-
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 IV
Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy
Having achieved political victory, that is to say the firm seizure of power,
the proletariat, in the most fundamental way, changes the essence of all
values in society. The means of production, the fund for consumption, the
land, the riches of nature, artistic products and monuments; all these
become the property of the proletariat. They become its property immediately,
without waiting for nationalization or whatever acts of confiscation and
transfer, at the very moment of the seizure of power.
Apparently however, history is ready to leave behind facts contradicting
this seizure. It produces the proletarian revolution, yet maintains a petty-bourgeois,
peasant economy, which produces and sells the goods of craftsmen. The owners
of enterprises which have not been nationalized continue their pursuit
of profits ... Yes, all this is so. But it is only a form, an appearance,
a shadow of the capitalism of the past.
At the moment of proletarian victory, the fundamental law of socialism
comes into force. The victorious proletariat, for the sake of maintaining
the functional integrity of society, needs the activity of very varied
layers of the population, and therefore, must stimulate such activities.
The essence of property is radically changed by the proletarian victory,
but the consciousness of people is incapable of responding to the victory
with changes at the same rate. This consciousness is still unprepared to
recognize new stimuli, in it bourgeois concepts still live, it continues
to assess the results of activities only with bourgeois measures and to
strive for bourgeois individualistic aims.
The proletariat must reckon with this. The form of profits, the form
of their defence in law; this is how the activity of those layers of the
population, as yet unready for the socialist reorientation, are stimulated.
This is neither capitalism nor a remnant of it. It is simply a superficial
similarity, an external simulation of capitalist relations in the form
of stimuli understood by definite segments of society, which draw them
in to activity useful to society. This form of stimulation can be supplanted
by another form. It can also be generally abolished, if the proletariat
can either take upon itself or generally liberate itself from the functions
fulfilled by such layers of society. This form can change where this is
advantageous to the proletariat, where it corresponds to its interests
and for so long as it continues to correspond to them.
Everything is subordinate to the interests of the proletariat. Such
is the legal foundation of socialist society. All other legislation is
its direct consequence. And when discussions are raised about democracy
for non-proletarian layers, there is no point in searching for support
in historical precedent (there just isn't any). The proletariat must not
share real power with anyone. Whatever democratic opportunities for the
expression of the opinions and interests of non-proletarian groups and
classes are permitted, this is only in order that, by taking stock of these
interests and changes in them, a dynamic restructuring of the system of
stimuli can take place. This permits the direction of the activities of
the non-proletarian strata toward maximal effectiveness in the service
of the proletariat. Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must not,
even to the slightest extent, be taken as a political system which provides
authentic democracy to any class or layer except the proletariat itself.
In questions of law and politics, in economic and social decisions, the
proletarian dictatorship must be self-consciously a true, sovereign dictatorship.
It must rule in the exclusive interests of the proletariat, through the
provision and elimination of specific freedoms for the non-proletarian
strata, exactly as in the question of the liquidation of private property
in the means of production.
This does not mean unbridled arbitrariness or monarchist autonomy in
relations with the non-proletarian strata. Recklessness is not in the interests
of the proletariat; the proletarian dictatorship must carefully nurture
conditions for all strata which lead to the highest level of efficiency
in activities useful to the proletariat. Just as in its care and concern,
so too in its limitation and repression, the proletariat must be guided
by the interests of the class, not concerning itself in the least with
the interests of other strata.
The socialist system is the highest form of democracy not because
it is prepared to grant the bourgeois right of universal suffrage or definite
bourgeois privileges to the intelligentsia, but because, for the first
time in history, the ruling class is an open class. Each member
of society has the opportunity of joining this class and of obtaining all
the attendant privileges and of taking upon himself all the corresponding
responsibilities. The unique real form of democracy in socialist society
is democracy for the proletariat, and this is all that is required
to ensure its gradual transformation into a society without classes.
Proletarian democracy will then become democracy for all.
Proletarian democracy is the unique class democracy which transforms
itself into democracy for all. But for this to take place it is absolutely
essential that the proletariat remain the ruling class, for it is the only
open class of all the classes in history which has conducted a struggle
for the mastery of society. And further, the dictatorship of the proletariat
along all paths to communist society must not only, unavoidably, win the
struggle with other classes, but must suppress the birth and development
of all other classes so long as the conditions for such birth and development
exist in society.
So what is such a proletarian dictatorship?
How must the working class realize its dictatorship?
To say that this dictatorship is state power is insufficient. Yes, the
socialist state can be nothing other than the revolutionary dictatorship
of the proletariat. But the state and the proletariat are distinct, diffrently
organized social subjects. In order that their interests coincide,
if only for a short historical period, the following conditions are necessary.
The state and a class dictatorship are also dissimilar in other ways.
The state, as a certain type of mechanism, is a means of implementing a
dictatorship, a directing and compelling influence on society. But in order
that this means can be the instrument of any given class, one that rules
society in the interest of this class, it is essential that it is precisely
this class, and not its individual representatives, that holds the key
levers and forces in its hands, thus compelling the state to take up the
interests of this class as its own.
A class dictatorship is a system of social relations which provides
the ruling class with control over society; including the suppression of
the political initiative of any other classes which threaten their dictatorship.
The bourgeoisie promotes the most democratic principles for the formation
of state power and transfers to the state colossal financial resources
in the form of taxes on profits, never fearing that this can be turned
against them. It demands from the state just one thing; the unquestioning
defence of private property. In property lies its strength. For is is precisely
property, through its organizing effects, by conferring the right to decide
the distribution of goods and by providing the hired organizations of the
bourgeoisie with their very livelihood, which guarantees the bourgeoisie
their ruling position, their control over the state.
The proletariat, as the aggregate of the workers, generally has no opportunity
to construct its dictatorship on an analagous basis. The proletariat is
poor and no one pays any attention to them in the decisions of the state.
Like the slaves in ancient Rome, rising against one slaveowner only to
be enslaved by another, like the peasants in Russia rioting for the "good
tsar," so too the proletariat, in creating an authority and then entrusting
to it the distribution of costs and benefits and releasing all means of
control over it, itself promotes new bosses, a new bourgeoisie. This is
how it was, and ever would be, were it not for one condition. This condition,
arising from the social character of production, is the capability of
the proletariat for self-organization.
For it is precisely the capability of the proletariat for self organization,
which at a definite historical stage, permits the proletariat to fill the
bosses shoes. But in the realization of this capability, the proletariat
ceases to be simply an aggregate of workers; it acts as a class, as an
integral social subject, and in this way becomes the irresistible force
in society. Emerging victorious from the class struggle, the proletariat,
again as an integral subject, becomes the owner of all the riches of society.
But managing them in the bourgeois fashion, utilizing them directly in
their own subjective class interests, is simply impossible. For this, it
is necessary to build a sufficiently complex social system out of the materials
bequeathed to it by history and on the basis of the relations prevailing
in society at the given moment. But these relations must be restructured
and reshaped so as to provide a guarantee of the dictatorship of the proletariat
as a class. A system of social relations, operating through the abilities
of the proletariat for self-organization, having as its foundation the
self-directed, organized proletariat, can exist only if, in the course
of its operation, it results in the satisfaction of definite proletarian
interests. But these interests are precisely the merging of organizational
and collective interests, of interests having a social character, into
the class interest. In this system, the state plays the role of the social
mechanism which compels and stimulates the purposeful activity of individuals
through the strivings of personal, individualistic interests, and regulates
the satisfaction of these desires depending on such activity. From this
it is easy to see that, if the state locks up this role entirely, basing
itself on just this set of functions, it will begin to function in the
interests of its own apparatus, and this apparatus will transform itself
into a parasitic organism, compelling society to serve it. As a result,
it will cease to satisfy those interests of the workers which have a social
character, it will cease to satisfy their spiritual needs, and this will
lead to the weakening of the self-organization of the proletariat and directly
assist the formation of the highest levels of the bureaucratic state apparatus
into a ruling class exploiting the working mass.
The task of the organized revolutionary proletariat is not to permit
such an isolation, such a cutting off of the state. The proletariat must
utilize the state mechanism to carry out the will of the class. It must
play on the individualistic interests of the members of society and direct
their activity to the satisfaction of social interests, in order to consolidate
in social relations and in the consciousness of individuals an appreciation
of the demands and interests of society. And for this to be possible, for
it to become a reality, the proletariat finds itself confronting an array
of other problems. These include cutting off any self-activity of the state
directed against the proletariat. They include changing the functions of
the state and changing the tasks placed before it according to the changing
and developing interests of the proletariat. They also include, the categorical
removal from the state of the slightest opportunity to hinder the free
development of proletarian interests. Without a solution to these problems,
without the construction of an entire system of relations which secure
the consistent realization of the proletarian interest in a developing,
revolutionizing, renewing society, any talk of proletarian dictatorship
can only be hot air.
The state stands opposed to society, and in this opposition it possesses
considerable advantages. Even the bourgeois state, the economic possibilities
of which are shaped by the wills of the capitalists, and which has at its
disposal colossal quantities of goods, distributes a vital share of the
social wealth. The socialist state takes upon itself the distribution of
all goods, and in society there is not and cannot be anything comparable
to the state by this measure. And this means that the entire might of the
hired social organizations is directed to the defence of the interests
of the state. In such conditions, how can society defend itself from exploitation
by the state?
Well the state has its weaknesses. Above all it is a paid organization,
it is stimulated by material goods, and this means that the activities
of the members of the separate links in this mechanism, in defence of their
common interests, are defeated by their economic dependence and because
such attitudes are not dictated by their basic interests. Secondly, each
member of the state apparatus does not simply obtain the opportunity to
appropriate some quantity of goods, these are provided to him under definite
conditions and, in this sense he is under the control of society. Thirdly,
the very system which the state mechanism organizes is formed not by the
state but by the whole of society; thus, under definite conditions, it
stands ahead of every member of the state apparatus and dictates the interest
of society.
Weaknesses there are, and these weaknesses must be used by proletarian
society to maintain control over the proletarian state, but this is not
so easy. The spontaneous activity of the proletariat in exercising this
control cannot be guaranteed. The state then immediately slips out from
under control and restructures itself to eliminate the weak spots. So that
the control of society over the state can be effective, society must oppose
the state with such a force as will be able to cut off all attempts by
the state to restructure in isolation from the social system, as will be
able to hinder the state's striving to liberate its links from social control,
and, in the end, as will be able to destroy the entire state system, if
that system refuses to subordinate personal improvement to social interests.
Society must oppose the state with organization. And such organization
can only be the self-directed organization of the proletarian mass, a firmer
organization than that based on the unity of fundamental interests of the
workers.
Society must oppose to the state the organized, self-directed, proletarian
party.
The self-directed proletarian party is the form of proletarian self-organization
with the aid of which the state mechanism can be forced to serve the interests
of the proletariat, to be the means for the realization of the dictatorship
of the proletariat.
Here is the key. The party must be self-directed, that is to say both
voluntary, attracting people exclusively thanks to their collectivist,
social interests and not through the promise of any personal advantage,
and bound by conscious discipline and personal enthusiasm. The party must
be proletarian, for only the particular relationship of the proletariat
to the aggregate social product provides a guarantee of the distribution
of goods and labour in the interests of the whole of society. And it must
be a party, for only a party can guarantee an integral policy, a unified
world view monitoring all links of the state mechanism, only a party is
capable of organizing and directing the activities of the masses to the
change and improvement of this mechanism.
But this is still not everything. Such a party, with the most powerful
organization and enjoying the support of the proletarian masses, necessarily
must have the possibility of taking upon itself all and absolute power,
all control of society.
Here is what it must not do! The party must remain in opposition to
the state, it must act on the state only through the proletarian masses.
In other words, every party decision must be evaluated by the support of
the whole class, by its readiness for class action. A party serving the
interests of the proletariat must not link its activity with those of the
state, it must remain in continuous opposition to the state.
Now we may collect all this together as a scheme for social relations.
The state administers society, including the aggregate of all proletarians.
The party monitors the state. The proletariat, the entire class, monitors
party decisions through embodying them in their own mass activities directed
at changing the state system. And the other way around; the proletariat
transfers and delegates to the party its most advanced ideas; the party
secures the realization of these ideas in state form; the state consolidates
the establishment of these ideas in society.
This is the unique scheme for social relations which can secure the
existence and continuous reproduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat
in society.
In order to assess the disposition of forces corresponding to the dictatorship
of the proletariat, we must first pause for a deeper examination. In distinction
from the other components of the proletarian dictatorship, the party must
always have a precise understanding of its basic aims and tasks at each
concrete stage. This does not mean that the party must be the brain of
society. No, the destiny of the party is rather to play the role of a sense
organ, to keenly apprehend reality and the beginnings of the impulses of
the mass movement. But before it can be embodied in a definite restructuring,
each impulse must be comprehended by the super-brain, the consciousness
of the proletariat; for only its approval can confer reality on the impulse.
The party, if it deviates from the interests of the proletariat or gets
ahead of it, will immediately sense this.
Holding fast to its aim of the construction of communist society, the
development of social relations in the direction of communism, the party
must understand the sharp divergence of its own tasks from the tasks of
the proletarian state.
Despite the fact that the proletarian state, in general, at the stage
of the movement toward communism, plays a positive role, and is the only
means of realization of this movement, every concrete form of the
proletarian state, at that historical moment, is the most backward element
of proletarian society. This is because it it is occupied not with the
search for newer, higher levels, but with the consolidation of a level
of social consciousness which has already been reached and surpassed. The
state, remaining proletarian, exhibits its advanced character only in external
aspects, only in its relations with the non-proletarian environment. In
its relations with the proletariat it always remains bourgeois because
it dies away only to the extent that it loses the support of the individualistic
hangovers in the proletariat itself and in other members of society.
The party encourages this withering away with all the means at its disposal,
its ideological work secures definite changes in the consciousness of society
and the organized movement of the proletariat for consolidation by the
state of the changes which have take place. The state is incapable of embodying
an ideology which outstrips the current level in this way; it changes and
progresses only under pressure from the masses, and it loses its function
to the extent that the masses transform their consciousness on the path
to communist social consciousness. The growth of communist social consciousness,
generally speaking, consists not in the mastery of culture, nor in the
assimilation of the theory of social development, although all this is
useful, but quite simply in the predomination of collectivist over individual
consciousness. But the development of the collectivist interests of each
member of society depend directly on their level of satisfaction; it flowers
in victory and withers in defeat. This is where the party and its theoretical
armaments play a decisive role, securing the selection of paths to victory
and organizing the masses for victory. Continuous interaction on the basis
of common interests, alone can guarantee the establishment in each individual
of the principal communist idea that the social position of the individual
is determined by the degree of his collectivism. Incidentally, this is
why all attempts to "implant" communism by the state or by a party-state
ruling system are futile; one ought not to hope for the development of
collectivist characteristics from individualistic incentives. To each concrete,
historical form of the socialist state the masses must liberally offer
their recognition but not their respect; and it is exactly this the party
must worry about, crushing conservative complacency with its inexhaustible
enthusiasm.
Even though subordinate to society, the state serves its majority,
at the same time that advanced ideas, guaranteeing forward movement, arise
in the minds of a minority. Such ideas can become the property of
the whole of society, can become the leading ideas of the state only if
they are supported by the party which, through its ideological activity,
makes them into the ideas of the majority. Without the organized support
of a party no minority ideas will be able to stand against a functioning
state machine.
The opposition between the party and the state in socialist society
is the most direct, most naked reflection of the fundamental contradiction
of socialism, the contradiction between the communist and the bourgeois,
the social and the personal, the collectivist and the individualist. In
this contradiction lies the source of the development toward communism,
and the more clearly the opposing forces are recognized, the more exactly
the causes of their opposition, within the concrete historical sequence,
are defined, the more effectively the process of overcoming these contradictions
will proceed and the more direct will be the path of society to communism.
The party and the state present themselves as two structures organizing
society, two types of social organization; leadership and management.
It is as if these structures found themselves at opposite poles of social
life. Management is a coordination of activity, leadership is a coordination
of consciousness. Management exerts influence on individuality through
limitations and stimuli, leadership appeals to the understanding and influences
through public opinion. Management appeals to the individual, knowing of
no other means of control other than the economic. Leadership discloses
to the individual the possibility of direct social management, not linked
with economic circumstances. Management operates on the accumulated experience
of the past, leadership seeks its support in the future.
Society serves as the source, continuously nourishing both the party
and the state. What then will take place?
The proletariat under the leadership of the party seizes power; thus
the party, willy-nilly, becomes the ruler. It necessarily must take a decisive
part in securing the victory of the proletariat, in the liquidation of
residual capitalist forces, in the destruction of the old and construction
of the new state apparatus. And the new state apparatus can be composed
only of party cadre, of people who have proven their dedication to the
proletarian cause. Where then is the opposition?
But perhaps things don't need to be this way? No, this is the only way!
Shall we give up power to the "Varangians"[2]
whose aims are so far from proletarian? And in general; for the newborn
state there is only one possibility, one solid buttress for the establishment
of power, that is the full support of all proletarian layers, cemented
together in the party.
The solution, it would seem, is prefined. And for all that ... The proletarian
party, in linking itself to the state, only deceives itself about the apparent
ease of realization of revolutionary aims through the mechanism of the
state. Such a path can consolidate the victory of the proletariat and its
mastery over the other classes, but as for the questions of the further
development of the proletariat itself and of its consciousness, these are
excluded from the sphere of activity of the party and become inaccessible
to it. On becoming the ruling class, the party can remain proletarian,
but in this event it will not be the avant-garde of the proletariat but
will represent the most backward of its strata.
To lead the conscious advance of society is possible only for an opposition
party, basing its work on the appeal to the collectivist character of the
workers and organizing the proletariat for collective activity as a counterweight
to the administration, which links society with its system of coercive
stimuli.
So what should we have? A two party (or multiparty) system? And will
we let social contradictions resolve themselves through struggle between
the ruling and the opposition party?
But, along this path, the fundamental contradiction of society, the
source of its development, would be concealed, made more complicated and
even pushed entirely to the side in the struggle for power; that is to
say, secondary contradictions would divert much effort, but would in no
way, shape or form assist in advancing society. Besides which, the existence
of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and
the division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles
on the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness.
No, solving the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible
only by bursting through the historical (and altogether alien to proletariat)
precedents, only by liberating oneself from the path of habitual schematism.
Not the opposition of a ruling and an opposition party, but the immediate
opposition of the party and the state; this is what fully reveals the social
contradictions, this is what the proletariat must strive for.
Yes, the party must lead the proletariat in the struggle for power.
Yes, the party, at the head of the proletariat must seize this power. Yes,
it must destroy the old state apparatus and build a new one. It must promote
its most experienced organizers, leaders and chiefs to the leading posts
in the state; and then it must immediately cross them off its list of
voting members.
Just that. This does not mean a complete rupture but a radical restructuring
of relations; thus totally excluding state interference in party affairs
and the direct influence of state interests on party activity.
The party must continue to monitor those of its members that have been
promoted to administrative posts, it must understand their state concerns
and must prove itself to be a direct help in organizing the masses for
the support of state measures. But the party must do this, not under the
diktat of the state, but only as it emerges from its own aims and tasks.
It is completely natural that this support will be at its most energetic
and powerful in the early period, when the leading ideas of the party and
the state are almost completely convergent, when the state is being refounded
and needs such support most of all. But even in this period the party must
not bind itself with any promises.
In detaching its better cadre and leading forces to state posts, the
proletariat must clearly recognize that this will not resolve all the problems
of social development. Sooner or later, the interests of the state apparatus
will be brought into contradiction with the developing interests of the
proletariat, will become a constraint on the formation of state structures
and the point of some of their functions will be lost. Then, a new revolution
is needed which can raise to the state level those changes which have taken
place in the consciousness of society. Only such an uninterrupted revolutionary
development can lead to the foundation of a communist society.
Having taken power from the bourgeoisie at the cost of the lives of
its best fighters, the proletariat is obliged to take care that in the
future, the revolution can be continued without bloody struggle. It must
deprive the state of the possibility of creating any anti-proletarian
organizations whatsoever. It must constitutionally consolidate for itself
rights which secure for it paths for the democratic transformation of the
state. These rights are as follows;
the freedom of the self-directed organization of the proletariat and state
guarantees of these freedoms through the granting of positions within the
means of mass propaganda and so forth,
the prohibition of the direct participation of the servants of the state
apparatus in social and political organizations,
limitations on the self-directed activity of non-proletarian strata.
But most importantly, the proletariat must never forget, that even though
enshrined in the constitution, such rights will provide no real guarantee
without the preparedness of the proletariat itself to defend them in the
most decisive manner. If the proletariat is unable to defend its freedoms,
its privileges and its proletarian party, this means that its consciousness
is still not ripe for socialism. Conversely, if the proletariat is able,
without concessions, inflexibly, with arms in hand when this is unavoidable,
to stand up for these rights, then this is precisely what will secure its
freedom of movement toward communism. Socialism is possible only when the
class consciousness of the proletariat and its organization have developed
the readiness to seize power in its own hands at any moment.
Only by securing the merger of its social and collective interests in
the activity of the proletarian party, only by maintaining a minimum of
organization, and this means in opposition to other social layers, will
the proletariat be able to feel itself master of the situation, able to
maintain the obedience of the entire state mechanism and able to restructure
it to whatever extent is necessary.
Being master of the situation means being in charge of the distribution
of goods. And although many of the elaborations of this question will,
unavoidably, be entrusted to the state apparatus, the proletariat must
recognize that the last word always rests with it; for any state functionary,
including the highest, may be dismissed from his post and deprived of his
benefits by the will of the proletariat. Because of the availability to
the workers of the proletarian party, organizing its mass activities, this
right ceases to be a fiction and becomes a real means of directing the
state.
For its part, the party, even if it is presented with the opportunity,
must refuse to take part in the distribution of goods, but must exert the
most decisive efforts to bring all state activities in this sphere under
the control of the whole class, the entire proletarian mass. For, if the
distribution of goods is not controlled by the entire proletariat,
it will become the booty of a new bourgeoisie, whatever form that
might take.
Thus, the state apparatus, at least its key parts, must be composed
of people previously schooled in party organizational work. They must be
monitored by the party in all their activities and must bear direct responsibility
to the ruling class, the proletariat. The party too must be formed immediately
out of the proletarian mass. And it must fulfill the following condition.
The party is the highest form of the self-directed organization of the
proletariat. Service to the proletariat must be for the party not just
its leading idea, but also the sole requirement of its members, upon the
satisfaction of which their continued membership depends. While the state
serves the proletariat, being stimulated by the share of the goods allotted
to it, for the party service to the proletariat is both the aim and the
stimulus. Correspondingly, they serve it differently.
Serving the proletariat, satisfying its present needs, conforming to
its present interests and creating for it the conditions for its cultural
and creative development, these are the obligations of the state.
The party has other tasks.
Tirelessly, both in word and in deed, it must clarify to the proletariat
that its present interests are false interests; that they weigh it down
with the ancient baggage of feudal and bourgeois history, and that they
in no way correspond to the forward looking possibilities of society. It
must clarify that what the proletariat justly demands from life, which
they themselves can build, will be vastly better.
It must help the proletariat to utilize the opportunities for cultural
development which are available to it for real cultural development; that
is for association, for decisive influence in the shaping, by humanity,
of the general system for understanding the world and for the mastery of
the enormous possibilities of human society.
It must cultivate out of the proletariat's present interests its future
interests. It must enrich the spirit of mutual trust and collectivism,
ever more directly pointing out the dependence of the social situation
on social and not economic factors.
It must act as the organizer of the mass struggle for revolutionary
social change, for the embodyment of what is new and advanced in state
forms and for inculcation in the minds and opinions of the mass; that is
for the transformation of future interests into the reality of today.
In order to cope with these tasks, the party must be composed not of
people who once demonstrated their ability to serve the proletariat, but
rather of people who prove it with their every motion, each day of their
lives. For this the party must not only be able to attract into its ranks
the rich enthusiasm of youth, but must be able to free itself from individual,
conservative encrustations.
The party must cleanse itself, not only of those who live in bygone
days, but also of those who are mired in the present. For them, the time
has come to turn from ideological work to the practical implementation
of their own ideas, and the party must push them on to state work, simultaneously
liberating itself from their influence.
True, in contemporary society, it is not everyone, even among workers,
that is capable of dedicating their entire lives and all their efforts
to unselfish service to the proletariat. But, in the life of almost
everyone, there is a period when the social predominates over the personal,
when their activities are dictated by collective interests and not by personal
advantage. It is precisely in this period that their self-motivation must
be united in the party, in the framework of resolving party problems.
It is only then, when the consciousness of a human being has risen above
its prejudices and biological instincts, only in the period of its highest
spiritual elevation, it is only then that the individual is worthy of membership
in the party, is suitable for party work, capable, together with the party,
of placing before society the problems of the future. But the party cannot
rely upon lifelong enthusiasm, and this is why no one can be guaranteed
lifelong trust.
Party work is not the sole capacity in which society may be served;
the state presents the citizen with another form of service, one encouraged
by the satisfaction of personal needs. Those who have outlived their elevation,
in whom the individualistic has prevailed, the party must exile from its
activities; exile without reproach but with respect and recognition of
merit; pityless exile, yet not a severing of all ties.
And at the head of the list of those who must be exiled from party affairs,
are those whose work is linked to the taking of state decisions, for in
proletarian society there is not a single internal problem to which the
party and the state would adopt a uniform solution. The development of
social consciousness also includes the recognition that each individual
resolves such contradictions for himself, in his own consciousness, and
that no one may resolve them for him, at the state level.
Solutions, proposed by the party and taken up individually by
the majority of proletarian society, are revolutionary transformations,
changes in the consciousness of each individual; at the same time they
mark a definite break in social, class consciousness. The renewal of the
class consciousness of the proletariat finds a concrete form of expression,
being reflected, in a most precise and concentrated way, in the consciousness
of individual leaders. In this way, new class interests again express themselves
through ideas; they are defined by historical conditions and penetrate
the individual consciousness of workers. Such ideas have a decisive organizational
significance through the mobilization of the proletariat for cooperative
activity aimed at the achievement of class aims.
Ideas formulated by the leaders reflect class requirements, they are
not identical with the interests engendered by the objective reality in
separate individuals, and this is why they cannot be taken as a certain
kind of personal program and are adopted only with the recognition of personal
dependence on the collective and collective activity. The ideas of the
leaders do not penetrate the consciousness of each individual at once.
Each time they need to be pushed through, along one and the same difficult
path, overcoming the usual barrier of individualism and cracking the shell
of conservative complacency. At the start, they are adopted only by those
who are the most receptive, and through them receive a much broader dissemination.
The essence of the matter is that the immediate dissemination of ideas
in society is generally impossible; society is sufficiently conservative
and indifferent to novelty that in it any idea can wither. But once apprehended,
even if only by a very small minority, advanced ideas lead this minority
to action, and then this very movement of the minority disturbs
the slumbers of society, which then must define its relationship to events
one way or another and this leads it to activity. Thus the activity broadens,
spreads and disperses the ideas in its wake.
The dissemination of ideas is accompanied by their concretization and,
what is especially important, the concretization of the forms of activity
linked to them. They become ever more definite, the forms of ideas embodied
in activity acquire the character of a social movement, they become consolidated
in the form of traditions accepted into the consciousness of society and
require recognition and legitimation by the state. The requirements of
society from the state change, and this entails changes in the policy of
the state, changes in its structure, and leaders, linked to the new forms
of social consciousness, are promoted.
And so, in creating a continuous revolutionary pulse in society, promoting
new leaders and new ideas, with new forms of social movement emerging and
being consolidated, there must be cooperation between the party and the
state. In the continuous renewal of the state apparatus, its restructuring,
that is to say, the incessant renewal of its composition and structure,
the party plays its decisive role in the development of the revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat.
But in examining the relations between the proletariat, its party and
the state, have we not forgotten that the state is a particular organized
force for suppression and compulsion? Here, everything will be clear when
we examine the state as the means of realization of the dictatorship of
the proletariat over other classes. But the state also remains the state
in its relations with the proletariat itself; and here the question is
not so simple.
Representing the interests of the proletariat as a class, its social
interests, as opposed to the aggregate of the individualistic interest
of all proletarians, the state utilizes all its means of compulsion directly
to that end. Clearly, even when we are speaking of stimuli, incentives
and bonuses for the fulfillment by members of society of definite conditions,
the heart of the matter remains the same as for compulsion, which is only
the limitation of access to goods for those members of society that do
not fulfill these definite conditions. If we take into consideration that
the stimuli give access to definite resources, supplying the individual
with his livelihood, while the compulsions are the threat of partial or
total withdrawal of access to these resources, then it is clear that, in
the relations between society and the individual, there is no difference
between them. Since the basis of socialist society is the stimulation of
the activities of individuals in the interests of society as a whole, it
is quite obvious that the state has the need for definite means of compulsion,
of force, permitting the establishment of definite limits.
But, possessed of a force suitable for the compulsion of society as
a whole, the state has the opportunity to alienate itself from society,
placing itself above it. Moreover, the history of the 20th century offers
numerous cases in which the army placed itself above society, formed a
new state and transferred power to another
class.
How can the proletariat avoid such a danger?
History proves that, having brought about a revolution, the army cannot
transfer power to just any class, but only to one of the most organized
classes, reinforcing it with its organized support. This means that one
of the guarantees consists in ensuring that the organization of the proletariat
within the socialist state is incomparably higher than that of other classes.
For this the proletariat must not only limit the self-directed organization
of other classes, but, and this is most important, their utilization (with
the aim of organizing) of the economic resources inaccessible to the proletariat.
This secures not only a weakening, but also the gradual destruction of
all classes opposed to the proletariat and reliably defends the proletariat
from internal enemies, except for the state itself.
The socialist state is a sufficiently powerful and sufficiently bourgeois
organization, that it can, through its striving to isolate itself,
through its utilization of the forces under its control, turn into an independent
class, into a new bourgeoisie. The unique reliable guarantee against this
is a situation in which the forces of the state are composed only of the
armed people, the armed proletariat. But while the state itself is essential,
so too is it essential that this must be a state organized arming of the
people. And this is not altogether the same thing as the simple arming
of the people; it presupposes its use with the aim of organizing the distribution
of goods by the state, i.e. becoming an organized force immediately dependent
on the state.
No simple recipe for addressing this problem can be given. Here lurks
a real difficulty, arising from the contradiction in the situation of a
socialist country encircled by capitalism. However this does not mean that
the problem is insoluble, but only that the solution cannot be found at
the level of principle but at the level of concrete organizational forms,
taking into consideration all the specifics of the level of development
of social consciousness.
It must be kept in mind that in all external questions, questions
of the mutual relations with other states and internal non-proletarian
strata, the interests of the socialist state and the proletariat coincide
completely.
Therefore, clearly, the institution of political commissars in the army,
which was an unavoidable outcome of the Civil War in Russia, lost
its significance in external wars.
Therefore, the attention of the proletariat must be concentrated on
control over the army, and, especially in situations of internal conflict,
over the organs of internal affairs and political security. The position
of the proletarian party, the interests of the party in all internal questions,
coincide with the interests of the proletariat. However, it does not follow
that this coincidence of interests, in both internal and external questions,
allows for the immediate subordination of the forces of repression to the
party. Such a subordination would provoke a change in the interests of
the party, it would lead to their "stateifcation." But it is in questions
of control over the armed forces that the proletariat can completely trust
the party, just as in questions of control over the state in general.
Various measures can be taken with aim of facilitating such control.
For example, the decentralization of
control of the armed forces in correspondence
with the immediacy of the external threat, stricter accountability of the
internal organs in activities affecting the interests of the proletariat,
and so forth; all such measures of an organizational nature, and their
alteration at each concrete stage, must be determined by the extent to
which they are essential for the maintenance of the supremacy of the proletariat,
in proportion to the internal and external dangers.
The history of the Soviet Union, where for the period of proletarian
dictatorship such problems did not give rise to insoluble difficulties,
proves that, as long as it is economically beyond the control of the capitalist
encirclement, a socialist country is capable, for a sufficient time, and
possibly for as long as you like, of containing these contradictions in
the construction of the state; for they weaken and die away the more that
the organization of the proletariat and its organized influence on society
grow. |
