What The Working Class Can Do Independently: Lessons Of Paris Commune And Soviets
A considerable section of communists, may be presently even the majority of them, strongly believe that the working class cannot go beyond economic struggle on their own. They think that unless a communist party constituted by revolutionary intelligentsia and class conscious workers, rouses the workers for political struggle, the working class cannot embark upon the field of political struggle and will remain confined within the arena of economic struggle. It is also their belief that consciousness only has to be introduced from outside the working class by the revolutionary intelligentsia of petty-bourgeois origin and on their own in their spontaneous movement the working class cannot go beyond bourgeois ideology. If any consciousness is there in their spontaneous movement it cannot be anything other than trade union consciousness, which is essentially a bourgeois consciousness and proletarian consciousness cannot develop within these spontaneous movements, not even in embryonic form. In an article, published in a previous issue of this journal, we refuted this concept from historical facts and Marxist analyses. In the present article we revisit the question with the experiences of two great struggles of the international proletariat, namely, the Paris Commune and the creation of Soviets by the proletariat of Russia, in the first Russian revolution of 1905 and observe that whether proletarian consciousness in an embryonic form can originate in the spontaneous struggles of the proletariat and also will try to understand the necessary role of the communists in that respect.
Experience Of The Paris Commune
The importance of Paris Commune in the history of international working class movement and, moreover, in the development of Marxism is known to everybody who has slightest knowledge of history of working class movement and Marxist theory. Lenin explained in detail in his epoch making pamphlet "The state and Revolution" how the Paris Commune played an important part in the development of concept of dictatorship of proletariat.
Importance Of Paris Commune In The Development Of The Concept Of Dictatorship Of Proletariat
Lenin showed that Marx developed the concept of dictatorship of proletariat from concrete experience of working class struggle. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848, Marx only stated that after capturing power from the bourgeoisie, the state will be "proletariat organized as the ruling class". After the experience of bourgeois revolutions of 1848-51, Marx came to the conclusion that "the next attempt of the French revolution will be ....to smash" the bureaucratic military state (Marx's italics, quoted by Lenin in his "State and Revolution" from Marx's letter to Kugelman, LCW, Vol 25, pp 420). In 1852, in a letter to Weydemeyer, Marx first spoke about the dictatorship of proletariat, where he stated that, "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society"(MECW, Vol , pp ). However, Marx did not try to invent the concrete form of this dictatorship. The Paris Commune was the concrete form of dictatorship of proletariat revealed by the proletarian struggle and Marx did not fail to recognize it in spite of its apparent failure. Lenin explained later in "The State and Revolution", "Marx, however, did not set out to discover the political forms of this future stage. He limited himself to carefully observing French history, to analyzing it, and to drawing the conclusion to which the year 1851 had led, namely, that matters were moving towards destruction of the bourgeois state machine.
"And when the mass revolutionary movement of the proletariat burst forth, Marx, in spite of its failure, in spite of its short life and patent weakness, began to study the forms it had discovered.
"The Commune is the form "at last discovered" by the proletarian revolution, under which the economic emancipation of labor can take place." ((LCW, Vol. 25, pp 437, italics in original).
Engels also clearly stated that the Paris Commune showed concrete form of the Dictatorship of Proletariat. He wrote, "Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. ...... Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat". (Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx's The Civil War in France, written in March, 1891, MECW Vol. 27, pp 191).
Such is the importance of the Paris Commune in the history of International Working Class movement.
How Did The Struggle Of The Paris Commune Develop?
How did that struggle of working class, not only a political struggle, but an important political struggle of working class which helped Marx to discover the concrete form of the Dictatorship of Proletariat, develop?
Let us know from Lenin.
"The Commune broke out spontaneously. No one consciously prepared it in an organised way." ( In memory of Paris Commune, First published in Rabochaya Gazeta, No. 4-5, April 15 (28), 1911, LCW Vol. 17, pp 139, italics ours ).
"The Commune was not understood by those who created it; they established the Commune by following the unfailing instinct of the awakened people, and neither of the groups of French socialists was conscious of what it was doing" (Lenin, Report on The Review Of The Programme and On Changing the Name of The Party, Extraordinary seventh Congress of The RCP(B), March 1910, LCW Vol. 27, pp 133, italics ours).
Is it not evident from the above-mentioned quotations of Lenin that the Paris Commune was created by the spontaneous struggle of the Parisian working class? However, if there is any iota of doubt we should look back at the history of development of the Paris Commune.
The Paris Commune arose at a juncture of Franco-Prussian war which started in 1870. The then French emperor Louis Napoleon declared war on Prussia. On September, 1870, the French army surrendered at a place called Sedan. The news of capitulation angered French People. There were uprisings in almost all cities of France with significant working class population, in Paris, Lyons and other cities. In Paris, the Republic was declared and the bourgeoisie took the leadership in the government in the name of 'government of national defence', which Marx mocked as 'government of national defection'. Even though the workers were armed and main force behind the Republic, they did not try to take the leadership. But, the bourgeoisie panicked at the prospect of armed workmen and in collusion with the German army, tried to crush the armed workers. On 18th March, 1871, the bourgeois government of Thiers tried to disarm Parisian workers. The workers revolted and captured Paris. The Paris Commune was born.
It is clear from this history that the workers did not plan to capture power. Some events pushed them to move in this way. As Lenin later described, "The unsuccessful war with Germany, the privations suffered during the siege, the unemployment among the proletariat and the ruin among the lower middle classes; the indignation of the masses against the upper classes and against authorities who had displayed utter incompetence, the vague unrest among the working class, which was discontented with its lot and was striving for a different social system; the reactionary composition of the National Assembly, which roused apprehensions as to the fate of the republic?all this and many other factors combined to drive the population of Paris to revolution on March 18, which unexpectedly placed power in the hands of the National Guard, in the hands of the working class and the petty bourgeoisie which had sided with it." (In Memory of Paris Commune, LCW Vol. 17, pp 139, italics ours). Note the words. The power was "unexpectedly" placed in the hands of working class, they did not plan it. So, it cannot be anything but spontaneous. Spontaneously they rose and captured power from the bourgeoisie. And we are being told that the spontaneous struggle of the working class cannot be anything other than economic struggle, trade union struggle!
Were The Decisions Of The Commune Taken By The Leadership From Their Theories?
We know about the decisions taken by the Commune due to which Marx and Engels hailed it as the concrete form of the dictatorship of proletariat. The standing army was abolished and replaced with the armed people. The Commune also abolished the bureaucratic apparatus and decided that all officials must be elected and would be subject to recall. The remuneration of all servants of state was reduced to the level of "workmen's wages". It also decreed separation of church from state and also from education. Till now, the aim of any working class state after capturing power from the bourgeoisie will be the implementation of these measures among others.
Now, were these steps taken by the workers themselves or the socialist leaders guided and educated the workers to take these steps?
Engels said in his introduction to the Civil War in France written twenty years later in 1891, "The members of the Commune were divided into a majority of the Blanquists, who had also been predominant in the Central Committee of the National Guard; and a minority, members of the International Working Men's Association, chiefly consisting of adherents of the Proudhon school of socialism. The great majority of the Blanquists at that time were socialist only by revolutionary and proletarian instinct; only a few had attained greater clarity on the essential principles,...... It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. ....... but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed ? as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm ? that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school prescribed." ( Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx's The Civil War in France, written in March, 1891, MECW Vol. 27, pp 187, italics ours).
In the following paragraphs, Engels explained in detail the role of Blanquists and Prudhonists. He showed that the Prudhon was socialist of "small peasant and master craftsman" and so he was against association. But, the most important economic decree of the Commune was "an organization of large-scale industry and even of manufacture which was not based only on the association of workers in each factory, but also aimed at combining all these associations in one great union; in short an organization which, as Marx quite rightly says in The Civil War, must necessarily have led in the end to communism, that is to say, the direct antithesis of the Proudhon doctrine". He also explained that the Blanquists were in theory for "strictest, dictatorial centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government", but, in power they "appealed to them [the French in the provinces-Present Author] to form a free federation of all French communes with Paris, a national organization which for the first time was really to be created by the nation itself". (ibid, pp 188).
Lenin also noted in a rough sketch for a lecture on Commune, "Trends in the Commune: (a) Blanquists. In November 1880 Blanqui in Ni Dieu ni mâitre[ probably Lenin here referred Blanqui's journal by that name meaning 'Neither God nor Master'?Present Author] condemns the theory of the class struggle and the separation of the interests of the proletariat and those of the nation. (Weill, 229) ( draws no line between the workers and the revolutionary bourgeoisie). (b) Proudhonists (Mutualists) "organisation of barter and credit". (Lenin, Plan of a Lecture on the Commune, Written in February-March 19O5, LCW Vol. 8, pp 206).
So, the socialist leaders did not guide the workers to take those steps. Then, how did the workers took those decisions? Lenin answered in the very next line of the abovementioned quotation.
"Revolutionary instinct of the working class asserts itself despite fallacious theories." (ibid, italics ours).
We can infer from these comments of Engels and Lenin that though the then socialists, mainly Blanquists and Prudhonists, did lead the Paris Commune and they had a leading role in the decisions or steps which had been taken by the Commune, they did not take those decisions from the theories or we can say consciousness acquired previously, but they took those decisions from revolutionary instinct of the working class and pushed to do that by the prevalent situation in which they had been placed by the revolution. Their theories did not help them, as those were unscientific and fallacious, rather the revolutionary instincts did help them to take certain praiseworthy measures. The fallacious theories also failed them in other spheres. Engels also showed that their main mistake of not taking the bank of Paris in their hands also came from those erroneous theories. Lenin also noted that the main 'minuses' were 'lack of class consciousness', 'lack of organisation' (Lenin, THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE, LCW Vol. 41, pp 117).
How The Revolutionary Instinct Of The Class Asserted In The Commune?
One of the important steps of the Paris Commune was the abolition of standing army. In his The Civil war in France Marx explained, "Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people" (Marx, The Civil War in France, MECW Vol. 22 pp 331, italics ours). If we read the last part of the quotations carefully, it becomes apparent that the workers of the Paris Commune took the step instinctively from their own experience of the facts, i.e., we can say that they reached to the decision by unconscious summing up of their revolutionary experience. We shall later see that this summing up of experience of struggle was not only of the Paris Commune, but also long history of struggle of French proletariat.
Spontaneity And Spontaneity: Presence Of Consciousness In Embryonic Form
The proletariat of Paris did not take the historic steps only from the experience of the struggle of 1871, but their experience of previous struggles also helped them to take those steps. During the last decade of eighteenth century and first few decades of Nineteenth century, the bourgeoisie had drawn the proletariat in its struggle against the feudalism and also armed them. But, gradually the proletariat began to realise that the bourgeois republic cannot emancipate them from exploitation and miseries of life. This experience pushed them to dissociate from the bourgeoisie and to build up spontaneous struggles against capital.
However, the first great class battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie occurred in June, 1848 in Paris. That was also a spontaneous struggle of the working class. In 1848-49, a wave of revolutions swept the European countries. In February of 1848, the armed workers of Paris pushed the bourgeoisie of France to declare Republic. "Victorious workers themselves designated [this republic] as a "social" republic. No one, however, was clear as to what this social republic was to imply; not even the workers themselves." (Engels, Introduction to The Civil War in France, 1891, MECW Vol. 27, pp 181). However, after gaining power, the bourgeoisie tried to subjugate the proletariat. Disillusioned and dejected the proletariat revolted in June. The proletariat rose spontaneously, but inherent in its uprising was an embryonic consciousness, a vague aspiration to abolish class rule. In the words of Marx, "The cry of "social republic," with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supersede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself" (Marx, The Civil War in France, MECW, Vol. 22, pp 330-31, italics ours).
Marx was writing these words in his discussion on the Paris Commune. He wrote in continuation with the above-mentioned sentence, "The Commune was the positive form of that republic." ( Ibid ). So, in 1848, the French proletariat rose spontaneously first against monarchy in February to usher in the republic, not the social republic as they thought, but essentially a bourgeois republic and then against the ruling bourgeoisie in June. In these spontaneous struggles, which were political in nature, was inherent a vague aspiration for a social republic, which was not clear to them. The bourgeoisie suppressed the uprising of workers brutally. About 10000 workers were killed, 4000 workers had been deported.
Summing up the experience of the revolutions of 1848-51, Marx reached to a conclusion which he referred later to a letter to Kugelman, "the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent". ( Marx to Kugelman, 12th April, 1871, MECW, Vol. 44, pp 131)
In 1871 also, the workers of Paris rose spontaneously. This time, also along with national feelings as against Germany, they had aspiration of a republic, but this time their aspiration was not as vague as before. In 1848, the proletariat had no experience of republic, so they thought that the republic will be a social republic. But, the betrayal of bourgeoisie and also the experience past decades, gave them necessary lessons. So when they rose in 1871, they created "the positive form of that republic". It was an expression of their summing up of past experience, which expressed itself and can only express itself in struggle.
We have also seen that Lenin also differentiated between spontaneous movements. Even in a book like "What is to done?", where Lenin fought against trend of tailism of spontaneity, Lenin differentiated two phases of spontaneous movement by the element of consciousness imbibed in it. Lenin wrote in the said book, "...there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied by the "spontaneous" destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these "revolts", the strikes of the nineties might even be described as "conscious", to such an extent do they mark the progress which the working-class movement made in that period. This shows that the "spontaneous element", in essence, represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent" (Lenin, What is to be done?, LCW Vol. 5, pp 374, bold letters ours, italics in original)
The task of the communists, the leaders of working class movement, is to identify, to recognize the embryonic consciousness present in the struggle and develop it to complete consciousness so that it can lead the working class struggle in proper direction. Marx did it when he recognized the importance of the historic steps of the Commune and gave the idea or concept of dictatorship of proletariat its definite form. Lenin also did it when he found in the Soviets the embryo of organization of power, the embryo of "provisional revolutionary government".
The Experience Of Soviets
It is generally believed that the Soviets were created by the workers under the leadership of the Russian Social democratic Labour Party. But, the real fact is something else.
The Soviets originally developed spontaneously in the strike movement which swept Russia in the latter half of 1905. The first Soviet was formed in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. We can find the history of formation in the "The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)". It says, "The outstanding strike that summer was that of the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk. ... During the strike the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk set up a Council of Representatives, which was actually one of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies in Russia." (The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), pp 59-60, bold letters ours). The Soviet of Ivanovo-Voznesensk was elected on May 13. 1905. A few months later, Soviets of workers' deputies were formed in the major cities like St. Petersburg, Moscow, and also in the suburban centres. Initially the Soviets were formed to organize the strike, as the Soviet of Ivanovo-Voznesensk, but later as the momentum of revolutionary movement gathered strength, it actually ran parallel governments in those cities. The History of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) tells us "In spite of the fact that they often arose spontaneously, lacked definite structure and were loosely organized, they acted as a governmental power. Without legal authority, they introduced freedom of the press and an 8-hour working day. They called upon the people not to pay taxes to the tsarist government. In some cases they confiscated government funds and used them for the needs of the revolution."(Ibid, pp 80, bold letter ours) Actually, as one observer noted, "during this period there was already dual power in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. Nothing could be printed without the authorization of the Soviet. The latter refused, for example, to authorize the printing of a document in which a government representative sought to address the new institution created by the workers. While the Soviet subjected the publication of all documents produced by the enemy class to its control, it freely published anything that met with its approval. Social Democratic propaganda, for example, encountered no obstacles whatsoever. The Soviet made free use of the public meeting halls, without asking for permission from anyone, for its assemblies and meetings." (The Soviets: their origin, development and functions - Andreu Nin, bold letter ours).
So, from these historical facts, it is evident that the Soviets were spontaneously created by the working class through its struggle. These Soviets were initially formed as strike committees. But, soon it acted as parallel government in those cities. Bolsheviks, to be more correct, Lenin, in particular, saw this embryo in the Soviets and gave the call to develop the Soviets as a provisional revolutionary government. Lenin talked about the provisional revolutionary government in his pamphlet "Two tactics of Social Democracy in Democratic Revolution", much before these events. The Soviets came with the potential to realize that concept, which was expressed in "Two tactics".
It seems from Lenin's writing that at least a section of Bolsheviks initially could not realize the potential of the Soviets. During this period, Lenin was in exile. His first important writing on the Soviets was from exile. In this article he first expressed his thought on the potential of Soviets. He wrote, "I may be wrong, but I believe (on the strength of the incomplete and only "paper" information at my disposal) that politically the Soviet of Workers' Deputies should be regarded as the embryo of a provisional revolutionary government." (Lenin, Our Tasks and The Soviet of Workers' Deputies, LCW, Vol 10, pp 2, bold letter ours, italics in original). It was written by Lenin early in November 1905. He contributed the article to Novaya Zhizn which, however, did not publish it. Later, he developed his thought and it became the tactical line of the Bolsheviks. In the tactical platform that was drawn up by Lenin and the Bolshevik section in February 1906 there was a draft resolution on Soviet of workers' Deputies. We quote necessary part of the draft resolution here,
"SOVIETS OF WORKERS' DEPUTIES
Whereas:
(1) Soviets of Workers' Deputies spring up spontaneously in the course of mass political strikes as non-party organizations of the broad masses of the workers;
(2) in the course of the struggle, these Soviets inevitably undergo a change both as regards their composition, by absorbing the more revolutionary elements of the petty bourgeoisie, and as regards the nature of their activities, by growing from purely strike organisations into organs of the general revolutionary struggle;
(3) insofar as these Soviets are rudiments of revolutionary authority, their strength and importance depend entirely on the strength and success of the insurrection;" ( LCW, Vol 10, pp 156-157, bold letter ours).
It is clear from this part of the resolution that the Soviets were created by the working class spontaneously and these were not only strike committees, but were growing from purely strike organizations into organs of the general revolutionary struggle and had rudiments of revolutionary authority in them.
After the abovementioned part of the draft resolution followed the tasks of RSDLP, where the first task was "(1) that the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party should participate in non-party Soviets of Workers' Deputies,....;". (ibid)
Does not it confirm that RSDLP did not create the Soviets? Had the Soviets been created by the RSDLP, there would not have been any necessity to include the task of participation of RSDLP in the Soviets.
The last and probably the most important task which had been framed by Lenin was task 4. That task was, "(4) that as the activities and sphere of influence of Soviets of Workers' Deputies expand, it must be pointed out that these institutions are bound to collapse unless they are backed by a revolutionary army and unless the government authorities are overthrown (i.e., unless the Soviets are transformed into provisional revolutionary governments); and that therefore one of the main tasks of these institutions in every revolutionary situation must be to arm the people and to strengthen the military organisations of the proletariat."(ibid)
The last task specifies that the task of the communists was to develop these Soviets of rudimentary revolutionary authority into provisional revolutionary government, in other words, to develop the embryo inherent in it into a complete being. The resolution also teaches us that these institutions were bound to collapse if these were not transformed to provisional revolutionary government. There lies the real role of leadership, role of a real, correct proletarian party. Party does not create something out of nothing, it cannot create political struggle, class struggle. The role of party lies in correctly understanding the embryo developed by the struggle of working class and developing, guiding that struggle to its conclusion.
Experiences Summed Up
To sum up, the experiences of the Paris Commune and Soviets in Russian revolution of 1905, and teachings of Marx-Engels and Lenin associated with these experiences teach us that the working class spontaneously can develop not only economic struggle but also political struggles. The class instinct of working class may express itself in these spontaneous struggles and the steps or programmes, taken by the working class, may express an element of proletarian consciousness, in its embryonic form. The workers are themselves often not aware of the significance of their actions, which they take unconsciously, instinctively. This consciousness in embryonic form is actually an expression of workers' summing up of their experiences of past struggle. The element of consciousness depends on the progress of working class movement at that point of time. The role of leadership is to recognize this element of consciousness and develop it, rather than trying to create something subjectively. These are the lessons of Paris Commune and the Soviets of 1905.
However, that does not definitely mean that all the spontaneous actions of workers express proletarian consciousness in embryonic form. Influence of bourgeois ideology, bourgeois philosophy act on the workers and the effects of bourgeois ideology also express, may be, more prominently. However, the most important thing is that does not mean their class instinct does not operate. The class instinct will operate more, more the struggle is the own struggle of the working class.
We should add here that the recognition of class instinct of the working class does not in any way lessen the importance of a real communist party, vanguard party of the working class in leading the struggle of working class for its complete emancipation. It is beyond doubt that without the correct leadership of a party, a proletarian party, workers struggle is bound to fail to achieve its final destination. We know that, Marx and Engels took up the task of building parties in different countries of Europe after the experience of the Paris Commune, because one of the reasons of the shortcomings of the Paris Commune was the absence of any class conscious party. It is also beyond doubt that without the leadership of a party of class conscious workers, the influence of bourgeois ideology will ultimately rule over the workers. However, the experience of the Paris Commune proves that the working class through its struggle, through its class instinct, not only can transgress the limits of economic struggle, but can take important steps towards the emancipation of the working class.
So, if we think that the workers cannot learn anything from the experience of their struggle and the communists will have to teach everything to make them class conscious, we shall go against the teachings of Marx Engels and also of Lenin and also against the experience of working class struggle. Definitely, the tasks of the communist is to make the workers conscious about their historic role of emancipation from exploitation, but the workers also go through their own learning experience and the communists must help the workers to sum up their experience correctly and educate the workers accordingly.
Before we continue to next point we would like to reply in advance a possible objection which may be raised in opposition. They may say that these are exceptions, not the general condition of working class movement. Firstly, such struggles are not exceptions. Actually, the whole history of the working class movement shows that the working class took lessons from the past struggles and moved to next higher phase by summing up their experience. From Luddite movement to organized struggle, from organized struggle to political struggle, from political struggle to independent class struggle ? in all these developments the working class showed their capacity to independently sum up the past experience and move to higher phase of struggle. Secondly, even if the struggles like Paris Commune and Soviets are exceptions, these only prove that it is possible for the working class to move towards its complete emancipation and the spontaneous struggles of the working class may express proletarian consciousness, to an extent, in an embryonic form, often without the conscious understanding of the workers themselves.
We know that the objective condition of the working class in the society drives it to struggle against the bourgeoisie, whose unconscious direction is the complete emancipation from exploitation and class rule. The objective position of proletariat in the production system (It is deprived of all means of production, but it is involved in a social production and works with means of production which has become social), its experience of living condition and the experience of struggle against the bourgeoisie and their state, their representative parties express in these struggles in the form of class instinct. So class instinct is the product of the condition of proletariat in this society. This class instinct tends to express where the proletariat struggles independently. More independent will be the struggle more will be possibility of expression of class instinct.
Another point which may be raised is that the struggles we are referring are revolutionary struggles led by a party. Though in Paris Commune there had not been any party but there was also socialists leading the workers. Some communists think that the independent class initiative and creation is possible when the workers are in a political struggle, which has been led by a party. So, they see the experiences of Paris Commune and Soviets in this light, i.e., it had been possible for workers to create because the workers were led by party (or, by the socialists, they may say, in the case of Paris Commune). Now, we have seen from the experiences of the Paris Commune and the Soviets that the workers did not create from the theories or consciousness, but from the class instinct. Rather, in Paris Commune they went against the theories prevalent among the workers then. Had the workers created from the consciousness imparted by the socialists, they would have followed the theories of the then socialists. That was clearly not the case. It was creation of working class themselves and it is not related with the conscious role of the leadership. It is basically a reflection of the summing up of experience by the working class themselves. So, this process of summing up of experience may express itself in economic struggles also. Due to this very process the workers moved from Luddite movement to organized trade union struggle, struggled for 8-hour working day first in individual factories and then on nationwide scale.
The Era Of Imperialism And The 'Erosion Of Power' Of The Working Class
When the experience of the working class struggle of nineteenth century, especially in the latter half of the century, from 1848 to 1871 gives irrefutable proof of the capacity of the working class, some comrades try to take refuge in another logic. That logic is what was possible for the working class in the nineteenth century is not possible at present. Why? They contend that the period of Marx and Engels was the period when the capitalism still had not reached the stage of imperialism. Before the advent of imperialism, reformism was a petty bourgeois trend inside the working class movement, whereas, in the era of imperialism, imperialism has won over a section of workers, the upper layer of workers, by bribing them from their super profits and made them the agents of imperialism. The section of workers, which Lenin named as labour aristocracy has become the social basis of reformism and opportunism. So, unlike the past reformism has taken shape of a definite political ideology outside working class. Continuing this logic, these comrades believe that the in the era of imperialism, within the spontaneous struggle there can be no element of dissociation from the reformist parties and their politics and without a party built upon communist ideology there can be no struggle against reformism. It is also believed that after the Russian revolution of 1917, the bourgeoisie started to spread their influence over the working class by actively propagating their ideology among the working class and also trying to divert them from their struggle for emancipation and trying to keep them within the bourgeois politics and bourgeois ideology. It is not possible for the working class to go beyond that confine by themselves. The working class can only struggle for emancipation under the leadership of a communist party organized on communist ideology. So, what probably would have been possible in the times of Marx and Engels, is not possible now.
It is not possible in the present article to deal the question in totality, which we may approach later. However, the moot question is whether the working class has changed in such a way that what was possible for them before is not possible now.
We have explained before that the class instinct, by which the proletariat unconsciously transcends the limits of bourgeois ideology and bourgeois politics, is a product of their position in production system, their condition of living and experience of struggle. Due to these reasons the proletariat is the only revolutionary class in bourgeois society or most revolutionary class where pre-capitalist production relations still remain side by side with the capitalist relations. The bourgeois influence from outside may divert the proletariat from its revolutionary role for the time being, in the imperialist era that influence may make the task of the proletariat more difficult but cannot deprive the proletariat of their revolutionary role. Revolutionary role of the working class originates from the class itself. If we now say that the proletariat cannot move from class instinct then we have to say that the revolutionary role of the proletariat has ended, because class instinct acts due to the same reasons, which has created the revolutionary role of the class.
Now we come to the question of reformism being part of the class itself. Firstly, it should be noted that Lenin wrote about the presence of such labour aristocracy as the basis of reformism in respect of imperialist countries where the imperialist capital won over a section of workers by bribing them from the super-profits the imperialists earned from elsewhere. Can we say it for the countries like India? Probably not. The main basis of reformism-revisionism in countries like India still is the vast presence of petty-bourgeoisie. The reformist-revisionist parties of such countries were part of international block of revisionism and were guided by them, but that did not change the basis of reformism. However, that is also not the main thing. The main thing is the labour aristocracy is a small part of the proletariat. It became the basis of revisionist parties of the imperialist countries and had influenced the proletariat as a whole. But the huge majority of workers remain part of working class, with all its potential of being the revolutionary class. If the majority of the working class is corrupted in such a way that its interest converges with the interest of imperialism then there will be no revolutionary role of the working class. Proletarian instinct and also its revolutionary role come from the objective position the working class holds in the capitalist production system. As long as capitalist production system will remain, the objective position will remain and the class instinct will also remain. However, it may express itself in struggle of the class, not as an individual member but as the class. And it will express itself sharply if the struggle be the own, independent struggle of the working class.
So, though it is true that in the era of imperialism, especially after the working class led revolution in Russia and other countries the bourgeoisie has cunningly tried to organize workers in their line, the class instinct of the workers cannot get lost altogether. Because, class instinct evolves not from the consciousness imbibed from outside but on the social condition and production relations of the workers. As imperialism is another form of capitalism, it cannot change the basic position and also role of working class. Had it been so, the proletariat would have lost its revolutionary role.
Conviction On The Power Of The Working Class: Need Of The Hour
It is true that the working class is passing through a period of passivity and inactivity. Even in trade union movement, the workers are generally dependent on the outside leaders. It is true that long experience of betrayal of the parties is now forcing the workers to develop struggles independently without these leaders, even going against these leaders. However, this trend is still very weak. The dependence of the workers on outside, educated leaders coming from intelligentsia is still the main trend among the workers. The reformist parties are mainly responsible for this state of affairs and due to their politics they try to keep the workers in this dependent position. Unfortunately, even the communist revolutionaries, who swear by working class leadership, do believe that the workers cannot do anything without the leadership of the communists. The present condition of the workers is helping them to remain within this thought. Until and unless the proletariat will show their real strength by their independent struggle, this thought will prevail among the majority of the communist revolutionaries.
However, the communists are conscious elements of society, who not only learns from present struggles but also from the past experiences and theories, which also in a way was a summing up of experience. If they can take real lessons of from the past experiences, they will be able to help the workers in their unconscious or semi-conscious effort of coming out from the clutches of the politics of reformist-revisionist parties. For that communist revolutionaries will have to rediscover the revolutionary role of the working class from the past struggle of the working class and more importantly from the Marxist theory of class struggle. We must understand the real revolutionary role of the working class otherwise all talks about revolutionary role of working class will remain mere empty phrases and one will not be able to act in such a way that will help to unleash the revolutionary potential of the working class.
Comments:
No Comments for View