Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Part 1)

So a comrade of mine suggested I read this, and I thought why not make a thread about this in case anyone wanted to discuss this and read this with me.

Here is the text to part one on the ICC's page. I will make threads for the other parts as well.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/14...up-manifesto-1

I don't have time to read this right now, but I'll read it later and be back to give my thoughts.

I'm really liking the internationalist sentiment in this work and the idea that the proletariat in Russia should look toward the international proletariat, not just itself.

The Russian worker has learned to see himself as a soldier in the world army of the international proletariat and to see his class organisations as the regiments of this army. Every time the disquieting question of the destiny of the October revolution is raised, he turns his gaze beyond the frontiers of Russia, to where the conditions for revolution are ripe, but where the revolution does not come.

But the proletarian must not complain, nor lower his head because the revolution doesn't present itself at a given moment. On the contrary, he must pose the question: what is it necessary to do in order for the revolution to happen?

I agree with this next part but when it was written (back in the early 1920's) I think historically I would have disagreed with it seeing as these demands that are denied here would have been important in this time period. It would have been important as a minimum program at that time period.

In order to finish with exploitation, oppression and wars, the proletariat must not struggle for an increase in wages or a reduction in its hours of work. This was necessary in the past, but today it must struggle for power.

This next part is a great condemnation of opportunistic and generally reformist policies of many social-democratic and "socialist" parties.

The bourgeoisie and oppressors of all types and hues are very satisfied with the Socialists of all countries, precisely because they divert the proletariat away from its essential task which is the struggle against the bourgeoisie and against its regime of exploitation: they continually propose petty demands without showing the least resistance to subjection and violence. In this way, they become, at a certain moment, the sole saviours of the bourgeoisie faced with the proletarian revolution. The great mass of workers gives a distrustful reception to what its oppressors directly propose to it; but if the same thing is presented to it as conforming to their interests and clothed in socialist phrases, then the working class, confused by this language, is confident in the traitors and wastes its force in a useless combat. The bourgeoisie thus hasn't, and never will have, better advocates than the Socialists.

Looks like these predictions were wrong!

The Russian working class, weakened by the imperialist world war, the civil war and the famine, is not powerful. But, in front of the dangers which threaten it at present, it can prepare to struggle precisely because it has already gone through these dangers. It will make every effort possible to surmount them and it will succeed thanks to the help of the proletariat of other countries.

The section at the end that talks about how the bourgeoisie will almost certainly become violent counter-revolutionaries was very good and very interesting, although I think the idea of a violent proletariat revolution, while not impossible, is impractical. While violence will have to be necessary during the revolutionary struggle, in a country like the United States with massive military weaponry and power there would also need to be mainly non-violent methods of resistance (such as a general strike, mass protests, etc. as seen in Egypt) along with violent action (such as a guerrilla force).

As for this next part, again I am in complete agreement but I see that these demands could be revolutionary as part of a minimum program for a underdeveloped and backwards country. The Bolshevik party was revolutionary because it's minimum program was revolutionary for Russia's circumstances at this time (a country that had not gone through the bourgeois-democratic stage of development and so the demand for an 8 hour day, higher wages, etc. along with a serious maximum program).

The historical mission of the proletariat is to save humanity from the barbarism it has been plunged into by capitalism. And it is impossible to accomplish this by struggling for pennies, for the 8-hour working day, for the partial concessions that capitalism can grant. No, the proletariat must organise itself firmly with the aim of a decisive struggle for power.

Completely agree with this next part.

In such a time, all propaganda in favour of strikes to improve the material conditions of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries is a malicious propaganda that keeps the proletariat in illusions, in the hope of a real improvement in its standard of living in capitalist society.

It seems that toward the end, while not liking the idea of participating in parliaments, it seems the document is not opposed to the idea. I disagree, and feel it is completely useless to participate in parliaments.

I meant the predictions that the workers in Russia will succeed in instituting socialism was wrong (the part quoted after the text).