|It doesn't matter if Trots drink Chardonnay, send their children to prep/public schools and then on to Oxbridge, as long as they say the right things and aren't 'racist'.|
Marx stressed that the Communist “vanguard” must lead from the front.
Marx himself says that the non-Communist ‘bourgeoisie’ at some stages also ‘educated’ the proletariat. Of course Marx sees his comments as being equally applicable to the Communist Vanguard itself; even though it too is ‘bourgeois’. He says of the Communist bourgeois that it
‘supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education… These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress".
This distinction between the Communist middle class and the non-Communist middle class is neatly encapsulated - by Communists themselves - with the term ‘bourgeoisie’ or ‘bourgeois’. That is,
If one is middle class and a Communist as well, then one isn't ‘bourgeois’.
However, the non-Communist middle class is bourgeois. Thus:
If a member of the SWP/Stop the War/etc. earns, say, between £50,000 and £150,000 a year (or even if he owns shares, etc.), and if he's still nonetheless a Trotskyist (or a member of the SWP), then, he quite simply, he isn't a member of the bourgeoisie.
Today even that isn't likely. SWP members who're professors, lecturers, lawyers, journalists, etc. count themselves as ‘workers’ and therefore members of the working class. No matter how much they earn, and how different their lifestyles are from the working class, they'll still class themselves as ‘workers’ simply because of their revolutionary political affiliations rather than their monetary status. Thus a self-employed man on less than £15,000 a year, but who also supports the Conservative Party, Ukip, or the EDL, will be more ‘bourgeois’ (to the SWP) than a SWP-supporting professor simply because of his non-revolutionary political affiliations.
This is the logic of the SWP today. This logic was once made clear by Martin Smith (sex-abuser, violent criminal, former National Secretary of the SWP and former spokesman for Unite Against Fascism) when he classed the English Defence League as a “petit bourgeois organisation”. (This is a classic Marxist analysis... of the 1920s and 30s.) He did so quite simply because the EDL is at odds - politically - with the SWP. The EDL even had the audacity - according to the Trotskyist Sex Beast - to include a few “self-employed businessmen” in its fold!