On The Misunderstandings About The Concept Of Organization (1)
The continuing offensive of capitalism-imperialism in the era of globalization has not only engendered resentment among the toiling masses all over the world, the sensitive section of the intelligentsia is also perturbed. They seem to be restless, pained and indignant at the state of affairs going on globally. It is becoming apparent to them that capitalism only brings about severe inequality, disparity and discrimination - very few capitalists, their lackeys and the imperialist forces, who are the insignificant minority of the world, are going on accumulating heaps of wealth by exploiting and oppressing the vast majority of the population; that, capitalism is nothing but pushing back the whole human society to the brink so as to enable huge corporate houses to continue their plunder. So, the dissension of this section of intelligentsia against capitalism is more and more growing. But, on the other hand, the defeat of the first expedition of the international Socialist movement has dealt such a blinding blow, that this dissension is not pushing them towards Marxist-Leninist ideology, rather a series of doubts, confusions, misunderstandings and disillusionment about Marxism-Leninism and the idea of Socialism have only grown. One among the many areas of perplexity is about the question of org
On The Misunderstandings About The Concept Of Organization (1)
Sambuddha
The continuing offensive of capitalism-imperialism in the era of globalization has not only engendered resentment among the toiling masses all over the world, the sensitive section of the intelligentsia is also perturbed. They seem to be restless, pained and indignant at the state of affairs going on globally. It is becoming apparent to them that capitalism only brings about severe inequality, disparity and discrimination - very few capitalists, their lackeys and the imperialist forces, who are the insignificant minority of the world, are going on accumulating heaps of wealth by exploiting and oppressing the vast majority of the population; that, capitalism is nothing but pushing back the whole human society to the brink so as to enable huge corporate houses to continue their plunder. So, the dissension of this section of intelligentsia against capitalism is more and more growing. But, on the other hand, the defeat of the first expedition of the international Socialist movement has dealt such a blinding blow, that this dissension is not pushing them towards Marxist-Leninist ideology, rather a series of doubts, confusions, misunderstandings and disillusionment about Marxism-Leninism and the idea of Socialism have only grown. One among the many areas of perplexity is about the question of organization. As the defeat of the international Socialist movement came into effect from within - through the betrayal of the rotten "Communist" parties at its head, the necessity and function of the Communist Party itself is now in serious question. And, this question is affecting seriously those sections of the intelligentsia who are seriously pondering about the struggle against capitalism.
But, where lies the problem? A good number from this section today holds the opinion that any political organization of permanent nature only begets domination, centralization of power, bureaucracy, hierarchy, domination of the "majority" over the individual, renunciation of individual opinion & "individuality", lack of democracy (going by "democratic centralism") etc. It is even assumed that such political organizations not only betray movements, but are tools for fulfillment of the leaders' own interests. Hence, many people in spite of recognizing the necessity of the Party are none the less worried and doubtful about its nature of functioning. The extreme of such thoughts is expressed by those who wholly negate the importance of a permanent-nature of political organization of the toiling masses.
Are these questions being raised merely subjective? Is it not the objective functioning of the reformist-revisionist parties in all countries (including ours) working in the name of Communist Parties that has given rise to such questions? Have not both the communist-revolutionaries and also the revisionists, since post-world war II, de-facto insisted on centralism in the name of practicing "democratic centralism?"
So, first of all, we must recognize that the problem is real and complex. In this essay, we will try to set a perspective for looking at this tangled reality. But please bear in mind that this is just a preliminary effort. We expect the readers to help us in developing the thought by throwing new light about it.
It is true that the questions and confusions originate from the way history has moved. But, will refutation of the necessity of the Communist Party or any organization of enduring nature help forward the movement? Let us first discuss on this aspect. Thereafter, we'll try to delve into the questions of those who believe that Communist party is a necessity, but are torn apart regarding the problems of its nature of functioning.
Does The Formation Of An Organization Depend Just On Someone's Will Or Initiative?
History has shown that formation of an organization has never been determined by someone's or a group's will. The real necessity of development of a movement has inevitably guided people towards an organization. The history of working class movement provides ample examples of this. There, we see that, at the initial stage of the movement, organizations of temporary nature had cropped up which quickly evolved into permanent organizations. Not only that, another process of metamorphosis was also on. We will come to it in the course of our discussion.
Let us have a brief glance at this history. The introduction of machines dealt a very big blow to the workers' livelihoods; wages slumped, unemployment went raging and prices plummeted. To the workers, the villains behind all these were the machines. They vented out their anger on the machines by breaking them. Throughout late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, this was the principal form of movement of the working class, and was called the Luddite Movement. What is important here is that, though this was a spontaneous movement, it contained the germs of organization. The secret Luddite societies in England maintained contact among themselves, organized regular secret meetings, planned their programs jointly, submitted petitions to the parliament, and sent representatives to Ireland. The Luddite societies of Lancashire and Yorkshire, formed in 1812, had even declared their political stand against the government.
When practical experience taught them that breaking machines would not help them out of the privations of their life, in early nineteenth century, the European workers stepped into the stage of strike movement. In that phase also, we see that, as the strikes multiplied and developed, spontaneity made way for the evolution and spread of the organisation of the movement. In many cases, the workers planned these strikes, and in some, they set a common programme of action during the strikes.
But, soon the experience of these strikes further taught the workers that such action can affect the capitalists only temporarily and the latter's aggression is soon revived with more intensity. They realised that not only temporary unity for strikes, but enduring associations are needed to combat the capitalists. Thus, the English workers first proceeded to form the trade-unions. Though trade unions first cropped up in small numbers during late eighteenth century, they were of a very embryonic nature. At this stage, the TUs had to fight for their existence against the suppressive measures of the bourgeois state along with the capitalists. Trade unions were banned in England from 1799 to 1824. In spite of this, the TUs led big strikes in 1808, 1810, 1812, 1818. But the actual trade-union movement in its modern sense began only in the 1820s.
The development of large-scale industry and the communication system needed for it gave a boost to this process. Crossing the boundary of small individual trade unions, large-scale industry opened the way for wider unity of movement. This led to the beginning of formation of united or federative trade unions of stable nature which gradually encompassed all the workers; local frontiers of the trade unions opened to form national trade unions. Thus, in 1829, the Grand General Union of Spinners - the first national organization of the spinners - came up in England. The decision for its formation was taken in a congress of the TU representatives of English, Scottish and Irish spinning workers. In 1830 "the National Association of United traders for the Protection of Labour" was formed. Though the initiative for it was taken by cotton workers, it not only included trade unions of cotton and textile workers, but also those of miners, mechanics and pottery makers, and the combined membership reached almost 0.1 million. And, the workers took the leadership and management of these organizations on to themselves.
The above brief narration of history probably makes it amply clear that, the first organizations of the working masses which acquired stable nature were formed in the interest of resisting the capitalist onslaught and taking the movement forward; that, they were not intellectual endeavours or made by some person or some group from above, but organizations which evolved in the course of objective movement.
But Political Organizations Result From Some Person's Or Group's Initiative, Isn't It?
Above, we have discussed citing historical examples how the first organizations of the working mass were shaped by their objective movements. Now we will try to understand the evolution and development of their political organization.
We know that the contradiction between labour and capital inevitably drive the workers to resist the onslaught of capital. Initially, the struggle is launched from a defensive stand at the economic level in the factory or across the trade. Gradually, as the workers gather experience from the struggles all over the country, they can identify the commonness of aggression of all the capitalists, realize how the state functions in the interests of the capitalists, confront the combined assault, the urge for greater unity strikes their consciousness. It is this urge that lead them to form nation-wide united trade unions on the basis of common demands. Such unity can actually enable the workers to launch struggles powerful enough to compel the ruling class to pass laws in favour of the workers. If this happens, the proletarian movement transcends the boundary of economic struggle and becomes a movement of the working class which take to the street to confront the capitalist class; their independent class character makes it a political struggle. A known example may explain our point. When the workers demand an eight-hour day in a factory, it is an economic struggle and the organization needed for it is a trade union. But the struggle which compels the government to enact laws for implementation of an eight-hour day in all the industries across the country is obviously a political struggle of the working class; it presupposes i) trade union experience in the previous phase, and, ii) existence of a political organization which can act as a receptacle of such a struggle. The extent to which this political organization is able to possess the movement, the latter helps the organization to flourish and mature, thereby furthering it as a suitable vehicle for the proletariat to move towards the subsequent political movement.
Actually, as the two opposing classes approach an inevitable class battle, they both have to reinforce their own strength in order to achieve higher and higher unity. This is nothing but an inevitable historical necessity. The objective development of class struggle cannot limit it into the economic struggle; it evolves into political struggle inevitably. And the compulsion of political struggle directs that the proletariat be organized in a permanent political organization. The subsistent political movement, on the other hand, develops and perfects the political organization.
However, it may be mentioned here that, as the character of the movement changes, according change also occurs in the political organization as per necessity of the movement.
The History Of Movement Is Old, Then Why Is The History Of Organization So Recent?
It is true that the laboring classes have been fighting for at least two thousand years. But stable political organizations have cropped up only a hundred and fifty years ago. What objective conditions necessitated the establishment of such bodies? Let us see.
Generally in our conception by a stable organization we understand a political party. But didn't history have other forms also? During the whole era of feudalism, the only form of organization was small guilds of the artisans (later followed by the merchants' guilds). On the rulers' side, there were no stable geographical boundaries to the states; borders frequently changed through wars. The structure of the state could not acquire a permanent character accordingly. The concept of a permanent army started to develop in the eighteenth century only. Excepting Britain, the West European countries had moving courts for long. It was the development of modern capitalism that brought in enduring institutions and organizations in society. Eliminating the small establishments of individual petty producers, it built up the factory organisation - the form of production which employs the labour of many under one shed. And to maximize the efficiency of production, planning and organization were essential, so was the engagement of special personnel called managers and supervisors. This way of production, the industrial structure, the factory was the first stable form of organization in history. We must admit that in spite of the immense development of the techniques of production, the shooting multiplicity of commodities in the last 200 years, the basic structure of capitalist production has changed little. Notwithstanding the introduction of pompous discourses about "horizontal management", "labour participation in management", etc., capitalist organization remains extremely centralized - the actual producers, i.e., the workers have no option of democratic participation in capitalist execution.
Modern capitalism has not only systematized production, it has also set up financial structures to match it. Banks had cropped up long ago, but with the centralization of production, evolution of monopolies and multinational corporations, the whole banking system acquired magnified importance along with the development of the share market, non-banking financial institutions, etc. Thus, advancing capitalism has furthered its byproducts - the financial organizations.
We know that modern capitalism is nothing but production for generation of profit, production for sale. Profit is nothing but the surplus value generated through surplus labour. The only target of production is sale because the surplus value is realized as profit only when the commodity is sold. Hence capitalist economy is synonymous with market economy. And smooth running of this economy requires organization of the whole society along capitalist lines.
In the interest of the security of capitalist private property and of the unhindered and easy functioning of capitalist production and exchange, it is important to set the State apparatus so as to serve the economic order. So, the concept of the modern State arose during the early days of capitalism. The consolidation of the first Nation-State with its well-organized bureaucracy, judiciary and police-military came into being. The masterstroke of the capitalism is that the machinery of exploitation and that of reign appears to be completely detached, enticing people to believe that the two have no relationship between them. But at the same time, it has organized the whole State structure in such a way so that capitalist exploitation has become the order of the day. So, modern State structure is another contribution of capitalism in terms of an enduring organisation.
So, when we speak about enduring organisation, though the image of the political parties comes naturally to us, we need to understand that it is just apparent. Moreover, it was modern capitalism itself which first posed the need for the creation of the permanent political parties. As governance became a separate affair, all the classes in society, including the different lobbies of capitalists, felt that they should be represented in the legislature. This compulsion gave rise to political parties - which are actually class organizations.
Let us now discuss about the objectivity of the rise of the proletarian organizations. Socialized production under capitalism compulsorily made the individual worker an integral part of the collective labour force. By working in a factory, a worker not only attains the organized character, he becomes an integral part of a disciplined working regiment. This special unique character imposed upon the proletariat by modern industry served as the precondition for its natural tendency to organize. It was impossible for the plebian masses in the pre-capitalist era to gather in a steady organization due to the absence of this special quality of the modern proletariat.
Capitalism also brought in another phenomenon - the continuous worsening in the standard of living of the working class against the spectacular advance of the capitalists as a result of the contradiction of capital and labour. So, the workers have no other way to better the conditions of their life except through struggle. On the other hand, since the only source of profit for the capitalist class is the surplus labour of the workers, their very existence depends on inventing newer and more efficient ways of appropriation of surplus labour. Struggle between the two classes is therefore unavoidable on almost daily basis. But at the same time, such struggles are bound to be partial and partial movements do not serve to liberate the worker from his misery. So, not only organized struggle, but continuous struggle is the workers' destiny. And such struggle inevitably brings forth the need an organization of enduring nature.
But Who Said That The Only Political Organization Of The Proletariat Is A Communist Party?
From the above discussion, we see that one of the tasks of the political struggle of the working class is to put pressure on the ruling class and compel them to enact some laws in the interest of the working masses, to grant some political and economic concessions to them.
But the proletariat's interest does not end with the achievement of some partial demands under this system. It aims at ending private ownership over the means of production (and hence over the products) and establishing social ownership in its place. Being the only force which is engaged in social production and is expropriated of all means of production, the proletariat is objectively competent to lead this struggle. Therefore, the proletariat's political struggle inevitably leads to immediate expropriation of the bourgeoisie from political power. But this is not to happen spontaneously; it requires that the working class be alienated from the bourgeois ideology and be organized on the basis of its own independent ideology. The Communist Party is nothing but that organization based on working class ideology. The principal duty of the Communist Party is not to lead every economic and political struggle of the working class and achieve some demands, but its main task is to link the immediate target of a movement with the future, to represent the overall interest of the class, to prepare the class by explaining their experience through the each struggle on the basis of the independent ideology of the class. Name it whatever you wish, but it is impossible for the proletariat to liberate itself from wage slavery, the whole miserable humanity from exploitation and end private property without a political organization with working class ideology.
###
The main problem lies deep. On the centenary of the Russian revolution, the international Communist movement has come down to its lowest ebb. One of the main reasons is that, not only in the countries where revolutions occurred, but in the rest of the countries also, the old Communist Parties becoming rotten, and, betraying the interests of the working class, have become slaves of the bourgeoisie. No true revolutionary Communist Party has been formed in any country of the world that has some position of influence and standing as against these double dealers. In this situation, some are repudiating the Communist Party as such. We have tried to open a preliminary discussion on the subject. We tried to show that the economic structure of capitalism inevitably gives birth to organisations and the Communist Party is a decisive tool for the liberation of the working class. But this discourse is not enough. There is no excuse why the Parties in all countries went bankrupt. Even those who recognize the Party, cannot deny the reality of its conversion into a bureaucratic establishment, its shifting towards the "centre" in the name of "democratic centralism", etc. It is only natural that they would find fault with the Party structure itself. In the next issue, we will try to go into these questions and look for the real problems as best as we can. (to be continued)
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: ltr; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; }anization. As the defeat of the international Socialist movement came into effect from within - through the betrayal of the rotten "Communist" parties at its head, the necessity and function of the Communist Party itself is now in serious question. And, this question is affecting seriously those sections of the intelligentsia who are seriously pondering about the struggle against capitalism.But, where lies the problem? A good number from this section today holds the opinion that any political organization of permanent nature only begets domination, centralization of power, bureaucracy, hierarchy, domination of the "majority" over the individual, renunciation of individual opinion & "individuality", lack of democracy (going by "democratic centralism") etc. It is even assumed that such political organizations not only betray movements, but are tools for fulfillment of the leaders' own interests. Hence, many people in spite of recognizing the necessity of the Party are none the less worried and doubtful about its nature of functioning. The extreme of such thoughts is expressed by those who wholly negate the importance of a permanent-nature of political organization of the toiling masses.
Are these questions being raised merely subjective? Is it not the objective functioning of the reformist-revisionist parties in all countries (including ours) working in the name of Communist Parties that has given rise to such questions? Have not both the communist-revolutionaries and also the revisionists, since post-world war II, de-facto insisted on centralism in the name of practicing "democratic centralism?"
So, first of all, we must recognize that the problem is real and complex. In this essay, we will try to set a perspective for looking at this tangled reality. But please bear in mind that this is just a preliminary effort. We expect the readers to help us in developing the thought by throwing new light about it.
It is true that the questions and confusions originate from the way history has moved. But, will refutation of the necessity of the Communist Party or any organization of enduring nature help forward the movement? Let us first discuss on this aspect. Thereafter, we'll try to delve into the questions of those who believe that Communist party is a necessity, but are torn apart regarding the problems of its nature of functioning.
Does The Formation Of An Organization Depend Just On Someone's Will Or Initiative?
History has shown that formation of an organization has never been determined by someone's or a group's will. The real necessity of development of a movement has inevitably guided people towards an organization. The history of working class movement provides ample examples of this. There, we see that, at the initial stage of the movement, organizations of temporary nature had cropped up which quickly evolved into permanent organizations. Not only that, another process of metamorphosis was also on. We will come to it in the course of our discussion.
Let us have a brief glance at this history. The introduction of machines dealt a very big blow to the workers' livelihoods; wages slumped, unemployment went raging and prices plummeted. To the workers, the villains behind all these were the machines. They vented out their anger on the machines by breaking them. Throughout late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, this was the principal form of movement of the working class, and was called the Luddite Movement. What is important here is that, though this was a spontaneous movement, it contained the germs of organization. The secret Luddite societies in England maintained contact among themselves, organized regular secret meetings, planned their programs jointly, submitted petitions to the parliament, and sent representatives to Ireland. The Luddite societies of Lancashire and Yorkshire, formed in 1812, had even declared their political stand against the government.
When practical experience taught them that breaking machines would not help them out of the privations of their life, in early nineteenth century, the European workers stepped into the stage of strike movement. In that phase also, we see that, as the strikes multiplied and developed, spontaneity made way for the evolution and spread of the organisation of the movement. In many cases, the workers planned these strikes, and in some, they set a common programme of action during the strikes.
But, soon the experience of these strikes further taught the workers that such action can affect the capitalists only temporarily and the latter's aggression is soon revived with more intensity. They realised that not only temporary unity for strikes, but enduring associations are needed to combat the capitalists. Thus, the English workers first proceeded to form the trade-unions. Though trade unions first cropped up in small numbers during late eighteenth century, they were of a very embryonic nature. At this stage, the TUs had to fight for their existence against the suppressive measures of the bourgeois state along with the capitalists. Trade unions were banned in England from 1799 to 1824. In spite of this, the TUs led big strikes in 1808, 1810, 1812, 1818. But the actual trade-union movement in its modern sense began only in the 1820s.
The development of large-scale industry and the communication system needed for it gave a boost to this process. Crossing the boundary of small individual trade unions, large-scale industry opened the way for wider unity of movement. This led to the beginning of formation of united or federative trade unions of stable nature which gradually encompassed all the workers; local frontiers of the trade unions opened to form national trade unions. Thus, in 1829, the Grand General Union of Spinners - the first national organization of the spinners - came up in England. The decision for its formation was taken in a congress of the TU representatives of English, Scottish and Irish spinning workers. In 1830 "the National Association of United traders for the Protection of Labour" was formed. Though the initiative for it was taken by cotton workers, it not only included trade unions of cotton and textile workers, but also those of miners, mechanics and pottery makers, and the combined membership reached almost 0.1 million. And, the workers took the leadership and management of these organizations on to themselves.
The above brief narration of history probably makes it amply clear that, the first organizations of the working masses which acquired stable nature were formed in the interest of resisting the capitalist onslaught and taking the movement forward; that, they were not intellectual endeavours or made by some person or some group from above, but organizations which evolved in the course of objective movement.
But Political Organizations Result From Some Person's Or Group's Initiative, Isn't It?
Above, we have discussed citing historical examples how the first organizations of the working mass were shaped by their objective movements. Now we will try to understand the evolution and development of their political organization.
We know that the contradiction between labour and capital inevitably drive the workers to resist the onslaught of capital. Initially, the struggle is launched from a defensive stand at the economic level in the factory or across the trade. Gradually, as the workers gather experience from the struggles all over the country, they can identify the commonness of aggression of all the capitalists, realize how the state functions in the interests of the capitalists, confront the combined assault, the urge for greater unity strikes their consciousness. It is this urge that lead them to form nation-wide united trade unions on the basis of common demands. Such unity can actually enable the workers to launch struggles powerful enough to compel the ruling class to pass laws in favour of the workers. If this happens, the proletarian movement transcends the boundary of economic struggle and becomes a movement of the working class which take to the street to confront the capitalist class; their independent class character makes it a political struggle. A known example may explain our point. When the workers demand an eight-hour day in a factory, it is an economic struggle and the organization needed for it is a trade union. But the struggle which compels the government to enact laws for implementation of an eight-hour day in all the industries across the country is obviously a political struggle of the working class; it presupposes i) trade union experience in the previous phase, and, ii) existence of a political organization which can act as a receptacle of such a struggle. The extent to which this political organization is able to possess the movement, the latter helps the organization to flourish and mature, thereby furthering it as a suitable vehicle for the proletariat to move towards the subsequent political movement.
Actually, as the two opposing classes approach an inevitable class battle, they both have to reinforce their own strength in order to achieve higher and higher unity. This is nothing but an inevitable historical necessity. The objective development of class struggle cannot limit it into the economic struggle; it evolves into political struggle inevitably. And the compulsion of political struggle directs that the proletariat be organized in a permanent political organization. The subsistent political movement, on the other hand, develops and perfects the political organization.
However, it may be mentioned here that, as the character of the movement changes, according change also occurs in the political organization as per necessity of the movement.
The History Of Movement Is Old, Then Why Is The History Of Organization So Recent?
It is true that the laboring classes have been fighting for at least two thousand years. But stable political organizations have cropped up only a hundred and fifty years ago. What objective conditions necessitated the establishment of such bodies? Let us see.
Generally in our conception by a stable organization we understand a political party. But didn't history have other forms also? During the whole era of feudalism, the only form of organization was small guilds of the artisans (later followed by the merchants' guilds). On the rulers' side, there were no stable geographical boundaries to the states; borders frequently changed through wars. The structure of the state could not acquire a permanent character accordingly. The concept of a permanent army started to develop in the eighteenth century only. Excepting Britain, the West European countries had moving courts for long. It was the development of modern capitalism that brought in enduring institutions and organizations in society. Eliminating the small establishments of individual petty producers, it built up the factory organisation - the form of production which employs the labour of many under one shed. And to maximize the efficiency of production, planning and organization were essential, so was the engagement of special personnel called managers and supervisors. This way of production, the industrial structure, the factory was the first stable form of organization in history. We must admit that in spite of the immense development of the techniques of production, the shooting multiplicity of commodities in the last 200 years, the basic structure of capitalist production has changed little. Notwithstanding the introduction of pompous discourses about "horizontal management", "labour participation in management", etc., capitalist organization remains extremely centralized - the actual producers, i.e., the workers have no option of democratic participation in capitalist execution.
Modern capitalism has not only systematized production, it has also set up financial structures to match it. Banks had cropped up long ago, but with the centralization of production, evolution of monopolies and multinational corporations, the whole banking system acquired magnified importance along with the development of the share market, non-banking financial institutions, etc. Thus, advancing capitalism has furthered its byproducts - the financial organizations.
We know that modern capitalism is nothing but production for generation of profit, production for sale. Profit is nothing but the surplus value generated through surplus labour. The only target of production is sale because the surplus value is realized as profit only when the commodity is sold. Hence capitalist economy is synonymous with market economy. And smooth running of this economy requires organization of the whole society along capitalist lines.
In the interest of the security of capitalist private property and of the unhindered and easy functioning of capitalist production and exchange, it is important to set the State apparatus so as to serve the economic order. So, the concept of the modern State arose during the early days of capitalism. The consolidation of the first Nation-State with its well-organized bureaucracy, judiciary and police-military came into being. The masterstroke of the capitalism is that the machinery of exploitation and that of reign appears to be completely detached, enticing people to believe that the two have no relationship between them. But at the same time, it has organized the whole State structure in such a way so that capitalist exploitation has become the order of the day. So, modern State structure is another contribution of capitalism in terms of an enduring organisation.
So, when we speak about enduring organisation, though the image of the political parties comes naturally to us, we need to understand that it is just apparent. Moreover, it was modern capitalism itself which first posed the need for the creation of the permanent political parties. As governance became a separate affair, all the classes in society, including the different lobbies of capitalists, felt that they should be represented in the legislature. This compulsion gave rise to political parties - which are actually class organizations.
Let us now discuss about the objectivity of the rise of the proletarian organizations. Socialized production under capitalism compulsorily made the individual worker an integral part of the collective labour force. By working in a factory, a worker not only attains the organized character, he becomes an integral part of a disciplined working regiment. This special unique character imposed upon the proletariat by modern industry served as the precondition for its natural tendency to organize. It was impossible for the plebian masses in the pre-capitalist era to gather in a steady organization due to the absence of this special quality of the modern proletariat.
Capitalism also brought in another phenomenon - the continuous worsening in the standard of living of the working class against the spectacular advance of the capitalists as a result of the contradiction of capital and labour. So, the workers have no other way to better the conditions of their life except through struggle. On the other hand, since the only source of profit for the capitalist class is the surplus labour of the workers, their very existence depends on inventing newer and more efficient ways of appropriation of surplus labour. Struggle between the two classes is therefore unavoidable on almost daily basis. But at the same time, such struggles are bound to be partial and partial movements do not serve to liberate the worker from his misery. So, not only organized struggle, but continuous struggle is the workers' destiny. And such struggle inevitably brings forth the need an organization of enduring nature.
But Who Said That The Only Political Organization Of The Proletariat Is A Communist Party?
From the above discussion, we see that one of the tasks of the political struggle of the working class is to put pressure on the ruling class and compel them to enact some laws in the interest of the working masses, to grant some political and economic concessions to them.
But the proletariat's interest does not end with the achievement of some partial demands under this system. It aims at ending private ownership over the means of production (and hence over the products) and establishing social ownership in its place. Being the only force which is engaged in social production and is expropriated of all means of production, the proletariat is objectively competent to lead this struggle. Therefore, the proletariat's political struggle inevitably leads to immediate expropriation of the bourgeoisie from political power. But this is not to happen spontaneously; it requires that the working class be alienated from the bourgeois ideology and be organized on the basis of its own independent ideology. The Communist Party is nothing but that organization based on working class ideology. The principal duty of the Communist Party is not to lead every economic and political struggle of the working class and achieve some demands, but its main task is to link the immediate target of a movement with the future, to represent the overall interest of the class, to prepare the class by explaining their experience through the each struggle on the basis of the independent ideology of the class. Name it whatever you wish, but it is impossible for the proletariat to liberate itself from wage slavery, the whole miserable humanity from exploitation and end private property without a political organization with working class ideology.
###
The main problem lies deep. On the centenary of the Russian revolution, the international Communist movement has come down to its lowest ebb. One of the main reasons is that, not only in the countries where revolutions occurred, but in the rest of the countries also, the old Communist Parties becoming rotten, and, betraying the interests of the working class, have become slaves of the bourgeoisie. No true revolutionary Communist Party has been formed in any country of the world that has some position of influence and standing as against these double dealers. In this situation, some are repudiating the Communist Party as such. We have tried to open a preliminary discussion on the subject. We tried to show that the economic structure of capitalism inevitably gives birth to organisations and the Communist Party is a decisive tool for the liberation of the working class. But this discourse is not enough. There is no excuse why the Parties in all countries went bankrupt. Even those who recognize the Party, cannot deny the reality of its conversion into a bureaucratic establishment, its shifting towards the "centre" in the name of "democratic centralism", etc. It is only natural that they would find fault with the Party structure itself. In the next issue, we will try to go into these questions and look for the real problems as best as we can. (to be continued)
Comments:
No Comments for View