Communist Ideology, Communist Party & The Role of the Working Class (1)
Every ideology is an ideology of some particular class and communist ideology is the ideology of the working class, the communist party is actually the party of the working class-all these statements are not only familiar to us, every communist acknowledges these statements as incontrovertible truth.
However the viewpoints of various communist revolutionary groups, expressed through their documents and/or their activities, on the concrete meanings or significances of these statements vary widely. For CPI (Maoist) and quite a few similar organizations the acceptance of communist ideology by itself implies the acceptance of working class ideology and any party just by the very acceptance of communist ideology as its ideology becomes a working class party. For them the actual or physical role of working class does not carry any particular importance regarding the acceptance of working class ideology or the process of developing into a working class party. Working class is just one of the exploited, oppressed classes for them. At the most, the importance of the working class lies in the fact that the working class is more organized than other classes and being attached to the main spheres of production their striking power is maximum. If the working class does not have any particular importance then why is the communist ideology called working class ideology? Why a communist party is called a working class party? If working class leadership only signifies communist leadership then why it is not sufficient to call it just as leadership would have been sufficient, where lays the necessity of calling it working class leadership? They do not try to find proper answers to these questions and naturally all their activities bear the imprint of a lack of correct understanding of the actual or physical role of the working class.
Even, the communist revolutionary groups which recognise the necessity of the real role of the working class, do they as well have a proper understanding of the role of the working class? Compared to the organizations mentioned earlier they are somewhat different because of which they put more importance on the work among the working class. But the importance of the working class for them exists only up to that extent. Neither do they look upon class interest, the interest of the working class as a yardstick to examine the political position to be adopted nor do they believe that the emancipation of working class can be brought and will be brought about by the working class itself. Also this thinking is strong among them that the workers cannot do anything by itself, the workers are unable to do anything without the guidance of the communists, the task of the communists is to groom the workers from immaturity into adulthood. As a result of such thinking the workers are seen as followers only. In spite of talking about working class leadership there is nothing for the communist to be learnt from the workers or their struggles. No conscious role is adopted so that the workers can be brought up to the position of leaders, so that the workers themselves can become controllers of their own organization.
Why are we suddenly raising this topic? One reason of course is the fact that the question of correctly examining the subject of working class leadership is linked with the right and left deviation of the communist revolutionary camp. Probably it would be more correct to say that it is the main source of their right and left deviations. Apart from that, there is another aspect which is gradually becoming more and more important in the present situation.
After the disintegration of CPI (ML) party in the early years of 1970s, forty years have elapsed but the communist revolutionary groups have not been able to form a true revolutionary communist party. During this period, despite the efforts of the communist revolutionary groups to unite and form a single party, they could not achieve it. Not only that, they could not even generate a strong motion in that direction. Even though some partial unities were realized the majority of them disintegrated later. No communist revolutionary activist can deny that the communist revolutionary organizations are continually wasting away their strength by remaining confined within an unending cycle of mergers and splits.
The reasons behind this failure of the communist revolutionary groups are their sectarianism, lack of firmness to stick to the working class position, and as a result increasing dominance of right and left deviations, considering group interests to be more important than class interest etc, but other than these there is an objective reason. That reason is, the upswing of the international communist movement that had started from mid-nineteenth century and reached up to capture of power by the working class in Russia and China and throughout the world the international working class struggle or in other words the international socialist movement had acquired great strength, has faced defeat in a big way internationally after the defeat of that struggle in Russia and China. The true communist parties have become fragmented resulting in numerous miniature groups detached from the working class and the toiling masses. Side by side there exists a long-drawn period of hopelessness and inactivity in the working class struggle and the dominance of degenerated so-called communist parties - the opportunist and reformist communist parties and the reactionary parties on them. In the last analysis, the most important fact is that the communists have been unable to build a party that can guide the working class and toiling masses along the correct road and lead their struggles. But history cannot remain stuck because of the failure of the communists and in reality it is not remaining stalled. Unless we want to turn a blind eye from the reality we can not remain indifferent to the truth that after passing through a long period of passivity and hopelessness the working class has started gradually to come out in resistance of the ruling class attacks. Such incidents are not only occurring in India, throughout the world this change in the struggle of working class and toiling masses is being observed. In fact this change is more clearly perceptible in the countries of America and Europe compared to India. How should we, communist, view this change in working class struggle? If we do not think about this change in situation merely in a narrow way as just being a favourable opportunity to increase the strength of the respective groups and support bases among the masses, then one task evolves from this situation which is being put forward by many. That is, the demand of this change in situation is, the communist groups should unify and form a communist party because failing in that the efforts of working class and masses struggles will move around within bourgeois limits and get wasted away. Is this thought fully incorrect? Of course, not. But such a thought brings forward only one aspect of the relationship between the working class and the communists. That is, the advanced or leading role of the communists in organizing, imparting consciousness and giving direction to the working class and the toiling masses. Is the role of communists in relation to the working class so one-sided? Is it impossible for the working class to develop class struggle without the leadership of the communists? Can not the consciousness be awakened among the working class in any form without the help of the communists?
Can not we view this process of awakening of the working class in a different way? We must remember that this process of awakening within the working class is occurring without any role of the communists? Through this the working class is in some way summing up the experiences of betrayal of the past. They are compelled to do this because without doing so it is not possible for them to separate from the old parties and build up their struggles. But in the process of doing so they are unconsciously or in a semi-conscious way breaking away to some extent from the old, reformist, revisionist parties also. The process of awakening within the working class is not important just because of the fact that because of this a favourable atmosphere for work of communists is emerging. But it is important because of the reason that through this an unconscious motion of the class to demolish the old society with the aims of building a new society is being expressed. Because of this, these struggles of the workers is becoming important in the context of reawakening of the communist movement, and the process of building a revolutionary party of the working class, a true communist party. It will not be wrong to say that without a change in situation of working class struggle we do not see the possibility of formation of a communist party based on the efforts of the communist revolutionary groups only.
In viewing the possibility of awakening of the working class through the struggle of the working class two factors are acting as hindrances within the communist groups. One, even though the awakening process within the working class has started it is still at quite a starting phase. Consequently it is not easy to identify it. Apart from that it is pointless to discuss how we should view the existing struggles, without concretising today's tasks by concrete analysis of the concrete situation, which is the soul of Marxism. Secondly, probably the more important hindrance is, long-standing dominance of the thought among communists that, without communists it is not possible for the working class to develop class struggle on their own strength, not possible to develop consciousness in any form, the dominance of the thought that the workers by themselves cannot do anything other than economic struggle, the dominance of the thought that working class cannot learn by itself, the dominance of the thought, that even if they learn anything by themselves at the utmost it can be some lessons regarding the trade union movement within the boundaries of bourgeois ideology.
In the present article we shall discuss about this second part-in short, on the theoretical aspect of the actual or physical role of the working class. On this question are we also in a total, fully-correct position? No, we are not claiming that. We only expect that the communists who claim themselves to be working class representatives, will reconsider their viewpoint and their role in relation to working class and through this churning we all will be able to reach an improved position.
REVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF THE WORKING CLASS
In the Communist Manifesto it was stated "Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. 1" (bold letters ours)
Why is the proletariat a revolutionary class? Why are they the only revolutionary class among the classes facing the bourgeois? Is it because they are centralized and as a result can get organized naturally and due to their attachment with the main spheres of production they have the maximum power to strike? Even if these are reasons they are secondary reasons, not the main reason. Marx explained why the working class is a revolutionary class that in their book "the Holy Family", written jointly with Engels, the part about which Lenin said "setting out in very clear relief Marx's view-already almost fully developed-concerning the revolutionary role of the proletariat. 2" What did Marx say in that part? Marx's quotation is lengthy so let us quote the main parts from it. Marx said,
"Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the contradiction, self-satisfied private property.
"The proletariat, on the other hand, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, the condition for its existence, that which makes it the proletariat, i.e. private property. That is the negative side of the contradiction, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property. 3"(italics in original, bold ours).
In this section Marx explained the main contradiction in capitalist society and while doing that what he said is extremely important - the proletariat is compelled to abolish itself and the private property 3". Marx also explained that, this does not depend on anybody's wish and this has emanated from the objective and unconscious motion of society, Marx said "In any case, in its economic movement private property drives towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, of which it is unconscious and which takes place against its will, through the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, misery conscious of its spiritual and physical misery, dehumnaisation conscious of its dehumanisation and therefore self-abolishing. 3" The statement after this is very important "When socialist writers ascribe this historic role to the proletariat, it is not, ?.., because they consider the proletarians as gods ? the proletariat can and must free itelf. But it cannot free itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment considers as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do 3" [Italics in original, bold- ours].
Apart from this in Communist Manifesto Marx-Engels said "All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. 4"
Just after, this in Communist Manifesto Marx Engels stated something more which is also very important. Marx-Engels stated "All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. 5"
The points that come out from these statements of Marx and Engels are"
i) In the context of capitalism proletariat is the only revolutionary class. The other middle classes gradually become extinct. The proletariat is revolutionary because of its class position in the relations of production and conditions of life. For emancipation from exploitation imposed on them like all exploited classes the proletariat also struggle for abolition of exploitation. But the other exploited classes struggle only to abolish the system of exploitation imposed on them, to abolish a specific right to property, not to abolish all kinds of private property. Because without abolishing private property the proletariat cannot abolish the exploitation carried on them, hence by abolishing the exploitative system carried on them, the proletariat emancipates society from all kinds of exploitative system.
ii) The proletariat is compelled to carry on this struggle because of its position and conditions of life. The objective, unconscious motion of society pushes and prods along the proletariat towards elimination of private property. This does not depend on the wish of the proletariat, it is its historic task, which it is compelled to carry on because of its class position.
iii) Other than the proletariat the struggles of all other majority exploited classes have in effect strengthened the minority classes, who have drawn the society into subjection under their conditions of appropriation. The struggle of the proletariat is an independent and self-conscious struggle of the proletariat. It means with the proletariat carries on its struggle remaining conscious of the aims and it does so independently without coming under the domination or leadership of any other class. Because of this Marx and Engels held this view from the starting and struggled firmly for it that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,"
Probably it will not be irrelevant to add here that although it has been stated that the proletariat is the only revolutionary class with respect to the bourgeoisie, Marx and Engels also said about the possibility of the lower middle class possessing a revolutionary role. But that role they possess due to the apprehension of getting transformed into proletariat. In their words, "they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, 6". In his Critique of The Gotha Programme Marx made it more clear, "But the Manifesto adds that the "lower middle class" is becoming revolutionary "in view of [its] impending transfer to the proletariat". 7"
Secondly, we know that in a society where the democratic revolution has not yet been completed, with respect to feudalism the peasantry has a revolutionary role and in the era of imperialism, although the bourgeoisie is unable to give leadership and in spite of adopting a compromising role with feudalism and imperialism, certain sections of the bourgeoisie may have a revolutionary role. But because of their class position they also have a compromising character. The working class is only revolutionary in the ultimate sense. Only they can eliminate all kinds of exploitative system and lead the society towards a classless, communist society. Not only that, in the era of imperialism, even though there exists other revolutionary classes in respect of the democratic revolution, only the working class is able to lead the other classes to complete the democratic revolution.
SOCIALIST CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS FROM WITHOUT
The struggle of the proletariat for emancipation from exploitation is its self conscious struggle. But that consciousness which we can call socialist consciousness has to be acquired. How does working class acquire this consciousness? In this matter a prevalent idea is, this consciousness has to be taken into the working class from outside the working class. Who carries out this task of bringing consciousness to the working class? Those, who talk ofbringing consciousness within the working class from without, want to say that only the revolutionary intellectuals, coming from the bourgeois stratum, can carry this conscious into the working class. As instances they also cite that Marx, Engels, Lenin were all intellectuals from the bourgeois stratum.
Where does consciousness come from? We know that this is a fundamental question of philosophy. In Engels' words "The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being.7". On this question, there evolved two big camps of philosophy. The main proposition of all kinds of idealist philosophy is among the two, consciousness is primary. Matter arises from consciousness. On the other hand, the main content of materialism is, matter does not emanate from consciousness, matter is primary and consciousness emanates from matter. Dialectical materialism states that matter cannot exist without motion and the development of any form of matter occurs due to its inherent contradiction.
By applying dialectical materialism to history the materialist interpretation of history has been built which is recognised as one of the major contributions of Marx. According to materialist interpretation of history the politics of any society, its intellectual history or for that matter the politics, philosophy, ethics etc, of that society, in short the ideology of that society is determined by the mode of economic production and distribution and the social organization grown on the basis of it. In one introduction of The Communist Manifesto this was clarified exceedingly well by Engels "The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which it is built up, and from that which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch 9". Quite naturally bourgeois ideology has been formed on the basis of the bourgeois of production and bourgeois society. Bourgeois production relation unceasingly nourishes bourgeois ideology.
The question is from which object has socialist or communist ideology been formed? If we remember the interrelation between matter and consciousness then we have to admit that socialist ideology cannot come from the consciousness of a few intellectuals. On the other hand, we also know that socialist production relations are not created spontaneously within bourgeois society. Even though some elements of it are created within capitalist mode of production, the organization of the socialist mode of production starts after capture of power by the working class, in the period of working class dictatorship. But socialist ideology has been formed and developed within bourgeois society itself. In such a case there can be only one explanation, that is socialist ideology has been created from the anti-theses of private property that is from the midst of working class. In the German ideology a very important work of aof Marx and Engels, in which they first elaborated their opinion about the materialist interpretation of history they said "In the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being, which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money); and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class.10" (Bold letters ours). In the last part of the quotation it has been clearly stated that communist consciousness emanates from the working class. Stating this Marx has added that communist consciousness may emanate from other classes also but that may happen only when they bring into their thought the conditions of working class. Quite naturally by speaking about persons from other classes, such persons from the bourgeois class have been meant.
It is undeniably true that "German Ideology" is one of the earlier creations of Marx and Engels. But in spite of that, there is no doubt about the fact that by communist consciousness Marx meant the consciousness of organizing a classless society through establishment of social ownership after eliminating private property.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALIST IDEAS
But the theory of socialism has come in the consciousness of educated intellectuals from the bourgeois stratum, isn't it? Marx and Engels, the founders of scientific socialism, were by their social backgrounds bourgeois intellectuals? Isn't this natural, as the theory of socialism that originated on the basis of the profound knowledge of philosophy, history and economics that could have been made possible only by the intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum?
There is no question of denying the role of intellectuals coming from bourgeois stratum regarding the origin and development of theory of socialism. Denying that means disregarding history. But at the same time saying that socialist theory has only been invented in the consciousness of the intelligentsia is denying the role of working class in the genesis and development of theory of socialism, whish also means denial, in this regard, of the lessons of history.
When the Manifesto of The Communist party was written there was a significant reason for Marx and Engels on naming it Communist Manifesto instead of Socialist Manifesto. Explaining the reason behind it in the preface to the German Edition Engels in 1888 wrote, "Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. In 1847, two kinds of people were considered socialists. On the one hand were the adherents of the various utopian systems, notably the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France, both of whom, at that date, had already dwindled to mere sects gradually dying out. On the other, the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least. In both cases, people who stood outside the labor movement and who looked for support rather to the "educated" classes. The section of the working class, however, which demanded a radical reconstruction of society, convinced that mere political revolutions were not enough, then called itself Communist. It was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive and frequently somewhat crude communism. Yet, it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems of utopian communism - in France, the "Icarian" communists of Cabet, and in Germany that of Weitling. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, quite respectable, whereas communism was the very opposite. And since we were very decidedly of the opinion as early as then that "the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the working class itself," we could have no hesitation as to which of the two names we should choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to repudiate it. 11" (italics in original, bold ours). We would like to bring to notice the fact that Engels said this in 1890, after the demise of Marx, and also at the fag-end of his life.
Quite a few points arise from this discussion of Engels. Firstly, in the pre-Marxian period there was not only a stream of socialism of the bourgeois intelligentsia, there was also in existence a separate stream of thought of communism arisen from the midst of the working class. A trend not created by the bourgeois intelligentsia. Secondly, the trend of communism arising from the working class was sufficiently powerful. And thirdly, among these two trends the communist trend arising from the working class was more important to Marx and Engels because through this trend the independent efforts of the working class, with the emancipation of the working class as its aims, were expressed.
How powerful was this trend of Utopian Communism within erstwhile working class? Among the words that have been repeated many times later from the Communist Manifesto the most important is the very first sentence of the Manifesto-" A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism12" .It does not need any explanation that by communism it could not have meant Communism as understood after the advent of Marxism. Keeping in mind the earlier question of Engels, it is not difficult to understand that by this "communism" the trend of utopian communism arising then from the working class has been meant. The spectre of communism is haunting Europe - aren't these words of Manifesto amply self clarifying that how powerful was this trend? From the description of Engels we see "And yet there are more than half a million of Communists in France, not taking into account the Fourierists, and other less radical Social reformers; there are Communist associations in every part of Switzerland, sending forth missionaries to Italy, Germany, and even Hungary; and German philosophy, after a long and troublesome circuit, has at last settled upon Communism.13".
What is the cause of growth of this trend of communism within the working class? We get an explanation from just the previous writing of Engels "We have seen how Babeuf's Communism arose out of the democracy of the first revolution. The second revolution, of 1830, gave rise to another and more powerful Communism. The "great week" of 1830 [That is, from July 27 to August 20, the peak of the July revolution] was accomplished by the union of the middle and working classes, the liberals and the republicans. After the work was done, the working classes were dismissed, and the fruits of the revolution were taken possession of by the middle classes only. The working men got up several insurrections, for the abolition of political monopoly, and the establishment of a republic, but were always defeated; the middle class having not only the army on their side, but forming themselves the national guard besides. During this time (1834 or 1835) a new doctrine sprang up among the republican working men. They saw that even after having succeeded in their democratic plans, they would continue [to be] the dupes of their more gifted and better educated leaders, and that their social condition, the cause of their political discontent, would not be bettered by any political change whatsoever. They referred to the history of the great revolution, and eagerly seized upon Babeuf's Communism. This is all that can, with safety, be asserted concerning the origin of modern Communism in France;"14. Slightly after this Engels said "the great bulk of the French working classes adopted, very soon, the tenets propounded by M. Cabet, "P?re Cabet" (Father C.), as he is called, and which are known on the continent under the name of Icarian Communism.15".
What is noticeable from this description of development of communist ideas within the working class is how through its participation in the bourgeois revolutions occurring then and taking lessons through them of the experiences of bourgeois betrayals the working class have been reaching up to the ideas of communism. Engels has talked about that in the above excerpt. Later in Communist Manifesto also Marx and Engels have explained this process to be the general process of embracing political education. Discussing about how the proletariat gets educated politically in the Communist Manifesto it has been said "The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie. 16"[bold letters ours]
From the history of participation of working class in the bourgeois revolutions and the explanations given in this respect by Marx and Engels the lesson that comes to our notice is, behind the origin and spread of communist ideology within the working class the experience of their participation in the bourgeois revolutions has played an important part. In reality, the reason behind the origin of utopian socialism and utopian communism in 19th century was that through the participation in the then bourgeois revolutions, in spite of it being under the leadership of the erstwhile middle class or the bourgeois, the not yet developed predecessors of modern working class, within a short period came to understand through their experience that emancipation from their social condition is not possible through these bourgeois revolutions. This situation gave birth to resentment, even independent struggle among them. The cause of origin of utopian socialism and utopian communism is this social clamor of the lower, toiling masses against injustice and for an end to discrimination. The theories of utopian socialism came on the other from a section of the bourgeoisie who although desiring an end to this injustice did not think that it can come about through the struggle of the lower rung masses of the society. They dreamt of building a socialist society through the efforts of the educated people at the top. The stream of utopian communism grew side by side the struggle of the working class or their predecessors as a conscious or theoretical expression of it. This theoretical expression occurred simultaneously through intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum and even through the intellectuals emerging from the working class, who being attached to those struggles were trying to give a conscious form to the unconscious desires evolving from them. Explaining this general process Engels wrote in the well-known book "Socialism -Utopian and Scientific - "And although, upon the whole, the bourgeoisie, in their struggle with the nobility, could claim to represent at the same time the interests of the different working classes of that period, yet in every great bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class which was the forerunner, more or less developed, of the modern proletariat. For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the Peasant War, Thomas M?nzer; in the great English Revolution, the Levellers , in the great French Revolution, Babeuf. There were theoretical enunciations corresponding with these revolutionary uprisings of a class not yet developed; in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries utopian pictures of ideal social conditions , in the eighteenth, actual communistic theories (Morelly and Mably). The demand for equality was no longer limited to political rights; it was extended also to the social conditions of individuals. It was not simply class privileges that were to be abolished, but class distinctions themselves. A communism, ascetic, Spartan, was the first form of the new teaching.17" The lessons of participation in erstwhile bourgeois revolution not only prodded a large section of the working class towards communism but theoretical leaders also emerged from the working class among which one most notable person was the German worker Weitling. Not only at their young age, even in their mature age, so significant were the efforts of such persons then emerging from the German workers in matters of theoretical inquiries that evidence of it is found in one article of Engels regarding the history of the Communist League written in 1885. In that article Engels wrote "This is not the place to criticize the Communism of Weitling. But as regards its significance as the first independent theoretical stirring of the German proletariat, I still today subscribe to Marx's words in the Paris Vorwarts of 1844: "Where could the (German) bourgeoisie - including its philosophers and learned scribes - point to a work relating to the emancipation of the bourgeoisie - its political emancipation - comparable to Weitlings' Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom? If one compares the drab mealy-mouthed mediocrity of German political literature with this immeasurable and brilliant debut of the German workers, if one compares these gigantic children's shoes of the proletariat with the dwarf proportions of the worn-out political shows of the bourgeoisie, one must prophesy an athlete's figure for this Cinderella.18". This feat of Weitling was not a product of only his individual effort detached from the then workers struggle. Weitling emerged from the then struggle of the French workers for communism. Discussing about that Engels wrote: "A great number of German workmen is thus continually going to and from Paris, and must of course there become acquainted with the political and social movements of the French working classes. One of these men, William Weitling, a native of Magdeburg in Prussia, and a simple journeyman-tailor, resolved to establish communities in his own country.
This man, who is to be considered as the founder of German Communism, after a few years' stay in Paris, went to Switzerland, and, whilst he was working in some tailor's shop in Geneva, preached his new gospel to his fellow-workmen. He formed Communist Associations in all the towns and cities on the Swiss side of the lake of Geneva, most of the Germans who worked there becoming favourable to his views.19"
That theory can be created from among the workers was further proved through Joseph Dietzen, who by his independent efforts arrived at the theory of dialectical materialism. About his work Engels said "And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen.20" Later, in spite of making us aware of limitations of Dietzen's theory Lenin wrote "Such is the importance of Dietzgen-a worker who arrived at dialectical materialism, i.e., Marx's philosophy, independently 21"
COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY - WORKING CLASS IDEOLOGY
Also from this history of development of Communist ideology we find that in the development of the communist ideology there was an important role of working class and working class struggle. Marx and Engels quite clearly talked about this in the Manifesto. They said -
"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism22"
In reality whatever general discussion we have carried out up till now about the inter-relation of matter and consciousness, from that we have to come to the conclusion that the position of working class in capitalist production, its contradiction with private property drives society towards the elimination of private property and establishment of a classless society. Communists give conscious shape to this unconscious motion of the society, provide direction to the working class movement towards communist society, transforming the movement into a movement with communist society as its aim. We can recollect those words of Marx "The working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be."23 This inter-relation between class and its ideologues is not only applicable to working class and its ideological representatives; it is also applicable to other classes. While considering the role of petty bourgeois leadership in class struggle in France during 1848 to 1851, Marx said "What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent."24(italics in original, bold letters ours) It is worth noting here, that Marx here did not just say about the problem but about the solution to the problem as well. As a result, it can be drawn from here that the struggle of the working class unconsciously pushes forward the working class towards that realization or solution the communists as their theoretical representatives consciously identify it and bring it within the working class. In reality communist ideology or socialist ideology is the conscious form of the demands and yearnings of the working class. Communist movement is the conscious manifestation of the objective, unconscious motion of the working class' struggle against capital. Due to this reason communist ideology is working class ideology. Communist ideology is working class ideology because only the working class can establish communism and due to its position in the production relations and the conditions of its life it is most capable of assimilating this ideology.
Secondly, giving a conscious form to this unconscious motion of society is the task of the theoretical representatives of the working class. Who can become the theoretical representatives of the working class? It is not necessary that such theoretical representatives must only be intellectuals from the bourgeois stratum. As they can be theoretical representatives of the working class, similarly, theoreticians can emerge from within the working class also. But whoever become theoretical representatives they do not invent the communist or working class principles in their brains, they only express in a conscious form the unconscious, unexpressed wants that come out of the objective motion of society, of working class struggle. As a result, without getting entrenched within the class and connected inside out with class struggle it is not possible to become a theoretical representative of the working class. Looking from such an angle we can comprehend the significance of those words of Marx in the German Ideology "a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class."25
Quite naturally, communist ideology or socialist ideology in spite of being the conscious form of the objective motion of society, the objective, unconscious, motion of working class struggle does not emerge out of the social movements spontaneously like other ideologies. Even though the process of giving it a conscious form is interrelated with class struggle it is a separate process and for it comprehending the theories related to philosophy, politics, economics existing in society is also of utmost necessity. Because, to ensure proper direction of working class struggle towards communism the motion of the society has to be comprehended in totality and for that it is necessary to understand philosophy, politics and economics in its totality. Consequently, the spontaneous struggles of the working class can express certain wants but can not by themselves give it a conscious form. The significance of bringing in consciousness from outside lays here. That is, consciousness has to be brought from outside of the spontaneous struggles of the working class, and it is done by communists. The working class ideology is taken into the working class from outside of the working class by intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum - stating in this way does it carry any meaning? And even if it was possible then why is it working class ideology?
In reality Marx and Engels launched a bitter struggle against the idea, that, the working class can not struggle for its emancipation without the help of the intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum. In their famous circular letter Marx Engels wrote in 1879, "At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes"26The workers can not proceed by themselves along the path of their emancipation struggle, they can only think of their economic demands by themselves, they have to be made conscious about the historical role of the working class, and that can only be done by educated intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum, aren't these ideas quite strong even among us? On one hand we will go on uttering like an axiom that the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself, while on the other we will go on believing that until the working class is made conscious it is not possible for it to proceed with the struggle for emancipation - isn't this a glaring self-contradiction?
There is no scope for any doubt that in the struggle for emancipation of the working class, the educated intellectuals from the bourgeois stratum have an important role to play. Not only in the past the great teachers including Marx, Engels and Lenin, many other intellectuals from this stratum have enriched the communist movement, and played the role of a leader, a guide, and in future also they will be doing it. The question that arises is not on this role played by the intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum but on ascribing excessive importance on their role. Actually their role has also to be seen in the context of the objective motion of existing society towards communist society expressed through the ongoing class struggle. Which section of the bourgeois intellectuals are attracted towards the communist movement? Those who are able to comprehend the inevitable motion of society, who are able to place confidence on the role of the working class, who are able to notice this truth that the working class is the only force present in society who are capable of proceeding by means of their struggle towards establishment of a classless society. To what extent these intellectuals from the bourgeois stratum will be attracted towards communist ideology and the communist movement that depends to a large extent on the stage of the working class struggle, on its ups and downs. The struggle of Paris Commune in the then Europe attracted a large section of the intellectuals towards the socialist movement. The capture of power by the Russian proletariat, through the Russian revolution, and the phenomenon of establishment of the socialist state through it, attracted the masses of various colonies and semi-colonies oppressed by the imperialist, especially the large section of intellectuals coming from the ranks of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois who were in struggle against imperialism, towards communist ideology. These sections built communist parties in various countries. In Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels stated, "Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."27
Secondly, the intellectuals coming from the bourgeois stratum bring along their knowledge into the working class movement. In the matter of creation of necessary theory for the working class struggle these intellectuals play an important role. But at the same time it must be remembered that through acceptance of communist ideology they do not change their class position and conditions of life. To a large extent they carry with them, influences of their bourgeois and petty bourgeois thought. Hence, it is quite natural that when they join the working class struggle, while they bring into the struggle, knowledge of various branches of science, in the same way they also bring in influences of bourgeois and petty bourgeois thought. In the circular letter mentioned earlier, Marx also said "when people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook.28". (to be continued)
Source:
1. Marx and Engels, Manifesto of The Communist Party , Progress Publihsers, Page 46.2. Lenin, conspectus of The Book, The Holy Family By Marx and Engels, Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 38, Page 20
3. Marx and Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and Company Chapter 4. Internet Edition., source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/index.htm?
4. source 1, page 47
5. ibid, page 47
6. ibid page 46
7. Marx, Critique of The Gotha Programme, Marx Engels Selected Works, completed in three volumes, Progress Publishers Vol 3 Page 20
8. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Marx Engels Selected Works, completed in three volumes, Progress Publishers Vol 3 Page 345
9. Engels, Preface to 1888 English edition of Manifesto Of the Communist Party, Progress Publishers, Page 20
10. Marx and Engels, Feuerbach. Opposition and Materialistic Outlook. Chapter 1 of The German Ideology, Marx Engels Selected Works, completed in three volumes, Progress Publishers Vol 1 Page 40.
11. Engels, Preface to 1890 German edition of Manifesto of the Communist Party, Progress Publishers, Page 28. We get same thing in the preface to the 1888 English edition of Manifesto of the Communist Party, Progress Publishers, Page 20.
12. Marx and Engels, Manifesto of The Communist Party , Progress Publihsers, Page 34.
13. Engels, Progress of Social Reform On the Continent, October-November 1843, MECW Volume 3, p.392 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm
14. ibid
15. ibid
16. Marx and Engels, Manifesto of The Communist Party , Progress Publihsers, Page 46
17. Engels, Anti Duhring, Progress Publishers, Page 27
18. Engels, On The History Of The Communist League, Marx Engels Selected Works, completed in three volumes, Progress Publishers Vol 3 Page 176
19. Source 13
20. Source 8, Page 362
21. Lenin Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Death of Joseph Dietzgen Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 38, Page 20
22. Marx and Engels, Manifesto of The Communist Party , Progress Publihsers, Page 50
23. Marx, Interview to The Chicago Tribune, January 5, 1879. source http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/index.htm)
24. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx Engels Selected Works, completed in three volumes, Progress Publishers Vol 1 Page 424
25. Source 10
26. Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others Marx Engels Selected Letters, Progress Publishers, Page 307
27. Marx and Engels, Manifesto of The Communist Party , Progress Publihsers, Page 50
28. Source 26.
Comments:
No Comments for View