Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Part 3)

Here is the text. http://en.internationalism.org/ir/14...up-manifesto-3

I will read this later, busy now.

And really, suppose that our country is covered by a thick forest of factory chimneys, the land cultivated by tractors and not by ploughs, that wheat is harvested using reapers not a sickle, threshed with a threshing machine and not a sickle, winnowed by a winnowing machine, not a shovel; all these machines driven by a tractor - in these circumstances would we need a New Economic Policy? Not at all.

For the above quotation, I think that it is a little much to say that the NEP wouldn't be necessary at all but that it wouldn't have to have been as harsh.

So it will not be by decrees that we will fight the petty bourgeoisie, but by submitting it to the needs of a rational, mechanised, homogeneous economy. By the free struggle of economies based on the use of machines and new technical improvements against all other archaic modes of production that still dominate in a small artisanal economy. We cannot build communism with a plough.

I completely agree with the above.

Russia entered the path of socialist revolution with 80% of its population still living on individual holdings. We pushed the peasant to expropriate the expropriators, to seize the land. But he did not understand this expropriation as the industrial worker understands it. His rural being determined his consciousness. Every peasant, with his individual holding, dreamed of increasing it. Landholdings did not have the same internal organisation as industrial enterprises in the cities, which is why it was necessary to "socialise the land” even though this was a regression, a decline of the productive forces, a step backwards. By expropriating more or less the expropriators, we could not think of immediately changing a mode of production with the existing productive forces, the peasant with his individual holding. We must never forget that the shape of the economy is entirely determined by the degree of development of productive forces, and our wooden plough cannot in any way be predisposed to the mode of socialist production.

Again, I agree with the above.

If the mechanisation of agriculture determines the fate of our revolution and is therefore not alien to the proletariat of the world, it must develop on a firmer basis. Without renouncing aid of this magnitude (which our overseas comrades have granted us) or diminishing its importance, we have yet to think about the results it will help us obtain.

I agree with the above, and it seems to me that the Workers' Group is making the same claim that Bordiga has made. This is, that the characterization of capitalism is fundamentally an agrarian question.

Something else I found interesting was when the author thanks the "american proletariat" for giving Russia tractors. I think this had much more to do with the company providing the tractors profits and reaching more markets than the "solidarity" of the american proletariat with that of the Russian proletariat.

Also, when the author talks of the necessity of foreign capital, while I agree that this was needed for Russia at the time, I also think very strict regulation would be needed for sure.

The next quotation is interesting

If we mechanise agriculture in Russia, by producing the necessary machinery in our factories rather than purchasing them from the foreign Keith firm, city and countryside will be indissolubly linked by the growth of the productive forces, brought closer to one another; we will then need to consolidate this ideological reconciliation by organising “unions of a particular type” (after the RCP programme). These are the indispensable conditions for the peaceful abolition of capitalist relations, enlargement of the basis of the socialist revolution with the help of a new economic policy.[3]

Our socialist revolution will destroy petty bourgeois production and ownership not by declaring socialisation, municipalisation, nationalisation, but by a conscious and consistent struggle of modern methods of production at the expense of outdated, disadvantageous methods, by the progressive introduction of socialism. This is exactly the essence of the leap from capitalist necessity to socialist freedom.

Here is another interesting quote.

To prevent the risk of the degeneration of the New Economic Policy into a new policy for exploitation of the proletariat, it is necessary to lead the proletariat to the accomplishment of the great tasks in front of it by a consistent realisation of the principles of proletarian democracy, which will give the working class the means to defend the conquests of the October revolution against all dangers wherever they come from. The internal regime of the party and the relationship of the party with the proletariat must be radically changed in this sense.

While I view the term "proletariat democracy" as contradictory (is my Bordiga showing?) I do think that the general idea of the above is correct. The material conditions, while not favorable by any means, were so that it was quite possible for more direct soviet participation in the running of the state administration and this would probably have proven to be effective.

I won't quote the next part completely because it is long, but basically he starts out talking about inequalities between different sections of the population.

If this state of things doesn’t change very quickly but exercises its influence ten or twenty years hence, the economic condition of the one and the other will determine their consciousness and they will collide from two opposing camps. We must understand that even if the - often renewed - leading posts are occupied by persons of very low social origins, they occupy a position which is in no way proletarian. They form a very slender social layer. Influenced by their economic condition they consider themselves the only ones appropriate for certain reserved tasks, the only ones capable of transforming the economy of the country, of satisfying the demands of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the factory councils, of workers’ delegates, with the help of the verse: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”... For us the danger is that proletarian power degenerates into the hegemony of a powerful group deciding to take political and economic power into its own hands, naturally under the pretence of very noble intentions“in the interests of the proletariat, of the world revolution and other very high ideals”. Yes, the danger of an oligarchic degeneration really exists.

Alright, so I agree with the above and I even agree with this next part.

It is harmful and counter-revolutionary to tell fables to the proletariat to lull its consciousness. But what are we told? “Stay silent, attend demonstrations when you are invited, sing the Internationale when necessary, the rest will be done without you by brave boys, almost workers like you, but who are smarter than you and know everything about communism, so stay quiet and soon you will enter the socialist kingdom”. This, we are told, is revolutionary socialism pure and simple. It is they who defend the idea that brilliant individuals, full of dynamism and armed with diverse talents, from all classes of society (and this seems to be the case) can take this grey mass (the working class) to a high and perfect kingdom, where there will be neither disease nor punishments, nor sighing, but life everlasting. This is exactly the style of the Socialist-Revolutionary “holy fathers”.

Now, here is where I develop a problem with the text. In this next quotation.

We need to replace existing practice with a new practice based on autonomous working class activity and not on intimidation by the party.

Now, I am not for "intimidation by the party" but I highly disagree with the decentralization and autonomism espoused at this point.

It is these main nuclei of state power in the factories and plants that must be restored in councils of workers’ deputies, which will take the place of our wise comrades who are currently leading the economy and the country.

I agree with the soviet system as an effective organ of proletariat class rule, but I do not agree with council autonomy at all. That would be disastrous for products needing to reach a wide and mass population. Also, absolute council autonomy (as the anarchists tend to advocate) can lead to a return to the extraction of surplus value from one council to another with the fluctuation of the equivalence of one commodity to another.

I agree with them about restoring soviet decision-making, but this is not the same thing as supporting soviet and council autonomy at all.

But what sort of 'autonomy' is the Manifesto talking about here? I don't think Miasnikov is advocating that councils be allowed to re-institute money or anything of the type - I think what he's referring to is creativity, rather than the commands of the centre. Centralisation is not in itself a bad thing, obviously, but there must be scope for the autonomous activity of the working class. The revolutionary transformation of society is carried out by the working class not by the party; how can the working class do that if it is merely a series of appendages of the party brain?

^So, basically limited autonomy within a centralized system? I guess I could agree with that in the time after the Civil War.

Currently, the strength and power of the socialist revolution are totally conditioned by the struggle for industrialisation, for the tractor over the plough. If the tractor tears the Russian land from the plough, socialism will win, but if the plough chases away the tractor, capitalism will win. The New Economic Policy will only disappear with the plough.

This seems similar to the view expressed by Preobrazhensky and later adopted by the Left Opposition during the era of the NEP which emphasized the competition between the law of value, manifested within petty bourgeois agricultural production ("the plough"), and the law of planning, manifested in industrialization and the progressive "mechanization of agriculture" ("the tractor").

According to Preobrazhensky et al. the success of the law of value would mean the triumph of capitalism, while the success of the law of planning would mean the success of socialism in the same way that the Workers' Group maintained that "[i]f the tractor tears the Russian land from the plough, socialism will win, but if the plough chases away the tractor, capitalism will win."

This is, perhaps, a superficial comparison, as I only have a very basic understanding of Preobrazhensky's view, but I think it's still an interesting similarity.

I didn't get the impression that the Manifesto, when referring to "autonomous working class activity[,]" meant "autonomy" in the anarchist sense of decentralized federalism. I think, as Blake's Baby suggested, it's referring more to freedom of the working class to transform society itself through its own creative efforts.

I agree with them about restoring soviet decision-making

Well, actually in the passage you cited they are referring, not to soviets, which are purely political organs organized by region, but to factory councils. Notice how they say "in the factories and plants[,]" rather than "in each region."

Factory councils aren't necessarily a bad thing, but I disagree with the Manifesto that such councils should "take the place of our wise comrades who are currently leading the economy[,]" which implies the complete subordination of production to the wills of the factory councils.

Factory councils inevitably tend to represent the interests of their respective factories and the interests of their specific trades, interests that can, and often do, conflict with the general interests of the class. For this reason, the power of the factory councils should be limited and the Party should always retain a certain degree of control over production in order that production is carried out in the interests of all workers, rather than subordinated to the interests of a particular trade or factory of workers.

I didn't get the impression that the Manifesto, when referring to "autonomous working class activity[,]" meant "autonomy" in the anarchist sense of decentralized federalism. I think, as Blake's Baby suggested, it's referring more to freedom of the working class to transform society itself through its own creative efforts.

Yeah, after re-reading it I get that impression as well.

Well, actually in the passage you cited they are referring, not to soviets, which are purely political organs organized by region, but to factory councils. Notice how they say "in the factories and plants[,]" rather than "in each region."

Factory councils aren't necessarily a bad thing, but I disagree with the Manifesto that such councils should "take the place of our wise comrades who are currently leading the economy[,]" which implies the complete subordination of production to the wills of the factory councils.

Factory councils inevitably tend to represent the interests of their respective factories and the interests of their specific trades, interests that can, and often do, conflict with the general interests of the class. For this reason, the power of the factory councils should be limited and the Party should always retain a certain degree of control over production in order that production is carried out in the interests of all workers, rather than subordinated to the interests of a particular trade or factory of workers.

I agree.

By the way, your Bordiga is showing