-
The Second Communist
Manifesto (A.B. Razlatzki)
-
 Introduction
for Western and World Readers
-
Introduction
(1999)
-
Foreword
-
-
Part
I: Bourgeois and Proletarian
-
-
Part
II: Proletariat - Boss
-
-
Part
III: The Crisis of the Workers Movement
-
-
Part
IV: Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy
-
-
Part
V: Classes and the Struggle for Socialism
USA,
Socialism, Us...
State
Imperialism Should be Distinguished from Economic Imperialism
Notes in the Margins of History
Turbulence
in Social Development and the Stratification of the Superstructure
|
Part III
The Crisis of the Workers Movement
Putting the investigation of capitalist society to one side, it might seem
strange to discuss the tasks of the victorious proletariat now, when, more
than half a century after the victory of the proletariat, there is such
vast material for concrete historical analysis.
And, truly, it would be pointless to declare that the preceding conclusions
were arrived at without taking account of the recent history of the states
in the socialist camp. On the contrary, although all the conclusions are
drawn from the laws of historical development of society, from the laws
of capitalist economy and the class struggle of the proletariat, obviously
the starting point is the practice of socialism.
The historical peculiarities of the formation of socialism in the various
countries, permits bringing all the facts together in four groups;
Soviet Union, China, Albania.
Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919) and Chile (1970-1973).
Yugoslavia and Cuba.
All remaining states in the socialist trend.¦
Despite this localization of the socialist boundaries within the framework
of nations, the point here is not the national but the political peculiarities.
Thus it is not an error that Hungary appears in two groups, the second
and the fourth, rather this corresponds to the significance of the experience
at different historical stages.
Into the first group go countries which made a real, positive contribution
to the cause of socialism, independently encountering definite problems
in the construction of socialism and contributing their experience in resolving
them. The experience of the second group is also independent, but is a
negative experience. The practice of the third group, generally speaking,
lies to the side of the fundamental path of the socialist movement.
The policies of Yugoslavia and Cuba were never seriously based on a
Marxist foundation, they are eclectic. But their history can be examined
as proving ground for testing some particular ideas. And, finally, the
fourth group is made up of countries openly imitating, borrowing from others
not just the useful experiences (there is nothing wrong with that, it is
often worthwhile) but also the mistakes.
The experience of the Soviet Union, of course, has the most significance,
having been independent for its whole history. The experience of China
from the mid fifties through the demise of Mao Tse-Tung is very important;
the preceding period, in essence, was a repetition of the socialist development
of the USSR, and with the death of Mao Tse-Tung everything fell into a
familiar rut. The political life of Albania in turn, may present the most
interest, but its closure and isolationism, make it hard to approach for
analysis.
The experience of the Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919) and Chile (1970
- 1973) agree in all fundamental features. In both cases, the socialist
forces came to power peacefully; which, incidentally, attests to the overwhelming
superiority of the left forces in some concrete historical circumstances.
In both cases socialism perished, in the last analysis because of an underestimation
of the organizing role of property. In both cases the socialist government
made insufficient use of political terror, which is the proletariat's only
available means for destruction of counterrevolutionary formations. The
non-violent acquisition of power disposed the left forces to the view that
the resistance of the bourgeoisie would not go beyond the democratic framework;
this was an historic mistake. And when the bourgeoisie cast aside its democratic
mask, the proletariat was simply insufficiently hardened and prepared for
mortal class combat. Theorists, advocating the peaceful struggle of the
proletariat for socialism, would do well to extract the obvious lesson
from this. Until such time as the bourgeoisie is decisively weakened, including
economically, in the struggle with world socialist forces, all hope for
the bloodless victory of socialism remains utopian.
Neither the acquisition of political power nor the rapid expropriation
of capitalist property gives a reliable guarantee, for the expropriated
property exerts its counterrevolutionary influence through the hope of
its return, through calculation of the potential benefits from the restoration
of ownership.
While the bourgeoise remains economically powerful, the revolution can
only secure itself through the iron terror of political dictatorship.
Happily, the Russian revolution avoided these mistakes. The excesses
of the aristocracy, the insolence of the landowners and the unruliness
of the bourgeoisie, had prepared the workers for the sternest struggle.
Thus the October revolution gave birth to an energetic and decisive dictatorship,
which succeeded in holding its ground against both the internal and external,
open enemies, and which fell from power a few decades later only
as a result of completely different causes.
The history of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the counterrevolution
in Russia merits the most profound analysis, and will remain for many years
the subject of scientific investigation. But the fundamental conclusions
can and must be drawn immediately, for without them the workers movement
finds itself at a dead end.
The counterrevolution in the USSR proceeded so quietly and along such
an unexpected paths that no one noticed it. The Administration of the USSR
now had dictatorial power and, in the course of decades, succeeded in passing
itself off as a Marxist-Leninist leadership, succeeded in fooling the workers
by playing at democracy. Even the international communist movement, for
the most part, did not get close to making a truly Marxist assessment of
the events in Russia. But the counterrevolution occurred, and first of
all, we must establish that, in fact, it was a revolution.
In 1961 in the Program of the CPSU and thereafter, finally, in the Constitution
of 1977, the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat were declared
to have been fulfilled and the Soviet Union was advertised as a 'state
of the entire people.'
But Marxists have always been clear that, while the victorious proletariat
cannot, in general, make do without the state, this state can be nothing
other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The point
is not only that the proletariat is the only class capable of seizing for
itself the production of all goods and the realization of all social tasks.
The point is, also, that the proletariat is the only class which is not
in a position to provide itself with goods by means of theft from other
classes. Because of this, whatever the conditions turn out to be, the proletariat
remains the only class striving for communism as the highest form of realization
of its possibilities and satisfaction of its interests, and this striving
is historically inevitable.
Perhaps the 'state of the entire people' is the first rung on the ladder
leading to the classless communist society?
Classless society, like all societies, cannot exist without production.
Yet if one shall produce while another only consumes, then the division
into classes will have been maintained. Therefore a classless society can
only be created based on the producing class. The proletariat is an open
class, that is a class which can take anyone into its midst, without preconditions
such as impractical demands and qualifications.
It is the ruling, privileged situation of this open class which, alone,
can exert a destructive influence on the remaining non-privileged layers
of society, and by drawing them in to the midst of the proletariat, is
capable of leading to a classless society.
The "class harmony" of the 'state of the entire people' is possible
only through the abandonment by the proletariat of its communist aims,
through slavish agreement by the proletariat to work in the interests of
other classes. That the "people's state" can have no other content than
the bourgeois was made clear by both Engels and Lenin. For what else can
be meant by the "union of the working class, the collective peasantry and
the people's intelligentsia," if it arises after the proletariat has held
undivided power and replaces the dictatorship of the proletariat?
In the course of the proletariat's struggle for political supremacy,
such a union could be spoken of as a convergence of interests at a definite
stage of the struggle. After the establishment of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, return to such a union can only mean that the proletariat
cannot cope with power, that it is drawing the bourgeoisie toward power,
that is has capitulated before them. The proletariat has always been oppressed
for the sake of enriching the bosses, and this capitalist relation disappears
only when it has become the omnipotent boss itself.
Another hope: perhaps the formulation of the 'state of the entire people'
is just a terminological mistake? History knows a number of cases when
the most democratic banners covered up oppression and arbitrariness, when
radical movements were forced to conceal themselves behind respectable
slogans. So perhaps in the USSR a firm proletarian dictatorship is being
concealed behind modest phrases about the "leading" role of the working
class?
No and no!
Does the proletariat of the USSR participate in the distribution of
goods?
Does the whole class participate in drawing up and carrying out economic
policy? No more than under capitalism! And here is the cardinal answer
to the question. We will consider some more theses offered by way of proof
of the special situation of the proletariat in the USSR, but we ought not
to forget that these theses simply stock up the arsenal of tricks upon
which the Administration relies in order to distract the proletariat from
class struggle and to cloud its class consciousness.
Universal suffrage. But such rights are enjoyed by the workers of almost
all capitalist states and this does not hinder the bourgeoisie in the least
from preserving its dictatorship.
Workers representation in the organs of state power right up to the
highest levels. Yes, here is one of the trump cards which the card sharps
pull out every time when speaking about socialist democracy. But does this
give the proletariat any real rights whatever?
The capitalists prefer to seat jurists as the politicians in their parliaments.
But does this signify the dictatorship of lawyers, a democracy for attorneys?
The power, clearly, lies not with the representatives, but with those who
dictate their demands to the representatives, those according to whose
will the representatives are hired and fired.
For the higher state organs of the USSR both the criterion for selection
and the only right for workers and other representatives is to serve as
a unanimous support for all proposals brought to them. Unanimity? Even
this is secondary, it is excessive. What is important is whose proposals
are adopted.
So whose suggestions are they, who introduces them? These suggestions
are introduced only by the highest organs of the CPSU. Reserving for themselves
the absolute right to organize every and all elections, controlling means
of mass ideological influence, the CPSU predetermines and dictates the
results of the voting. The CPSU controls, and in essence predetermines
all nomination of candidates, that is to say it directly supplies the composition
of all elected bodies necessary to it.
The CPSU subordinates to itself all executive systems from top to bottom
and always and continuously sharpens them against dissenters. The CPSU
decides everything.
The leading role of the CPSU in all state affairs of the USSR is enshrined
in the 1977 constitution. "The devotion of the party to the cause of the
proletariat, to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism is proven by the self-sacrificing
participation in all struggles which are the lot of Revolutionary Soviet
Russia." But are such proofs a guarantee for all time?
History would stop being history if a place in it could be found for
this type of guarantee!
There is one guarantee of loyalty to the cause of the proletariat. The
Marxist party will remain Marxist so long as service to the proletariat
remains for it not only the sole guiding idea but also the sole personal
demand of members which must be satisfied in order to remain in the party.
A party which is conducive to the satisfaction of other demands, such
as the obtaining power, goods or special privileges, inevitably carries
within it the seeds of opportunistic degeneration.
The CPSU renounced the dictatorship of the proletariat not only in words
but also in deeds. The working class, even that fraction of it that are
members of the party, have absolutely no opportunity to influence the actions
of leaders, the taking of high level decisions, the formulation of its
theory, its propaganda or its conduct of social and economic policy.
Why? Why in the cruel and dangerous revolutionary period was the party
able to remain proletarian? Why in the years of economic construction did
its relations with proletariat change so sharply?
Because, as a part of the revolutionary opposition to the autocratic
and bourgeois government, in conducting the armed struggle against counterrevolution,
the party had only one method of work; raising the consciousness of the
masses and mobilizing them, bringing to each the revolutionary significance
of Marxist ideas. The spontaneous class control of the proletariat was
exercised because ideas unacceptable to the workers, evoking no response
in their consciousness and so rejected by the very indifference of the
masses, were simply not taken up for implementation.
Because in the following period, with immediate control of the state,
the CPSU, in carrying out its policies no longer had any need for the mediation
of the proletarian masses, and consequently, liberated itself from their
control. In just this way, the party leadership, brought direct pressure
to bear on the highest organs of the state, free from any control by the
mass of rank and file party members.
Under such conditions, no reason remained for the party bosses to act
as spokesmen or defenders of the interests of the proletariat; these interests
were inevitably crowded out by the personal interests of the bosses, for
nothing stood in the way of satisfying their own interests at the expense
of the proletariat.
The party bosses could not rule without the support of definite social
forces. The ruling class, the Administration, was just such a force, for
the bosses promoted them and controlled all their decisions, they functioned
entirely under their control.
This ruling class had long since adapted itself to the party and state
apparatus so that with silence and bribes, lies and coerced obedience,
they no longer led the masses but commanded them; thus isolating themselves
from the worrisome mass movement.
Correspondingly, the Administration not only appropriated goods for
the satisfaction of its own wants, but also supplied them to the entire
administrative-party layer. And in the bowels of this bureaucratic system,
once again under the supervision of the Administration, the questions of
prices and wages are decided. Here too, the distribution of labour, that
is to say how to supply the proletariat with the very minimum of goods
which would maintain their obedience, is determined. Now the real boss
is revealed; we see in whose interests, entirely without the class control
of the proletarian mass, the entire management system functions.
The counterrevolution had arrived.
How and when did this revolution take place? What forces gave rise to
it? Why did the revolution turn out to be so noiseless?
Prerevolutionary Russia at the start of the 20th century was rich with
struggling political tendencies. It was for the proletariat to assess them
all and to choose one. And it correctly chose Bolshevism, singling it out
as the trend which was the most consistent proponent of Marxist, and so
proletarian, ideas.
-------------------------------- * --------------------------------
Here a part of the text is missing, a single manuscript
page which is lost in the original. The remaining portion is as follows;
"In the struggle to link up with the proletarian mass, for the
introduction of Marxist-Leninist ideas, at the core of the party a group
of authentic leaders formed whose personal recognition among the proletariat
could rally not just the party ranks but also the entire class. It was
not the principle of democratic centralism which brought these people to
the fore, they were promoted from such groups, which they themselves had
organized, whose original basis for formation was the approval and support
of ideas held by the leaders ...
... and this was historically inevitable, since the ruling party no
longer satisfied the criterion of service to the proletariat."
-------------------------------- ¦* --------------------------------
The bourgeois tendency, having penetrated, could not announce itself
at once, because at the centre of the party were to be found leaders, who
had been evaluated and recognized by the proletariat before the revolution,
who were still deciding the most important political questions. Lenin,
and after his death Stalin, conducted politics in the interest of the proletariat.
And at most lower levels of leadership there were still cadre who had been
drawn in, trained and promoted in the revolutionary struggle. But time
passed and, inevitably, they were replaced with other cadre attracted to
the ruling position of the party.
The efforts of the party developed all the links of the state system,
including within its sphere of activities and direction the gigantic task
of managing Russia. Accordingly, a fusing of the state apparatus and the
party occurred at every link from top to bottom, and also, inevitably,
in party ideological work, an ever larger place was occupied by the current
management tasks of the state.
The continued conduct of proletarian policies was a mitigating factor,
but, in many and quite decisive forms, this fusion defined the atmosphere
in the continuous political discussions at the very centre of the party.
Victory in the struggle had predetermined the support of the proletarian
mass and this obstructed the leaders from connecting with the mood of the
masses.
In turn, the proletariat had the opportunity to choose the leaders,
single them out according to their positions and engage them in discussion;
this was the very best form for expressing the interests of the proletariat,
even if it was only with the narrow circle which constituted the party
centre. It is no coincidence that Stalin, with his profound grasp of Marxist
theory, continuously participated in such discussions and was always ready
to decide questions by appealing to the proletariat.
The conditions for discussion within the party intensified political
development and the growth of the party ranks. But they also acted on the
state apparatus in a very disorganizing form, since it was drawn into these
discussion through the solid links that had been forged. The more management
was stabilized, the more these harmful activities became noticeable.
In 1935-1937 the opposition was decisively removed from the party. This
had a number of important consequences.
Firstly, the party-state system acquired an extremely monolithic character,
which perhaps was the only thing permitting the USSR to withstand the battle
with fascism.
Secondly, the proletariat was completely deprived of the possibility
of putting forward leaders or of influencing their nomination; from this
moment, the interests of the proletariat were defended only to the extent
that they were represented by Stalin personally,
Thirdly, Stalin lost the possibility of verifying his political decisions
though the support of the masses.
At this point the dictatorship of the proletariat had still not ended
its existence, for, to the extent of his abilities, Stalin was devoted
to the interests of the proletariat and unwaveringly embodied them in his
policies. However, the conditions for the reproduction of the dictatorship
of the proletariat were completely lost; it was fated to die with the death
of Stalin.
The years 1935 to 1953 were a period if not of a dead, then of a dying
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why was it that succeeding events were unable to produce a leader that
was Stalin's equal, if not his superior, in defending the interests of
the proletariat?
At this time the structure of society in the USSR was already such that
proletarian democracy, the free will of the organized proletariat, had
been completely excluded. The monolithic party-state apparatus was now
suitable only for the implementation of ideas from the top down, having
at its disposal all the means of direct repression, full control of all
means of mass ideological influence and complete control of all social
organizations. Naturally, this apparatus had no intention whatsoever of
tolerating the dissemination of any ideas harmful to its interests, however
necessary they might be to the proletariat. And all ideas expressing the
interest of the proletariat brought danger with them, since at the very
least, they demanded action and continuous effort directed at the achievement
of the proletariat's aims. On the other hand the apparatus was quite ready
to act in its personal interest, broadening its rights, perquisites and
privileges, while not burdening itself with additional duties.
In these conditions the proletariat had neither the possibility of organizing,
nor the opportunity to select a new leader, for the leaders upholding proletarian
ideas, had not the least opportunity to arrange a mass link to the proletariat.
Besides which, it is quite obvious that the consciousness of society, the
consciousness of the proletariat was absolutely unprepared to perceive
or recognize such general and extremely numerous significant changes, so
focused was it on the leader's death. With horrifying impassivity, society
became carried away with reprisals against the last Marxist revolutionary
and the libelous campaign to expose the cult of the personality.
Such a swift and terrible revolution had no parallel in history, and
some historical distance was necessary in order to develop the required
evaluation in the consciousness of society.
The party-state bosses, the Administration, separated from the proletariat
by a layer of secondary administrative executors now had the opportunity
to promote leaders from their midst and, corresponding to their interests,
to change them (M. Malenkov, N. S. Kruschev) until such time as they settled
on the most suitable. Liberating themselves from the dictatorship of the
proletariat, they rapidly demonstrated that they did not intend to recognize
any dictatorship in general, that in the future they would dictate, to
whatever leader, the fundamental direction of policy. It is no accident
that L. I. Brezhnev arrived at his post under the slogan "Stop shaking
up the cadre, give people the opportunity to work peacefully." This was
the guarantee, essential to the bosses, of the stability of their situation.
The counterrevolution had taken place. In accordance with their profoundly
capitalist essence, they transformed the social structure, giving it quite
novel characteristics. Relations between the Administration and the workers
were instantly degraded to a feudal level. Sovereignty over the distribution
of goods together with sovereign ownership of the entire peoples economy,
liberated the Administration from the burden of any type of competitive
economic pressure; this meant that the pursuit of maximal profits and the
accompanying development of production had become unnecessary for them.
The worries of the administration were reduced to this; allowing their
serfs to feed themselves, in order to provide for the reproduction of labour
power, but only after they had completely satisfied the wants of the bosses
- the Administration.
At the same time, the distribution of the goods expropriated from the
proletariat, amongst the bosses and within the dictatorial administration,
led to a piling up of complications left over from the previous stage of
development of the state, which however had now become purely formal demands.
The inevitable struggle for the distribution of goods within the administrations
itself, therefore took on a petty-bourgeois, penny-pinching character,
when for the sake of trivial gains, millions upon millions were destroyed
since they belonged to "nobody" and could not be converted into personal
property. This unnatural situation was pregnant with permanent crisis,
the resolution of which led, every time, step by step, to the revelation
and legalization of its capitalist essence, i.e. to bring the form into
correspondence with the content.
This strange, never before observed, form of capitalism gave rise to
many delusions, both within the country and beyond its borders. This was
greatly assisted by the lack of an authentic model of socialism for comparison,
by broad propaganda (inside the country it was generally overwhelming)
for the pseudo-marxist theoretical fabrications of the bosses, and by the
isolation and separation of the socialist world from capitalist problems.
This last was interpreted as a particularity of socialism, but was in fact
preordained by the feudal structure. But in spite of all the window dressing,
the extravagant beautification and commentary, capitalism remains capitalism.
If we imagine a staunch Marxist, accidentally finding himself at the
head of the CPSU and utterly determined to return the country to the path
of communist development, the path of following the interests of the proletariat,
then we can also imagine the insuperable difficulties which would lie before
him, what resistance would be offered by the Administration. Even if this
leader had the support of the masses available, he would hardly be able
to effect decisive change since the jealous Administration would build
a wall to cut off all possibilities of organized contact with them.
Of course, no Marxist could ever, even accidentally, find himself at
the head of the fully developed systems in the USSR. Yet history does afford
the opportunity to examine such a situation through factual material. For
Mao Tse-Tung found himself in exactly this situation.
Up until the mid fifties, the political development in China had repeated,
at an accelerated tempo, the experience of the USSR. Perhaps there were
other reasons, or perhaps it was the events connected with the appearance
in the political arena of N. S. Kruschev, that compelled Mao Tse-Tung to
wonder about the soundness of a system capable of producing such activities
within the highest levels of leadership. Analysis of the situation in China
confirmed the terrible danger; with a few national deviations, which, incidentally,
aggravated the situation, the Chinese system was a copy of the Russian
one. And in China, the alienation of the party from the masses was clearly
revealed, shaping their clan of bosses with the characteristics of a parasitic
organism.
Obviously, as with any compromise of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie,
such degeneration can only be managed and then overcome only on the revolutionary
road, only through the mobilization of the masses for revolutionary struggle.
The moment at which such a revolution could have been a continuation of
what had gone before had already slipped by. This posed a dilemma; whether
to go below in order to organize a new revolutionary movement, or to make
maximum use of his personal situation, popularity and continuing control
over the administrative system to raise the revolutionary consciousness
of the masses. This dilemma, under the concrete conditions, had for Mao
a unique rational solution. And he energetically took up its implementation.
The policy of the "Great Leap Forward" was a policy of kindling the
initiative of the masses, awakening their consciousness of their relationship
to current events along a comparatively "peaceful" road. The awakening
of consciousness would give hope of a development toward proletarian control
over the management system; but the policy did not meet with success. Obedience
rather than recognition remained the decisive factor.
Then the "Cultural Revolution" was a direct appeal for reprisals against
the bureaucracy that was forming, an attempt to demonstrate to the masses
with cruel facts that they were really in a ruling position in the country,
that in their collective actions they were all powerful. Then, in the end,
when this process too had failed to produce decisive revolutionary change,
there was special attention to the theory of regular revolutionary shocks,
to the teachings of Marx on the continuity of revolution right up to communism.
Mao Tse-Tung did not succeed in stirring up a new wave of revolution;
an unnecessary reminder that revolution cannot be made to order. And what
he accomplished for the raising of the consciousness of the Chinese proletariat
is difficult to assess. The situation in China was destabilized, and after
the death of Mao this produced a continuation of consciousness raising,
for it necessitated seeking support for chosen positions. Even if this
process did not burst out in a new revolutionary wave, and the authorities
succeeded in stabilizing the situation in the country, the memory of the
"Cultural Revolution" will, again and again, give rise to flashes of the
revolutionary mood.
The death of Mao Tse-Tung for China, just as the death of Stalin for
the USSR, signified the end of the period of proletarian dictatorship.
The first great wave of proletarian revolutions, which had lasted sixty
years, was over; the world wide crisis of the workers movement had arrived.
What has the experience of the existence of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in these two powerful countries taught us?
First, that the victory of the socialist revolution and even the full
establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, linked with the liquidation
of the bourgeoisie as a class, is not a guarantee of the final turn toward
communism. If the proletariat cannot find the ability to take upon itself
the fulfillment of the most important social functions, if it cannot discover
the organizational form, permitting the control of the distribution of
goods by the whole class, then the bourgeoisie will be reborn again and
again, and will occupy, once more, its privileged position in society.
Second, capitalism proved its vitality, proved that it exists, like
a virus, in any socialist society, ready to conduct its quiet struggle
for the global liquidation of revolution, for the degeneration of its system
and for a noiseless victory. This is to be understood in the following
way; the administrative intelligentsia, to which the proletariat necessarily
entrusts some important social functions, will shake off control, form
itself as a class and this class will be bourgeois.
Third, the important link between the fundamental categories of the
proletarian movement was revealed. It had long been clear that proletarian
democracy was unthinkable without the dictatorship of the proletariat;
but the history of the proletarian state also proves the opposite, that
the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot exist without proletarian democracy.
The proletariat carried the tasks of the seizure of power and its defence
against open enemies on its shoulders. But then a new task came to the
fore; the maintenance of the battle-readiness of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in the corrosive environment of commodity-money relations.
It turns out that the proletariat cannot completely trust any social
force whatever, even arising in the very midst of the proletariat. In order
to realize its control over them it is absolutely essential to maintain
a definite level of self-directed organization of the proletariat as a
whole, which is always capable of all-proletarian class activity against
any individual forces, including against the state.
Communism is a society of the very highest yet entirely self-directed
organization; its only source is the self-directed organization of the
working class, shaping mass activity. This means that in order to firmly
fix upon the path leading to communism, it still remains for the proletariat
to lift itself one more rung toward the highest levels of consciousness.
Having won important victories in the battle with capitalism, the proletariat
then suffered a no less crushing defeat in the silent battle. Nowhere is
the proletariat so deprived of rights as in the socialist countries, where
all workers organizations are subjected to the cruelest control of the
ruling class, where truly, they find themselves in servitude under the
ruling bosses and where disagreement and any self-directed activity is
ruthlessly suppressed. Nowhere else does the ruling class appropriate to
itself, with such effrontery, the exclusive right to represent the entire
people. Nowhere else do the media so relentlessly drum into the proletariat's
head that it is precisely this that is in the proletariat's own interests.
Nowhere else does the material situation of the working class exhibit such
a glaring disparity with the level of production. Nowhere besides the socialist
countries, do they preach such hypocritical words about the growth of material
well-being and cultural development to a proletariat so impoverished and
so lacking in rights. Nowhere else do they intone such sanctimonious appeals
to virtue and labour heroism, nor spout with such outrageous cynicism the
hallowed slogans of Marxism.
The crisis of the socialist movement lead to the degeneration of proletarian
socialism into the very ugliest form of socialism; the rotten, predatory
jackal-socialism of the administrative bosses who steal from the proletariat
not only for the satisfaction of their personal consumption and for the
appropriation of wealth but also in order to destroy anything that remains.
In prosecuting its petty-bourgeois, internecine struggle over the booty,
the ruling class hardly worries about what will be left over for the proletariat.
With its bad management, indifference and devil may care attitude, it transforms
to nothing or lets rot unbelievable quantities of the labour invested by
the proletariat.
...That, which they cover with beautiful phrase "according to Marx and
according to Lenin," that, upon which they base their theoretical elaborations,
their "renewals" of Marxism, should lead no one into delusion. And capitalism,
whatever form it might take, never neglects any means of ideological pressure
in its struggle against the growth of the proletarian masses. And this
new bourgeois-feudal form of socialism will never, in anything vital, retreat
from its capitalist essence.
Both Marx and all his true followers conducted the struggle not simply
for socialism but for proletarian socialism; which means all power to the
proletariat and democracy for the proletariat. The proletariat must always
understand that its own, undisputed and undivided dictatorship is the obligatory
condition for progress, for the development of society toward communism.
-------------------------------- * --------------------------------
In the twentieth century, like it or not, the workers movement of the
whole world came under the decisive influence of the events in the socialist
countries.
The victory of the proletariat in the October revolution produced a
rise in the revolutionary movement in countries even very far removed from
Russia, assisted in the birth of many communist parties and in the implanting
of Marxist ideas in various working class movements. These revolutionary
birth pangs swept over all the continents, yet nowhere was the proletariat
sufficiently organized, sufficiently powerful to seize and hold power.
After a series of retreats, the bourgeoisie was able to retake and hold
their positions. The international development of the revolutionary process
was halted.
The victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia served, for the
international proletariat, as a powerful emotional jolt which particularly
assisted in initiating a mood of extreme leftism. Such activity could not
be long-lived.
The wreck of ultra-left adventures, insufficiently prepared to deal
with the real situation, brought about a sobering up and demanded from
the working class a more profound assessment. This was assisted by events
developing in Russia itself. With the rebirth in the USSR of some forms
of capitalist relations (NEP), with a return by the proletariat to a policy
of concessions, clarity was lost and their perceptions moved from the emotional
to the analytic sphere. An ever greater role was played by the assessment
of the economic successes of the USSR; but this development was significantly
retarded by the destruction brought about by the Civil and then the World
War, together with the complications of the revolutionary process itself.
The socialist construction in the USSR continued to stimulate the interest
of all workers, but now this was as a grand experiment, on the results
of which depended the direction of their own activities and their energy
in the class struggle.
The heroic resistance of the Soviet peoples to German fascism and their
complete victory over it brought a new emotional impetus to the international
proletarian movement and aroused powerful class solidarity. But the associated
activities of the proletariat did not have a directly revolutionary direction.
The energetic resistance to fascism influenced support for the USSR. The
international proletarian forces powerfully defended its right to the socialist
experiment and defended their own interest in a general verification of
Marxist ideas on a practical level, in the experiences of the socialist
state in the USSR. But, in the Second World War, the USSR sustained enormous
material losses, which again necessitated attention to the renewal of its
economy to make good this set back in economic development. The appearance,
in the postwar period, of the countries of peoples democracy in the socialist
camp, broadened the framework of the experiment but brought no change in
its essence.
It is no accident that the fundamental centre of the revolutionary movement
in the following period shifted to the liberation of countries under the
yoke of colonialism. Their economic backwardness frequently permitted no
hope of success in bourgeois competitive struggle, while the socialist
path protected them against the most ruthless exploitation. However, it
was also no accident that among them, those possessing a sufficiently developed
national bourgeoisie chose the path of cooperation with the capitalist
world and did not meet with especially great resistance on the part of
their working class.
Such an, if you like "abnormal," theoretically unforeseen shift of the
revolution from the most developed countries to the most backward, enables
the insight that the decisive factor for the energy of the revolutionary
proletarian movement of the entire world, at the contemporary historical
stage, is the economic situation of the workers in the socialist countries,
and in the first place in the USSR.
The stimulus to activity of humanity is controlled by two factors; the
desirability of the aims and an assessment of the cost of achieving them.
Whether we like it or not, the energy of the proletarian class and its
readiness for revolutionary activity is defined in this way. Besides the
constructiveness of the leading ideas, i.e. their suitability for embodiment
in the practical activities of the proletariat, we must look at the significance
and richness of the results to which they lead, that is at the changes
in the political, economic and social circumstances of the workers.
If, at the start of the 20th century, it was the differences between
the economic, political and social situations of the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie which could act as a measure of the revolutionization of the
proletariat, after the victory of October the measure became the comparison
of the position of the workers under capitalist and socialist conditions.
This is why the development of the socialist economy became the decisive
factor in the world revolutionary movement.
The loss of the proletarian dictatorship, the bourgeois degeneration
of the socialist camp and the rebirth within it of feudal relations continued
to be hidden from the proletariat of the entire world. The consequences
of this degeneration were pushed as the unique, utterly "Marxist" development
of the proletariat's victory by the mutual efforts of both the bourgeois
and the socialist propaganda machines. And although the Chinese propagandists
expended considerable effort to disclose the actual situation, their declarations
were less authoritative because of the economic backwardness of China itself.
The position of workers in the USSR continued to be perceived by the proletarians
of all countries as the normal results of Marxist ideas. It is hardly surprising
that for the workers of the advanced capitalist countries any struggle
for the achievement of such a result produced little revolutionary enthusiasm.
The leaders of the communist parties of the advanced capitalist countries
long since understood the unpopularity among the proletarian masses of
any ideas tied to a repetition of the Russian experience. However, instead
of exposing the facts to a Marxist analysis, instead of separating the
tasks and direction of proletarian revolution from the mistakes and perversions
which led to the wreck of the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead
of deepening the theory, the communist parties themselves took up a superficial
propagandist posture, occupied opportunist positions and began to feel
"liberated from Marxism." The economic slowing down of the socialist countries,
in comparison to the definite successes of the most developed countries
of the capitalist camp, gave rise among the proletariat itself in the less
developed countries to a tendency and social movement in the direction
of "improving and perfecting" the capitalist system. This tendency has
nothing in common with either Marxism or the interests of the proletariat,
but was precisely what was exploited by the largest communist parties such
as the French and the Italians, among others. It was precisely this tendency
which served as the foundation for the "new models" of socialism, which
gave rise to the vast pseudo-marxist "theoretical" literature and which
was the source and support of the pseudocommunist propaganda.
This meant not just a crisis in proletarian ideology, but also a worldwide
crisis of philosophy and political economy generally. In our times, the
period of the universal crisis of capitalism, the political formations
in the world are changing at an ever increasing speed, for capitalism is
obliged to continually invent newer and newer tricks to safeguard itself
from final collapse. In these condition, any idealist philosophical system
is smashed to bits by the sharp turns of reality. Moreover any predictions
it makes are inevitably wrong; whereas those founded on an improved point
of view, on materialism, receive immediate confirmation. Thus, no positive
platform can ever appear justified nor will it be given time to prove its
justifiability. On the contrary, it is negative justifiability and construction
by refutation which are invariably affirmed. It is no accident that, more
and more frequently, elaborations of a "philosophy of universal negation"
burst out into print, sometimes embellished with confused practical recommendations
expressing the author's desires.
On the other hand, there remains the unique theory capable of understanding
and explaining all the twists and turns of capitalist society.
This theory is Marxism.
It is understandable the ruling class avoids it, for it continues to
predict its downfall. The causes of the unpopularity of Marxism among the
critical left are less obvious. But this results from the attempt, using
a Marxist, materialist, interpretation of the present, to comprehend, on
this basis, the conformity to law of the existing socialist countries,
that is to comprehend them as conformiing to the laws of socialist development.
Instead of revealing their capitalist essence, instead of seeing them as
extraordinarily complicated, intricate, camouflaged forms, it subjects
Marxism to a violent distortion; it "improves" and "enriches" it to such
an extent that it can accommodate the countries of the socialist camp in
the framework of a presentation of socialist theory.
After this sort of "improvement," Marxist theory, has become such a
useless instrument, that with its help it is possible to prove the socialist
character of the bourgeois state, the harmony of classes under capitalism
and that the intelligentsia is now the seat of revolution. It can prove
anything you like; but it is of absolutely no use to anyone for interpreting
the processes that are really going on in the world.
Thus arise countless constructions of "true," "orthodox," "authentic"
Marxism, which are remarkable for their renunciation of the key principle
of Marxism, its materialist foundations and their incorporation
of mountains of idealist junk, beginning with the ethical foundation of
Marxism and ending with a "Marxified" fideism. But this only replenishes
the ranks of the countless idealist theories which are mercilessly smashed
to bits by life.
If the underdeveloped countries are still capable of waging a struggle,
motivated by their striving to overcome their own backwardness, then the
remainder of humanity is living through a great social crisis. This crisis
combines the universal crisis of capitalism, the crisis of philosophy,
the crisis of Marxism and the crisis of the workers movement. A crisis
of this depth arises because while capitalism has almost completely exhausted
the social resources needed to maintain its existence, it turns out that
the only real alternative, socialism, is bankrupt. This bankruptcy lies
in the inability of socialism to provide convincing proof to the masses
of its superiority.
The fact that this crisis is a crisis engendered by a mass delusion,
that proletarian socialism cannot demonstrate its superiority for a unique,
yet valid reason, namely that it does not exist in reality, but is thought
by the deluded imagination to exist, this fact will not quickly be recognized
by humanity.
What is needed is a decisive argument. And such an argument, opening
up a way out of the protracted social crisis, can only be the establishment,
in one country, of an authentic dictatorship of the proletariat which realizes
its economic superiority and on this basis achieves a fundamental change
in the position of the workers. Only the very obvious form of a marked
break in the political, economic and social situation of the workers can
revolutionize the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries, indicating
to them the path of struggle.
At the present time, once more, only one country, Russia, is capable
of taking upon itself this historic mission. The revolutionization of the
Russian proletariat, and once again, this is dictated by the difference
in situation of the working and ruling classes, has already reached a socially
decisive level, and continues to grow. The deepening crisis of the Soviet
economy urgently demands a recovery of the vision which would permit a
restoration of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proletariat
in Russia is weakly organized; it is extremely difficult for it to organize
and to exchange ideas. If the moment for the repetition of the proletarian
revolution slips by, then the crisis in Russia will conclude with the commonplace
transformation through the loss of stability in the state economy. This
will hardly assist the conduct of proletarian political struggle and will
relegate Russia to the faceless ranks of the second rate capitalist powers.
History is not so generous as to grant the proletariat the certainty
of decisive victory. But defeat and failure will also enable the accumulation
of priceless experience, the development of the theoretical worldview and
of proletarian class consciousness, and thus, consequently, the overcoming
of future delusions on the path to final victory. |
