2. The Nature of the Proletarian Revolution

  1. zimmerwald1915
    Platform of the ICC

    2. THE NATURE OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION

    Every social revolution is the act through which the class bearing with it new relations of production establishes its political domination over society. The proletarian revolution does not escape this definition but its conditions and its content differ fundamentally from past revolutions.

    These previous revolutions, because they were hinged between two modes of production based on scarcity, merely substituted the domination of one exploiting class for that of another exploiting class. This fact was expressed by the replacement of one form of property by another form of property, one type of privilege by another type of privilege. In contrast to this the goal of the proletarian revolution is to replace relations of production based on scarcity with relations of production based on abundance. This is why it signifies the end of all forms of property, privilege and exploitation. These differences confer on the proletarian revolution the following characteristics, which the proletariat must understand if its revolution is to be successful:

    a. It is the first revolution to have a world-wide character; it cannot achieve its aims without generalising itself to all countries. This is because in order to abolish private property, the proletariat must abolish all its sectional, regional and national expressions. The generalisation of capitalist domination across the whole world has made this both necessary and possible.

    b. For the first time in history, the revolutionary class is at the same time the exploited class in the old system and, because of this, it cannot draw upon any economic power in the process of conquering political power. Exactly the opposite is the case: in direct contrast to what happened in past revolutions, the seizure of political power by the proletariat necessarily precedes the period of transition during which the domination of the old relations of production is destroyed and gives way to new social relations.

    c. The fact that, for the first time, a class in society is at the same time an exploited and a revolutionary class also implies that its struggle as an exploited class can at no point be separated from or opposed to its struggle as a revolutionary class. As marxism has from the beginning asserted against Proudhonism and other petty-bourgeois theories, the development of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is conditioned by the deepening and generalisation of its struggle as an exploited class.
  2. Bilan
    Bilan
    Can you elaborate on 'b.' for me?
  3. Devrim
    Devrim
    Can you elaborate on 'b.' for me?
    Yes, for example the bourgeoisie in its revolutionary period was revolutionary, but not exploited (in fact it was an exploiting class), and was able to build its economic base, the economic base of capitalism with feudal society.

    The working class, for obvious reasons, can not do this.

    Devrim
  4. zimmerwald1915
    Point b. makes two closely related but distinct points, only one of which you touched on in your explanation, Devrim.

    b. For the first time in history, the revolutionary class is at the same time the exploited class in the old system and, because of this, it cannot draw upon any economic power in the process of conquering political power.
    This is the bit to which your explanation refers. To take your example further it would be necessary to examine how the bourgesoisie in feudal society wasn't exploited (it had no relationship with feudal property relations and owed none of its labor and precious little of its obedience to the owners of landed property) and why it was nevertheless revolutionary (the feudal relations of production hampered the need of the bourgeoisie for a "free" labor force and also the need for free movement of raw materials, capital, and finished goods).

    The working class, holding no capital and with precious little opportunity to get enough of it to survive in business, cannot build itself up within capitalism (subjectively; objectively, it can't do so because capitalism can't work without it). The fact that they don't really own anything saleable other than their capacity to work precludes them from building any sort of economic power, even an alternative economic structure, within capitalism.

    However, that doesn't directly comment on this:

    Exactly the opposite is the case: in direct contrast to what happened in past revolutions, the seizure of political power by the proletariat necessarily precedes the period of transition during which the domination of the old relations of production is destroyed and gives way to new social relations.
    Personally, and I'm just guessing, I think this was the bit that gave SoB concern.
  5. Devrim
    Devrim
    Personally, and I'm just guessing, I think this was the bit that gave SoB concern.
    I assumed it was the other bit. To me this seems quite logical. You can't change the relations of production overnight.

    Devrim
  6. zimmerwald1915
    I assumed it was the other bit. To me this seems quite logical. You can't change the relations of production overnight.

    Devrim
    Of course not. That doesn't mean that what is printed in the platform can't be elaborated on
  7. Bilan
    Bilan
    Just curious about why the emphasis on political power preceding the transition, as opposed to economic and political seizure of power.
  8. Junius
    Originally posted by ICC Platform
    b. For the first time in history, the revolutionary class is at the same time the exploited class in the old system and, because of this, it cannot draw upon any economic power in the process of conquering political power. Exactly the opposite is the case: in direct contrast to what happened in past revolutions, the seizure of political power by the proletariat necessarily precedes the period of transition during which the domination of the old relations of production is destroyed and gives way to new social relations.
    I can understand where they might be going with this...but what else is a mass strike but for the utilization of economic power in the process of conquering political power?

    Originally posted by SoB
    Just curious about why the emphasis on political power preceding the transition, as opposed to economic and political seizure of power.
    I think its an emphasis on Soviets/Councils versus factory councils, which some Left Communists have seen as a trap to the working class; i.e. workers simply controlling factories doesn't go to the heart of which class has political supremacy.

    Bordiga, Party and Class, 1921.
    There is also a different category of objection to the communist concept of the party’s role. These objections are linked to another form of critical and tactical reaction to the reformist degeneracy: they belong to the syndicalist school, which sees the class in the economic trade unions and pretends that these are the organs capable of leading the class in revolution. Following the classical period of the French, Italian and American syndicalism, these apparently left-wing objections found new formulations in tendencies which are on the margins of the Third International. These too can be easily reduced to semi-bourgeois ideologies by a critique of their principles as well as by acknowledging the historical results they led to. These tendencies would like to recognise the class within an organisation of its own – certainly a characteristic and a most important one – that is, the craft or trade unions which arise before the political party, gather much larger masses and therefore better correspond to the whole of the working class. From an abstract point of view, however, the choice of such a criterion reveals an unconscious respect for that selfsame democratic lie which the bourgeoisie relies on to secure its power by the means of inviting the majority of the people to choose their government.

    In other theoretical viewpoints, such a method meets with bourgeois conceptions when it entrusts the trade unions with the organisation of the new society and demands the autonomy and decentralisation of the productive functions, just as reactionary economists do. But our present purpose is not to draw out a complete critical analysis of the syndicalist doctrines. It is sufficient to remark, considering the result of historical experience, that the extreme right wing members of the proletarian movement have always advocated the same point of view, that is, the representation of the working class by trade unions; indeed they know that by doing so, they soften and diminish the movement’s character, for the simple reasons that we have already mentioned. Today the bourgeoisie itself shows a sympathy and an inclination, which are by no means illogical, towards the unionisation of the working class. Indeed, the more intelligent sections of the bourgeoisie would readily accept a reform of the state and representative apparatus in order to give a larger place to the “apolitical” unions and even to their claims to exercise control over the system of production. The bourgeoisie feels that, as long as the proletariat’s action can be limited to the immediate economic demands that are raised trade by trade, it helps to safeguard the status-quo and to avoid the formation of the perilous “political” consciousness – that is, the only consciousness which is revolutionary for it aims at the enemy’s vulnerable point, the possession of power.

    Past and present syndicalists, however, have always been conscious of the fact that most trade unions are controlled by right wing elements and that the dictatorship of the petty bourgeois leaders over the masses is based on the union bureaucracy even more than on the electoral mechanism of the socialdemocratic pseudo-parties. Therefore the syndicalists, along with very numerous elements who were merely acting in reaction to the reformist practice, devoted themselves to the study of new forms of union organisation and created new unions independent from the traditional ones.

    Such an expedient was theoretically wrong for it did not go beyond the fundamental criterion of the economic organisation: that is, the automatic admission of all those who are placed in given conditions by the part they play in production, without demanding special political convictions or special pledges of actions which may require even the sacrifice of their lives.

    Moreover, in looking for the “producer” it could not go beyond the limits of the “trade”, whereas the class party, by considering the “proletarian” in the vast range of his conditions and activities, is alone able to awaken the revolutionary spirit of the class. Therefore, that remedy which was wrong theoretically also proved inefficient in actuality. In spite of everything, such recipes are constantly being sought for even today. A totally wrong interpretation of Marxist determinism and a limited conception of the part played by facts of consciousness and will in the formation, under the original influence of economic factors, of the revolutionary forces, lead a great number of people to look for a “mechanical” system of organisation that would almost automatically organise the masses according to each individual’s part in production. According to these illusions, such a device by itself would be enough to make the mass ready to move towards revolution with the maximum revolutionary efficiency.

    Thus the illusory solution reappears, which consists of thinking that the everyday satisfaction of economic needs can be reconciled with the final result of the overthrow of the social system by relying on an organisational form to solve the old antithesis between limited and gradual conquests and the maximum revolutionary program. But – as was rightly said in one of the resolutions of the majority of the German Communist Party at a time when these questions (which later provoked the secession of the KAPD) were particularly acute in Germany – revolution is not a question of the form of organisation. Revolution requires an organisation of active and positive forces united by a doctrine and a final aim.

    Important strata and innumerable individuals will remain outside this organisation even though they materially belong to the class in whose interest the revolution will triumph. But the class lives, struggles, progresses and wins thanks to the action of the forces it has engendered from its womb in the pains of history. The class originates from an immediate homogeneity of economic conditions which appear to us as the primary motive force of the tendency to destroy and go beyond the present mode of production. But in order to assume this great task, the class must have its own thought, its own critical method, its own will bent on the precise ends defined by research and criticism, and its own organisation of struggle channelling and utilising with the utmost efficiency its collective efforts and sacrifices. All this constitutes the Party.
    I guess you didn't expect this sort of authoritarianism from Left-Communists, did you? :P (I think Bordiga makes a valid point, but overemphasizes the subjective role of the party, as most would probably agree. Just like Pannekoek overemphasizes the role of the struggle in the factory).
  9. zimmerwald1915
    I can understand where they might be going with this...but what else is a mass strike but for the utilization of economic power in the process of conquering political power?
    I think the point they're making is that the working class cannot begin to construct the new mode of production (communism) within the framework of capitalism. IMHO, this is a veiled attack on syndicalists and others who think that the institutions of struggle of the working class (unions [yes, I know they don't play that role now, so don't bother reminding me], parties, factory groups) within the framework of capitalism are somehow the embryo of communism. They're not. Only workers' organizations formed in the struggle against, i.e., not within, capitalism are the embryos of communism.

    A mass strike is fundamentally a tool to destroy. By itself, a mass strike does not create communism. Rather, by attacking capitalist production and the capitalist state, a mass strike begins to create the preconditions for communism, precisely the destruction of that state and the abolition of that production.

    I think its an emphasis on Soviets/Councils versus factory councils, which some Left Communists have seen as a trap to the working class; i.e. workers simply controlling factories doesn't go to the heart of which class has political supremacy.
    Agreed, but more clarity is needed. Assemblies and the Councils that grow out of them are primarily mass organizations of the working class, formed in struggle and forming a positive feedback loop where participation leads to greater intensity of struggle leads to greater participation and so on. The Council is the means of molding communist society.

    Factory groups, on the other hand, are organs of self-management, which will be explored (and deplored) at greater length in subsequent points of the platform.

    I guess you didn't expect this sort of authoritarianism from Left-Communists, did you? :P (I think Bordiga makes a valid point, but overemphasizes the subjective role of the party, as most would probably agree. Just like Pannekoek overemphasizes the role of the struggle in the factory).
    I thought we didn't work in the libertarian-authoritian paradigm
  10. Junius
    Originally posted by Zimmerwald1915
    I think the point they're making is that the working class cannot begin to construct the new mode of production (communism) within the framework of capitalism. IMHO, this is a veiled attack on syndicalists and others who think that the institutions of struggle of the working class (unions [yes, I know they don't play that role now, so don't bother reminding me], parties, factory groups) within the framework of capitalism are somehow the embryo of communism. They're not. Only workers' organizations formed in the struggle against, i.e., not within, capitalism are the embryos of communism.
    Agreed.

    Originally posted by Zimmerwald1915
    A mass strike is fundamentally a tool to destroy. By itself, a mass strike does not create communism. Rather, by attacking capitalist production and the capitalist state, a mass strike begins to create the preconditions for communism, precisely the destruction of that state and the abolition of that production.
    Also agreed.

    Originally posted by Zimmerwald1915
    Agreed, but more clarity is needed. Assemblies and the Councils that grow out of them are primarily mass organizations of the working class, formed in struggle and forming a positive feedback loop where participation leads to greater intensity of struggle leads to greater participation and so on. The Council is the means of molding communist society.

    Factory groups, on the other hand, are organs of self-management, which will be explored (and deplored) at greater length in subsequent points of the platform.
    And again.

    Originally posted by Zimmerwald1915
    I thought we didn't work in the libertarian-authoritian paradigm
    Sure aren't. But I still like to tease the anarchists with my authoritarianism.

    Really good post, by the way.
  11. zimmerwald1915
    Sure aren't. But I still like to tease the anarchists with my authoritarianism.
    Nice. I've always preferred needling the trots myself
  12. beltov
    beltov
    I'm not sure the second part of point (b) has been fully elaborated here. Yes, it is a criticism of the syndicalist conception of building up the organs of class rule (industrial unions) within capitalism before the revolution. But this in itself is part of the wider social democratic approach in the late 1800s that sort to build up workers' co-operatives, educational associations, friendly societies, mass parties etc. etc. All these were important in the period of capitalism's ascendency in order for the working class to build up its confidence and experience. It was the reformists who drew the conclusion that there could be a peaceful transition to capitalism through these institutions. That socialism can gestate peacefully within the womb of capitalism.

    Secondly, the point about the mass strike under decadence is that it rapidly turns from a series of 'industrial' disputes which begin to take on a political character as workers come up against the unions, police, army etc. Through these confrontations the struggles raise more political demands which develop into a situation of dual-power, insurrection and the siezure of political power by the workers' councils.

    There is a classic text on the nature of the proletarian revolution here, which explains this whole section in much more detail:
    http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_prolrevn.htm

    Hope that has helped.

    B.
  13. Bilan
    Bilan
    I can understand where they might be going with this...but what else is a mass strike but for the utilization of economic power in the process of conquering political power?

    I think its an emphasis on Soviets/Councils versus factory councils, which some Left Communists have seen as a trap to the working class; i.e. workers simply controlling factories doesn't go to the heart of which class has political supremacy.



    I guess you didn't expect this sort of authoritarianism from Left-Communists, did you? :P (I think Bordiga makes a valid point, but overemphasizes the subjective role of the party, as most would probably agree. Just like Pannekoek overemphasizes the role of the struggle in the factory).
    I didn't think it was that authoritarian. :
    I love Pannekoek!
    But have to agree on the Bordiga criticism. :P
    Not Pannekoek though.

    But thanks for the clarity.
  14. Bilan
    Bilan
    Thanks, Beltov. I'll give that a read.
  15. Devrim
    Devrim
    The term 'authoritarian' isn't really part of the Marxist discourse. Personally, I don't think it means much.

    In the ICP document 'What Distinguishes Our Party' they call for a 'return to revolutionary totalitarianism'.

    http://www.international-communist-p...otalitarianism

    Devrim
  16. zimmerwald1915
    The term 'authoritarian' isn't really part of the Marxist discourse. Personally, I don't think it means much.

    In the ICP document 'What Distinguishes Our Party' they call for a 'return to revolutionary totalitarianism'.

    http://www.international-communist-p...otalitarianism

    Devrim
    If nothing else, that title is good for a laugh...

    *goes to attempt to read the piece, having posted a meaningless comment that contributed nothing to the discussion*
  17. black magick hustla
    black magick hustla
    The term 'authoritarian' isn't really part of the Marxist discourse. Personally, I don't think it means much.

    In the ICP document 'What Distinguishes Our Party' they call for a 'return to revolutionary totalitarianism'.

    http://www.international-communist-p...otalitarianism

    Devrim
    that article title sucks and I think bordiga was trying to troll people hence the title.
  18. zimmerwald1915
    that article title sucks and I think bordiga was trying to troll people hence the title.
    Yeah, he probably was, though the word didn't gain popularity until the mid fifties, by which point this programme was replaced by another (if I'm reading the dates at the top right).

    It's still a good article, certainly from the perspective of understanding the historical nature of and reasons for the positions of the modern Communist Left.
  19. Leo
    Leo
    I think bordiga was trying to troll people
    Ahahahahahahaha what an absolutely superb way of expressing it
  20. beltov
    beltov
    Maybe it's time to move on to Point 3?
  21. zimmerwald1915
    Perhaps, perhaps not. Does anyone have much else to contribute?