-
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 V
Classes and the Struggle for Socialism
Classes are those groups of people between whom all the productive forces
of society are divided. On this basis the production relations between
classes are formed. With the appearance of owners of a certain fraction
of the productive forces, arises the possibility of their influencing all
movement of the social product and their exploitation of this resource
in the struggle with other classes for social position. The very existence
of classes is linked to the existence of private property in productive
forces (not just the means of production) and this is why, quite apart
from the existence of barter or commodity-money relations, the significance
of any particular productive force varies and the roles of the classes
vary correspondingly with particular classes obtaining supremacy over the
rest.
In conditions of commodity-money relations, social position is wholely
and completely defined by economic circumstances, that is the share of
social wealth appropriated and distributed by the given class. The classes
struggle amongst themselves over this.
The productive forces include three fundamental elements; the earth
and all its natural wealth, the means of production, which are congealed,
dead labour, and labour power. Historical changes in production methods
and the corresponding changes in socio-economic formations are constrained
by the level of organization and the organizing influence of these elements
on society.
Apart from the classes in society, there are people who do not enter
the production process in the capacity of owners, who do not contribute
any of their property to social production. These can be divided into groups
according to their social role; intelligentsia, army, lumpen proletariat
and so forth. All of them, in one way or another, necessarily serve such
classes as are able to allot to them the share of goods essential for their
existence, i.e. chiefly such classes as are, at the current moment, in
a commanding position. Despite the fact that their indirect influence on
production can have colossal significance for society, despite the definite
internal organization of such social groups, these groups do not play a
decisive role in the development of society since they lack the organic
unity of interests which is distinctive of a class. Historically, all attempts
of such social groups to influence the development of society led, after
the appropriation of some part of the productive forces, to their becoming
a class or rising into the class which they were, perhaps unconsciously,
serving. This is precisely why the social interests of such groups are
always vague and do not form a socially significant unity.
The class policy of the victorious proletariat is defined, in the first
place, by the circumstances under which they achieved victory. In other
words, it is essential that the level of development of the productive
forces and the corresponding class composition of society be taken into
account.
As a rule, it is joint action of the proletariat and the peasants and
petty bourgeois which result in the achievement of power. However, if in
this union the proletariat does not have decisive supremacy, then the revolution
will not have a socialist character, it will remain bourgeois-democratic.
The authentic victory of the proletariat, the socialist revolution,
always means the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The union of the proletariat with the peasants and other layers of society
can have no other content, for the term of this dictatorship, than the
requirement of the proletariat for the functioning of these layers. This
requirement lasts only for the period in which the wholeness of this complex
of functions remains essential for the existence of society.
The policy of the proletariat in relation to other classes and layers
is entirely dictated by the necessity of stimulating socially necessary
activity in them; it is linked with the organizational forms borrowed from
the capitalists of old, to the extent that this is necessary to secure
the clarity and effectiveness of these stimuli. But simultaneously, the
proletariat and its state must nurture those stimuli contradicting the
obsolete forms; thus smashing them and directing the development of all
layers into socialist channels.
Here the complete expropriation of the exploiters has a decisive significance;
it destroys the psychological dependency of the individual's social position
on capital, on his private property. But, having been once carried through
to completion, the process of expropriation must not cease. Commodity-money
relations inevitably give rise to a tendency to enrichment; and this means
that the struggle against these tendencies, in all their modes of existence,
is unavoidable. One of the most important tasks is the inculcation of the
idea that personal wealth, however it is constituted, does not guarantee
the consolidation of social position, but on the contrary, its instability.
This objective, naturally, contradicts the construction of socialist society's
most important relations on a purely bourgeois basis. For in retaining
bourgeois relation, socialist society has no intention of increasing their
stability; just as capitalism itself gives no guarantee against destruction
or capitalist competition and so forth. At the same time, the retention
of bourgeois relations demands of socialist society the drawing-up of the
plan of attack against them.
These are the most complicated questions of the internal policy of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. The movement of the whole of socialist
society toward communism depends, to a very significant extent, on the
correctness of their resolution at each historical step. And, in the first
place, this is linked to the construction of relations with such classes
as the peasants and such strata as the intelligentsia.
But before we can examine the question of the peasantry, it is absolutely
essential to investigate relations between the proletariat and the intelligentsia.
What distinguishes the intelligentsia, working for hire, from the hired
worker?
The economic essence of the distinction, we have already established;
the intelligentsia does not sell labour power, it sells its monopoly of
knowledge. But the boundary between physical and mental labour has long
since lost its previous precision. How then are we to separate the activities
of workers from those of the intelligentsia in practice.
Let us take the more precise category, reproductive labour.
Reproductive labour is the creation, with the help of well-known means
of production and techniques, of things which, for all practical purposes,
are identical with similar things produced in the past.
Reproductive labour can be simple or complex; more complex labour demands
higher qualifications and more developed skills. It is precisely the reproductive
labour which constitutes the value of any given thing. That is,
the value of any commodity is the minimum social necessary labour required
for its reproduction with the contemporary methods and at the contemporary
level of development of the productive forces.
Practically everything which humanity consumes in the material realm
is the result of such reproductive labour. Thus reproductive labour possesses
a decisive significance for the existence and reproduction of humanity.
Creative, as opposed to reproductive, labour appears in the form
of a wide variety of activities, which, however, are not connected with
the immediate reproduction of things. In this sense, creativity
appears in the mastery of the skills of reproductive labour, in organizational
activity and in the creation of new technology; it is simply the social
significance of these that is different.
Those who live on payment for creative labour, including a definite
category of people performing physical labour, among them workers, but
who are evaluated and rewarded based on their capabilities for discovering
unique technological solutions, are not proletarians. From among them the
intelligentsia is formed and this is a particular social stratum.
Reproductive labour is the curse of mankind. Day and night humanity
brings its influence to bear on the planet. Its labour has one single object;
it destroys one thing, creates another and in so doing changes the conditions
of its own existence, all to secure the resources for the satisfaction
of its needs.
Reproductive labour, the reproduction of the articles of consumption,
creates our food, clothing, housing, heat and light and those material
forms, through whose mediation, we satisfy our spiritual needs; reproductive
labour reproduces the machines which are needed to create articles for
consumption, and also such machines as are needed to reproduce the former.
Reproductive labour changes the world, inside and out. With the value created
by this labour, there is a change in value of the planet as source of livelihood
for all humanity, taking account of both consuming and producing subjects;
in the not too distant future, precisely this will become the basis of
humanity's political economy.
Reproductive labour is the source of the existence of humanity, the
basis of the life of the mind on earth.
Mankind does not simply want to exist, but wishes to live ever better
and better, and for this purpose was given intellect and consciousness,
that vast, ideal force, capable of purposeful, coordinated mobilization
of all physical forces. And driven by history, moving from stage to stage,
humanity conducts its internal struggle to make the most intelligent
use of its physical forces.
Creative labour, ever more organized and enriched by experience, is
ever more active in influencing reproductive labour and so lightens and
perfects it. It is also true that significant creative effort is directed
to the opposite, the struggle for and defense of private (whether individual,
group or class) interests, thus atomizing and negating itself in petty
struggle. Liberating all this tremendous creative energy from internecine
struggle, and putting it to work for the benefit of society, is in the
interests of mankind. But this cannot be achieved by means of utopian "reasoned
agreement," it must be achieved by smashing all private interests, which
is possible only by the complete subordination of creative labour to the
tasks of reproductive labour, that is as a consequence of proletarian dictatorship.
And here the point, of course, is not that all creative activity be subordinated
to the applied aim of lightening reproductive labour, but rather that this
aim, in the most general way, defines the highest humanistic content of
all creativity.
The task for all humanity is to get the most complete agreement of its
intellect with its powers; this defines the relations between the proletariat
and the intelligentsia, the character of the development of their relations.
The intelligentsia as the concentrated social intellect, has existed
from time immemorial. The social essence of humanity, that which separates
it from the animal, lies in intellect and consciousness; thus it is unsurprising
that the abilities of some people to generalize facts and to think abstractly
distinguishes these people from the general mass, and defines their particular
position in society. This particular position has not always been and will
not always be the position of superiors in relation to the rest; it simply
distinguishes them from the rest in the aggregate of their relations with
society.
A great period in the life of human society, including several social
formations, can be characterised by the fact that the members of society
found their social position to be completely dependent on their economic
position. For almost the entire duration of this period, intellect, the
ability to think abstractly, played a secondary role, and it was only at
the last stage, under capitalist socio-economic formations, that its situation
changed essentially. And, what is more, this was not a direct recognition
of the social significance of intellect, it signified only that intellect
had matured into an active influence on economic position, and capitalism
was quick to notice this, taking intellect into its service. The intelligentsia
became an important factor in the capitalist competitive struggle and indeed
an object of such struggle.
The economic recognition of capitalism, the growing competition for
the purchase of intellect and the revelation of its secrets, grew into
social recognition, recognition through economic position. But this
secondary status always tortures the intelligentsia, for they would prefer
a society where intellect would be recognized for its own sake, where it
would be considered as social property. But in so far as the majority of
the intelligentsia is unable to accommodate to this separation of social
from economic recognition, they are thrown into a wilderness of utopian
fantasy, believing themselves to have mastery of both mind and matter.
The fact that humanities best minds succeeded in breaking free of such
eclecticism and directly comprehended the connection between this contradiction
and the basic contradiction of capitalist society, finally recognizing
both their place within society, and the fact that this situation must
lead to the transformation of the class position of the proletariat, does
not resolve the question for the whole intelligentsia. There is
no solidarity of the intelligentsia in its pursuit of recognition.
The struggle of the proletariat and its social activism always attracts
a fraction of the intelligentsia to its side.
Some immediately regard the power of the proletariat as a means for
the achievement of their own ends. These are the liberals who flirt with
the proletariat.
Others arrive in the proletarian ranks as equals among equals. But later
this becomes, 'We are the more educated among equals, to us falls the responsibility
of defining the aims and choosing the paths.' From these arise endless
opportunists who lead the proletariat for their own ends.
Some choose to serve the proletariat unconditionally. To help the proletariat
become conscious of its own aims, to light with the torch of theory the
proletariat's path forward in order that it will not be mistaken in its
choice of the proletarian path; these are the tasks they set themselves.
With this last group the proletariat can march to victory.
And afterwards? Having established its hegemony, the victorious proletariat
requires the activity of the entire intelligentsia. But this will be impossible
without casualties. The flames of revolution inflame hegemonist strivings
in a part of the intelligentsia and incite them to corresponding activity.
This fraction must become the object of proletarian terror. And clearly,
the remaining fraction will have no intentions of working for the proletariat
for free, just for the sake of it.
The proletariat as a class, as the sole owner of the means of production,
and this means as a capitalist in its relations with other strata, must
also act as a capitalist. It must hire as many of the intelligentsia as
are necessary, and under conditions, as far as is possible, no worse than
those offered by the bourgeoisie.
It can also hire some fraction of the bourgeoisie, maintaining an appearance
of capitalist profit in determining their pay. The proletariat must rationally
organize all the creative resources of society.
As dictator, the proletariat must decisively refuse political recognition
to all members of the intelligentsia hired under bourgeois conditions.
Taking upon itself the defence of the right of individuals in their individual
relations with non-proletarian strata, the proletariat must leave these
strata, in their relations with the proletarian state, no more than the
appearance of whatever their rights might have been.
All of this flows naturally from the interests of the proletariat. All
of it arises naturally from the indefinite, unstable situation of the intelligentsia.
The more distinctly the hollow victories of the intelligentsia in the proletarian
revolution are revealed, the more precisely and definitely they are pointed
out, the more the groundlessness of utopian hopes will be clarified to
the intelligentsia.
That the contradictions in the minds of the intelligentsia are expressions
of the contradictions of capitalism must be revealed under socialism with
the utmost clarity, and must compel the intelligentsia to sharply rethink
its place in society. These contradictions must push the intelligentsia
into motion, must nudge it forward. But toward what?
Creative labour is a need for all human beings. Each regularly turns
to creative activity. And when the results of this creativity acquire a
social significance, this need becomes still more imperative, for in uniting
it is weighted with a heightening of personal social significance.
Reproductive labour is essential. It realizes itself as a social necessity
and it occurs only with the realization of each individual participant
of his inseparability from society. The intelligentsia must also realize
this, but this can only come about through the feeling that the social
position of the working class is higher than its own and that the difference
cannot be compensated for by the receipt of material goods.
It is impossible to accelerate this process through economic pressure,
although the proletarian authorities always have this possibility available.
The proletariat, under all conditions, remains an open class, and this,
its merit, conceals definite dangers.
Exerting pressure on the intelligentsia, the proletariat can compel
them to join its own ranks; and thus be left without an intelligentsia,
like a blind man without a guide. This is why it is necessary to speak
to the intelligentsia in the language of bourgeois privilege. Yet the proletariat
can not maintain such a situation for ever. What must it counterpose to
it?
The proletariat must promote its own intelligentsia. The point
here is certainly not that this must be an intelligentsia of proletarian
origin, but rather that this intelligentsia must provide society with its
labour free of charge, without any economic stimulus; satisfying itself
only with social recognition and such goods as it receives from its own
reproductive labour. If this cannot be a lifelong commitment, then let
it be for a definite period, after which this intelligentsia may, if it
wishes, take up the position of the bourgeois intelligentsia, losing its
social privileges and gaining economic ones. But let it carry with it a
nostalgia for the respect of its class brothers.
And then the rising effectiveness of production, leading to the lowering
of norms for reproductive labour, together with the growth of the material
well-being of the proletariat will complete these beginnings and the new
intelligentsia will, in general, not wish to break its links with the proletariat,
with reproductive labour. The intelligentsia will then cease to exist as
a social group, intellect will fully become a property of the proletariat
and creative labour will be done according to ability. It stands to reason
that this can occur no sooner than the supply of such labour exceeds the
demand of proletarian society for it.
Now that the tendency in the development of relations between the proletariat
and the intelligentsia has been depicted with sufficient clarity, it is
easier to present the movement in relations with the peasantry.
It is only from the outside that the work of the peasantry appears to
have a reproductive content. Of course, ploughing, sowing, weeding, harvesting
crops, bringing in fertilizer and watering; is labour of a purely reproductive
character. But all this must be done at an appropriate time and to an appropriate
extent. And the time and extent must be determined depending on fluctuations
in the meteorological conditions, and this is a purely creative labour.
Agriculture concerns itself with living nature, and must always, creatively,
track its demands and comply with them. It is much harder to separate creative
from reproductive labour in this case than it is for industrial production.
Yet there is no other way. Here too, creative work must be separated
from reproductive work, for only in separation can it acquire the social
breadth which is essential to the new society.
The development of agronomy and zootechnics, with the maximal industrialization
of agriculture, leading to the most complete liberation from the necessity
of individual creativity and the sharpest separation of the agricultural
intelligentsia from the agricultural proletariat, this is the direction
in which proletarian efforts must lead. And, although it is obvious that
the separation of creative labour and its return to the proletariat will
be most sharply expressed here, in comparison with industry, yet without
this all management
will be impossible.
The clear-cut separation of the agricultural proletariat from the intelligentsia
and its merging with the industrial proletariat may also suggest new forms
of reproductive labour, taking into consideration the non-seasonal work
of industry and the seasonal character of agriculture. But independent
of this, the industrialization of agriculture remains one of the most important
tasks of the industrial proletariat, of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
because without this the economic limitations cannot be overcome, the general
level of effectiveness of production which can completely resolve the economic
problems of society will not be achieved. This is why the technical and
economic tasks of the proletariat in relations with the countryside converge
with its fundamental direction. Here it is particularly important that,
though the technical course of industrialization, of course, has enormous
importance, it must not push the political tasks into the background. Without
serious attention to the political tasks, even in the search for technical
solutions, the ancient traditions will not be overcome, and this means
that the divisions between town and country can not be eliminated. The
town must bring to agriculture, with all possible precision, its industrial
thinking, only thus liberating the natural attraction of humanity to the
land from feudal and bourgeois stratifications.
Are the tasks of the proletariat, in relation to the peasantry and the
intelligentsia, continuations of the class struggle carried over from capitalist
society?
Yes, but it is not here that we ought to search for the focal point.
The proletariat carries the quintessence of its struggle with the bourgeoisie
through the boundary of the socialist revolution. This basic contradiction
ought to be seen from the following perspective; on the one hand, the collective,
collectivist strivings of the proletariat, and on the other, the extreme
individualism embodied by the bourgeoisie in the economic privileges of
private property and the establishment of a direct dependency of social
position on economic position. Yet capitalist society produces individualistic
strivings for social privilege not only in the bourgeoisie, but in all
strata and classes of society. And the proletariat, having liquidated the
bourgeoisie as a class, and private property as the foundation of economic
privilege, which serves as the basis for the acquisition of many social
privileges, cannot completely eliminate all striving for individual privileges;
for all society, even without the bourgeoisie, including the proletarian
masses themselves is permeated through and through with such strivings.
The fundamental contradiction of socialism becomes the contradiction
between the individual and society. The essence of the contradiction is
that the individual, in opposition to the interests of society, strives
for the conquest of some individual privilege, strives to receive from
society more than he himself has given. But then the backward, moribund
side of the contradiction arises from the individual, from each member
of society, whereas the advanced side comes from society and is bound up
with the collective, proletarian class interests. Yet neither side can
be annihilated in the struggle, for this would mean social suicide.
Moreover, society, the proletariat, cannot solve its economic problems
without stimulating the activity of members through the provision of definite
privileges. This supports the individual struggle for privileges and does
not allow them to die away. Society must provide the greatest privileges
where the most important problems of the concrete historical stage are
to be decided. Supplying privileges permits the effective solution of problems,
but, simultaneously, society seeks other collective solutions to such problems
and finds them. Thus the foundation is laid for the negation of previous
privileges.
In the course of social development, the dictates of this development
produce a concentration of privileges in definite strata. And when society
discovers alternative solutions to these problems, it inevitably comes
out in favour of the liquidation of previous privileges. This is when new
flash-points for social struggle flare up, where the side defending its
privileges is in fact defending nothing other than its bourgeois right
to these privileges, i.e. comes forward as the successor in the bourgeois
cause in this continuation of the class battle.
The rise of such aggravations of the class struggle is inevitable on
all paths from capitalism to communism, and, in overcoming the resistance
of the privileged strata, there must be an uninterrupted revolution which
alone can lead to the development of communist consciousness. Naturally,
it is only the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of an
open class, which provides privileges equally to all (or, which comes to
the same thing, the absence of all privilege) which can guarantee that
it will consistently reveal all obstacles along the path of social development,
uncompromisingly struggle against them in all areas and so bring about
victory in the struggle.
_______________________
History taught us to struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat
and to achieve it. History also teaches us to extract lessons from defeat.
Where the capitalists can not cope with the armed power of the proletariat,
they conceal themselves, and trying to sprout again, cling to the smallest
privileges. They deceive and make fools of the workers, trying to regain
everything they have lost. The proletariat must not hope that such people
and forces can save them from the rebirth of capitalism. Only its own vigilance
can serve as a guarantee. The proletariat must not put its faith in its
own best representatives, for, divided from the class, they begin to act
in accordance with their own individual powers. The proletariat must not
trust even the party it gave birth to when it holds power; power is such
a privilege that only the proletariat itself will not be corrupted and
bourgeoisified by it. Only the continuous readiness of the whole class,
acting in defence of its rights and privileges, if necessary with arms
in hand, only continuous class control over all social processes, only
eternal enthusiasm and initiative of the proletarian organizations can
provide hegemony for the proletariat. This is why, while not withdrawing
the appeal for the unity of the proletarians of all countries, we proclaim
that the key slogan of our time is:
"HAIL THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT!"
|
