trade unionism.
Yeah, I'm describing a real barrier to a successful proletarian movement.
^^^^^
The same is true for the proletariat. It does not matter whether it is unified or not or what individuals "units" of it thinks is in their best interests - as long as there is a dedicated cadre of "organic" intellectuals and politicians working to implement proletariat hegemony and neutralize any opposition to it. Of course, current conditions are not very favorable for the emergence of such a proletarian vanguard party, let alone its successful operation, bu those conditions will not last forever. And if the right conditions arise, and the proletarian vanguard party manages to establish its hegemony (just as the Bolsheviks did), the masses will follow, just as they follow capitalist hegemony today.
Wojtek
^^^^^ CB: Well yeah, the Manifesto is a Manifesto of the Communist _Party_
"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. "