Communist Ideology, Communist Party & The Role of the Working Class (2)
COMMUNIST PARTY AND WORKING CLASS
To advance any movement in a definite direction, always there is a necessity of a leadership who can guide this movement towards its goal by their farsightedness about the motion of that movement and deep understanding about its aims and purpose. Through the progress of class struggle the working class advances towards a society free from exploitation by abolishing private property. But that motion is an unconscious one. Providing that unconscious motion a conscious form is the task of the leadership of the class, the task which is fulfilled by a real communist party. We have seen earlier that communists do not build up any separate struggle. They provide proper direction to the working class struggle and help it reach its proper culmination, its cherished aim. As the communist party does not represent merely the unconscious motion of working class struggle, it represents the conscious expressions of that struggle, the communist party is not a party of the whole working class. It is the advanced class conscious detachment, that section which is conscious about the historical role of that class. As a result, the major part of a communist party is constituted by the class conscious section of the working class. But individuals from other classes can join the communist party. Because of this, in all countries, intellectuals coming from the bourgeois, petty bourgeois stratum and in those countries where the democratic revolution has not yet been completed, a section of the peasantry, apart from the rural proletariat, and semi proletariat, also joins the communist party, of course, who consider the interests of the working class as their own interest.
Because the working class exists in this society itself, in various ways they are influenced by the bourgeois ideology. A large section of the working class comes from the petty-bourgeois stratum who bring along with themselves influences of bourgeois thought within the working class. Moreover, as bourgeois ideology is the dominant ideology in capitalist society it continually asserts its influence on the working class. Over and above this, after the success of Marxism the bourgeoisie continually make conscious efforts to bring the working class under the influence of its ideology. The influence of bourgeois ideology on the working class manifests politically in the form of opportunism, reformism and revisionism. Liberating the working class from these influences and leading them in the direction of communism is not possible without a true communist party. (Incidentally, we can see the confusion inherent in the thought of bringing in consciousness from outside of the working class. It is beyond doubt that the influences of the bourgeois ideology on the working class comes from outside, and it is brought by the bourgeois ideologists. It is brought by the bourgeois ideologist. However, those who are insistig that consciousness has to be brought into the wiorking class from outside the working class, are saying that socialist ideology also had to taken in from outside the working class, by revolutionary intellectuals coming from bourgeois stratum.where does it take us? It implies that both the ideologies come from two sections of the bourgeoisie, as if the working class is just like a lump of clay out of which one can make whatever one wishes. Moreover, looking at it in such way, it transpires, ideology does not come from production relations, from class relations, consciousness does not come from matter).
The existence of these ideologies and their struggle within the society also exert its influences within the communist party also.The bourgeois ideology exerts its influence on the working class itself, similarly or even more than this, the intellectuals that join the party from the bourgeois stratum, bring along with them influences of bourgeois thought, besides communist consciousness . The question is, who can struggle and in what way to liberate the party from influences of bourgeois ideology and politics? Can this struggle be carried out only by means of the consciousness acquired from communist theory? If that is the case then of course the role of the intellectuals is paramount. Because it is only possible for them to comprehend abstract theory in the best way. Or is it true that in this struggle an important role is played by the workers, by their class instinct, which they acquire from their position in the production relation and socially from the conditions of their life. The class instinct that becomes sharpened through attainment of class consciousness and experiences of struggles, and plays an important role to keep the party firmly on its class position.
LENIN ON THE INTERRELATION OF THE ROLES OF THE WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN THE PARTY
Lenin was one who put the greatest emphasis on the importance of consciousness in his book ?What Is To Be Done?. Setting aside the context in respect of which Lenin wrote this book and considering extracts from it isolated from its totality, it is not unnatural to make an idea that according to Lenin?s opinion, by its own effort the working class is incapable of doing anything beyond trade union struggle, it cannot move beyond the limits of bourgeois ideology and politics, that only with the help of the intellectuals coming from bourgeois stratum it is possible for it to proceed towards attainment of class consciousness and acquiring of socialist consciousness.
In the previous issue of this journal, we discussed that Lenin wrote ?What Is To Be Done? to carry on the struggle against economists and the opinions expressed in that book must be considered in that particular context. The book has enormous significance not only in consolidating the postion the the russian communist party through its struggle against economism and thereby taking forward the Russian working class movement by uniting the then fragmented communist movement of Russia into a all-Russian party, but also forming a general idea about the structure of communist party in general. But, in that article we also discussed that at the same time it will be a mistake to make general formulations about the formation of working class ideology, and a comprehensive conception regarding the interrelation of consciousness and spontaneity from some random quotations of the book without considering the quotations in the concrete context with which the book was written A further detailed discussion about it is not possible within the limits of the present article. Only this much is to be noted that we are not questioning the general formulations of ?What Is To Be Done?, we only disapprove of trying to understand Lenin through merely some isolated out of context quotations.
For instance an oft-quoted remark from ?What Is To Be Dome? made by Lenin is ?The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness,?29 If that is always true, then how can we explain the workers' uprising of Paris in June 1848? There, the workers not only rose up against their bourgeoisie without any conscious leadership of the intellectuals coming from the ranks of the bourgeois, but also put forward their class demands. How can we explain the incidents of Paris Commune? In fact Lenin himself in February-March 1905 planned for a lecture on the Paris Commune. Mentioning about the trends of Blanquism and Proudhoism etc.. among the Parisian workers within that planned article he wrote?Revolutionary instinct of the working class asserts itself despite fallacious theories.?[italics in original]. It meant, that the working class by its class instinct created Paris Commune not only without any conscious leadership, but even in the presence of falacious theories. We also know that the Paris commune is the first example of proletarian dictatorship, from which Marx elaborated his theory on proletarian dictatorship, such was Lenin?s remark in his much-acclaimed pamphlet "The state and revolution.". Does it conform with those words from ?What Is To Be Done ? ?The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness.?
Even on the question of bringing in consciousness from outside many refer to out-of-context quotes from this book in order to prove that Lenin said that consciousness has to be brought from outside the working class and that can only be done by the intelligentsia coming from the bourgeois ranks because they are the receptacles and carriers of science. We have already seen earlier that from the concepts of dialectical materialism this can be shown to be incorrect. And from the opinions of Marx and Engels also we have seen the opposite. In fact Lenin in ?What Is To Be Done? itself wrote ?Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes.?[italics in original]31.From this quotation also it is clear that by ?consciousness from outside?. Lenin did not mean bringing in consciousness from outside the working class, he meant from outside the sphere of spontaneous economic struggle, from outside the relation between workers and the employers only.
Just after ?What Is To Be Done? was written the second Congress was held. In this congress a split set in which was later revealed in the form of Bolshevik and Menshevik trends. The Third Congress in 1905 was the congress of the Bolshevik faction. In that Congress the question of inter-relation of workers and intellectuals in social democratic organizations was discussed. On this question Lenin said ?It has been said here that the exponents of Social-Democratic ideas have been mainly intellectuals. That is not so. During the period of Economism the exponents of revolutionary ideas were workers, not intellectuals?[bold letter ours].32 Obviously, "eriod of Economism" refers to that period when ?What Is To Be Done? was written. Isn?t it clear from the above quotation of Lenin regarding the same period that those who want to quote from some parts of ?What Is To Be Done? and convince everyone that Lenin held this opinion that consciousness can be brought within the working class only by the intellectuals, they are not raising Lenin?s opinion properly? Probably, the reason for emphasizing the workers role during the third congress can be found in the part just subsequent to the section mentioned above. Lenin subsequently said ?It has also been pointed out that splits have usually been the work of intellectuals. This is an important point, but it does not settle the question.?33 Here, the question Lenin was referring was the question of relations between workers and intellectuals in a social-democratic organization, particularly on which Lenin expressed his opinion. In the opinion expressed during the third congress why did Lenin change his point of emphasis? In spite of an important initial role of the intellectuals, probably during this phase, on one hand, there had been increasing participation of workers in the socialist movement, while, on the other, owing to their class position there had been more and more manifestations of bourgeois way of thinking among a large section of the intellectuals. That is the probable reason for Lenin emphasising on the workers? role in his speech. Probably due to the same reason, in this congress, Lenin forcefully urged in favour of inducting more and more workers in different committees. In that same speech Lenin also said "To place workers on the committees is a political, not only a pedagogical, task. Workers have the class instinct, and, given some political experience, they pretty soon become staunch Social-Democrats. I should be strongly in favour of having eight workers to every two intellectuals on our committees" 34 In the context of development of the 1905 revolution just a little more than six months later, Lenin commented in a foot-note of an article ?At the Third Congress of the Party I suggested that there be about eight workers to every two intellectuals in the Party committees. How obsolete that suggestion seems today! Now we must wish for the new Party organisations to have one Social-Democratic intellectual to several hundred Social-Democratic workers.? 35. In that article Lenin also said ?The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness?36. After the defeat of the revolution, in the phase of Stolypin reaction, a large section of intellectuals quit the party. On one hand the weaknesses and limitations of the intellectuals and in that background on the other the leading role of the working class in the social democratic movement, owing to their instinctive class sense, came to the forefront. The new workers who joined the revolutionary struggle started occupying leading positions in the working class struggle proving that they have uplifted themselves to become leaders of the Russian Social Democratic Party, the Russian party of the working class. In that context Lenin commented in an article in 1908 "But the liberation of the Party from the half-proletarian, half-petty-bourgeois intellectuals is beginning to awake to a new life the new purely proletarian forces accumulated during the period of the heroic struggle of the proletarian masses".37 Moreover at the end of that paragraph Lenin added "And the general conclusion reached is that ?in a number of places responsible work, owing to the flight of the intellectuals, is passing into the hands of the advanced workers?"38
Here, an objection may be raised that the workers, who have been referred to in Lenin?s articles, are not ordinary workers, but are class conscious workers and they have not been transformed into class-conscious workers spontaneously. Rather this transformation has been made possible by the untiring conscious activity of the party and hence this is not applicable to the general workers. Correct, but did Lenin put emphasis on these workers just because of their class consciousness? It was not that. On the contrary, the point that comes up from Lenin?s writings of that period is, Lenin has repeatedly emphasized on the natural class instinct of the workers, the class instinct which does not come as a result of ?consciousness being taken from outside', but because of their position in the class relation and the conditions of their life. We can see this point more clearly from a letter written by Lenin at the fag-end of his life. In a letter written to the central committee Lenin expressed his opinion regarding the yardstick of probation period for new members of the Party. There Lenin said "I propose a period of six months only for those workers who have actually been employed in large industrial enterprises for not less than ten years. A probation period of eighteen months should be established for all other workers, two years for peasants and Red Army men, and three years for other categories. Exceptions are to be permitted in special cases with the joint consent of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission."39 Just after this words, in order to avoid any confusion about the meaning of the word, worker, Lenin explained in the following letter ? If we agree to a six months? period for workers, we must without fail, in order-not to deceive ourselves and others, define the term ?worker? in such a way as to include only those who have acquired a proletarian mentality from their very conditions of life. But this is impossible unless the persons concerned have worked in a factory for many years?not from ulterior motives, but because of the general conditions of their economic and social life.?40 In the least quotation, we should notice two aspects. Firstly, distinction has been made between the time-period of training of a worker and for someone from any other class. This distinction has been made not because of any difference in consciousness, but just because of the differences between classes to which one belongs. Secondly, even among the workers, distinction has been made between a worker engaged for a longtime in big industries and other workers. In the subsequent section it has been clarified further by stating about the importance of attainment of proletarian mentality through the conditions of life and that it cannot be accomplished without passing for years through the economic and social lives as a worker. And this has been set as a yardstick in the context of becoming a party member. Thus through this it becomes clear that in reality by remaining as a worker in a big industry for a long period it gives birth to an natural class instinct, that class-instinct which helps the workers and the party to remain firm in its political position. Here class conscious workers have definitely been discussed about and that they have become class conscious through long drawn untiring efforts of the party. But undoubtedly the distinctions made between the time periods of probation required to qualify for becoming a party member or the inclusion of more and more workers in the committees about which Lenin spelt out his opinions has not been made because of the workers being class-conscious but being workers in reality.
Consequently what follows is, the communist party is not merely the party of the working class in respect of its ideology. The presence of advanced class conscious section within the communist party, not only their mere presence but also their presence under its leadership, the control of the whole party by the advanced representatives of the working class is extremely necessary for the party to remain firm in its class position. The working class will of course take help of the intellectuals, but it should also remain conscious about the bourgeois ideological influences they bring in with them.
But still whether the communist party will be able to remain firm in its class position that does not solely depend on the advanced detachment of the working class within the party. Actually the communist party is the leader of the class struggle of the working class in all its totality. It cannot have any independent existence detached from the working class struggle. Consequently, whether that party is firm in its class position or not that also depends on the fact that in what way the party is entrenched within that class and how it is guiding the struggle of the class. As the party makes the working class conscious and organized at the same time the party also learns from the working class struggle. The line adopted by the working class party is continually tested and verified in practice through the advanced detachment of the working class. It gives a conscious form to the unconscious trend emerging from the independent, creative role of the working class, transforming the party and the class struggle into a higher developed stage.
IN LIEU OF AN EPILOGUE
We have already stated earlier that our aim of the present article is not merely to discuss some basic truths of Marxism Leninism. Our discussion is to understand the situation of the communist movement and working class movement existing presently, properly comprehend the general tendency emanating from it and decide in that perspective our tasks as communists. In this context, we intend to express some loud thoughts.
After the success of the Russian revolution the ideals of socialism crossed the boundaries of the developed capitalist countries and spread throughout the world. At that time in colonial and semi-colonial countries such as India, China etc.. the formation of the working class was still very much in preliminary stages. The independent struggles of the working class were very few. But, then even the petty-bourgeois of these countries were inspired by the success of the socialist revolution in Russia. Firstly, after the success of the Russian revolution the possibility of establishment of a higher classless society no more remained a mere ideal, it emerged before everyone as a possibility in reality. Secondly, the anti-imperialist bourgeois and petty bourgeois forces of these countries found a powerful ally in the form of Soviet Russia to counter the high handedness of imperialism which attracted them towards Soviet Russia. The petty bourgeois intellectuals, who through their rising affinity for socialist ideology went on to adopt communist ideology, became the main section on the basis of whom communist parties were formed in one country after another. This process was different from the process of formation of communist parties in the developed capitalist countries. In the developed capitalist countries the communist party was formed on the basis of development of a trend in the working class movement. The advanced detachment of the working class was a significant section of these parties. In countries like India and China the formation of the working class was still in its primary stages and the independent struggle of the working class was almost absent. Naturally, in those countries at the starting the participation of the working class in the communist parties was very little. Such a history shows that where the independent struggle of the working class has not yet emerged but communist ideology made its presence felt within the society, there the communist party can also be formed in this way. But such a communist party can only become a communist party in the real sense, as the party of the working class, when the advanced class conscious sections of the working class not only joins the party but becomes its principal force and acquires its control and leadership. In our country this has not happened. Even though a stream of working class struggle emerged and a part of the advanced section of the working class joined the party, the leadership of the party throughout had remained confined in the hands of the petty bourgeois intellectuals. In our country one of the important reason behind the right and left deviations was the class position of these parties, the lack of predominance of the working class politics in these parties and a further important reason behind this has been the domination of petty bourgeois leadership within the party.
Here a question may arise that even in the Chinese party the role of the working class had been minimal. In spite of that, the Chinese party could adhere to communist ideology. It was able to organize a successful revolution and lead China towards socialism. From this can such an inference be drawn that whether a communist party can remain firmly entrenched in communist ideology or not does not necessarily depend upon the participation of the advanced section of the working class, the leadership of these sections, the entrenchment of the party within the working class etc.? Thinking in this way it can then be said that without the working class communist ideology may exist in society. In that case we will be standing in opposition to the materialist interrelation of matter and consciousness. In reality communist ideology stood mainly on the basis of the working class struggle of Russia and the advanced countries. This struggle certainly attracted the petty bourgeois intellectuals of those countries as also the other oppressed masses including the peasants towards socialism. Secondly, the matter that is often not given its due importance in this context is the fact that in China from 1919 up to the defeat of the first revolution in 1927 the working class played a glorious role. Although the party was mainly formed by the intellectuals, the advanced workers also played some role and a section from them promoted themselves to the leading positions in the party. The advanced section of the working class not only joined the party but during that period the role of the Chinese working class was principal in building a powerful revolutionary struggle over an extensive region of China with the aim of expropriation of imperialism, feudalism and big capital.
Hence, the fact of formation of the communist party in the backward countries mainly or solely by petty bourgeois intellectuals became possible in a particular situation, which was the presence of an extremely powerful socialist movement in the advanced countries. Initially such a step is of course possible. But if the advanced detachment of the working class does not get hold of the control of the party then it is very difficult to remain firm on the politics of the working class. In fact, one of the important reasons behind the influence of opportunism and revisionism in the communist party in this country has been the domination of the petty bourgeois leadership within the party.
It will not be wrong to say that the particular situation in which a communist party could be formed mainly with intellectuals in that period, is not prevailing at present. There exists no powerful movement of the working class that may attract the intellectuals towards socialism. On the other hand another big change has also occurred. That is, at the start of the twentieth century while the strength in numbers of the working class in the parts of the world other than Europe and America was negligible. now, that condition has changed a great deal. In every country, working class is now a significant portion of the people and over the last hundred years they have also gone through experiences of quite a few big struggles and even through experiences of betrayals of leaders of mainly petty bourgeois background. Hence the formation of a party through the participation of only the intellectuals is not at all inevitable, and not only that, probably it is not possible also. The formation of the communist party is dependent on the emergence of advanced sections of the working class through the development of working class struggle.
In this context does not the new trend of the present workers movement, which is developing on the strength of workers, under their own leadership by rejecting the established opportunist-reformist leadership and even the whole of outsider leaders, that is emerging on their own strength and leadership, carry special significance for the communist revolutionaries? Through this new trend, are not the workers detaching themselves from revisionism and opportunism to an extent? Cannot the communist revolutionaries utilise this process of detachment with the aim of transforming the front-ranking workers to a further developed condition? Not only that, through this are not the workers unknowingly revolting against the long prevailing tradition of petty-bourgeois leadership in workers struggles? Should we reject the unconscious revolt of the workers as an apolitical process or should we try to direct the aspiration of workers to decide their own fate themselves towards class struggle and thus try to expedite the task of advancement towards working class leadership? The workers are through the experience of their struggle raising many such questions before the communist revolutionaries in an unsaid way. The question remains that how will the communist revolutionaries address such a situation.
sources:
29. V.I Lenin, What Is To Be done. Lenin collected Works, Vol 5, Page 375
30. V. I. Lenin Plan of a Lecture on the Commune, Written in February-March. Lenin Collected Works, Volume 8, pages 207.
31. V.I Lenin, What Is To Be done. Lenin collected Works, Vol 5, Page 422.
32. V. I. Lenin Speech on the Question of the Relations Between Workers and Intellectuals within the Social-Democratic Organisations April 20 (May 3) Lenin collected Works, Vol 8, Page 407
33. Ibid
34. Ibid.
35. V. I. Lenin The Reorganisation of the Party, Published November 10, 15 and 16, 1905. Footnote, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume 10, pages 36
36. Ibid, Page 32.
37. V. I. Lenin On to the Straight Road, Published in the newspaper Proletary, No. 26, March 19 (April 1), 1908, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Volume 15, pages 18.
38. Ibid
39. V. I. Lenin Conditions for Admiting New Members to the Party. Letters To V. M. Molotov Written: 24 & 26 March, 1922
Lenin Collected Works, Volume 33, pages 254
40. Ibid, Second letter, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 33, pages 257
Comments:
No Comments for View