Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Part 4)

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/14...up-manifesto-4

If the proletariat fails to put itself at the head of production and put under its influence the entire petty-bourgeois mass of peasants, artisans and corporate intellectuals, everything will be lost again. The rivers of tears and blood, the piles of corpses, the untold suffering of the proletariat in the revolution will serve only to fertilise the ground on which capitalism restores itself, where a new world of exploitation will arise, of oppression of man by his fellow, if the proletariat does not recover production, does not impose itself on the petty bourgeois element personified by the peasant and the artisan, does not change the material basis of production

I agree. This is why I do not find Lenin's slogan of "learn from the capitalists" as so horrible as some others do. The point was that many of the former bourgeoisie were the only ones that knew certain things that were needed to run society at the time and the point was to subordinate the knowledge of the capitalists to the interests of the proletariat and it's dictatorship.

These new soviets, if they take the commanding heights of production and the management of factories, will not only be capable of calling on the vast masses of proletarians and semi-proletarians to solve the problems posed to them, but will also directly employ in production the whole state apparatus, not in word, but in deed. When, following that, the proletariat will have organised, for the management of firms and industries, soviets as the basic cells of state power, it will not be able to stop there: it will go on to the organisation of trusts, unions and central directing organs, including the famous supreme soviets for the popular economy, and it will give a new content to the work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The soviets will assign as members of the All-Russian Central Committee of Soviets all those who fought on the fronts of the civil war, to the work on the economic front. Naturally all the bureaucrats, all the economists who consider themselves as the saviours of the proletariat (whom they fear above all speech and judgement), similarly the people who occupy the cushy jobs in the various organisms, will scream in protest. They will support what previously meant the ruin of production, the bankruptcy of the social revolution, because many of them know that they owe their posts not to their capacities, but to the protection of their acquaintances, to “who they know”, and in no way to the confidence of the proletariat, in whose name they govern. Of the rest, they have more fear of the proletariat than the specialists, the new leaders of enterprises, the new entrepreneurs and the Slastschows.

I completely agree with the above, especially for Russia in this time period.

The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets which is elected for a year and meets for periodic conferences constitutes the germ of the parliamentary rot.

The characterization is correct, I would argue. The explanation given by the manifesto is interesting and correct as well.

The Council of People’s Commissars is organised in the image of a council of ministers and citizens of any bourgeois country and has all its faults. We have to stop to repair its dubious measures or to liquidate it, keeping only the Presidium of the CEC with its various departments, as we do in the provinces, districts and communes. And transform the CEC into a permanent organ with the standing committees that would deal with various issues. But so it does not become a bureaucratic institution, we must change the content of its work and this will be possible only when its base (“the main nucleus of state power”), the councils of workers’ deputies will be restored in all plants and factories, where the trusts, unions, directors of factories will be reorganised on the basis of a proletarian democracy, by the congress of councils, of districts up to the CEC. So we no longer need the chatter about the struggle against bureaucracy and the bickering. Because we know that bureaucrats are the worst critics of bureaucracy.

It's not that I disagree with this, because I do, but again I think that the councils, etc. cannot replace the importance of the party during the proletariat dictatorship. (I am not saying the manifesto is arguing this, I am just making the point).

the “Workers’ Truth” group...According to them, the positive significance of the October Russian revolution is that it has opened up to Russia magnificent prospects for a rapid transformation into an advanced capitalist country. As this group argues, it is without doubt a great conquest of the October Revolution.

What does that mean? It is neither more nor less than a call to retreat, to capitalism, abandoning the socialist slogans of the October revolution. Do not consolidate the positions of socialism, of the proletariat as ruling class, but weaken them, leaving the working class only the struggle for wages.

Accordingly, the group claims that classical capitalist relations are already restored. It therefore recommends that the working class rid itself of “communist illusions” and invites it to fight the “monopoly”of the right to vote by workers, which means that they must renounce it. But, gentlemen communists, would you allow us to ask for that?

But these gentlemen are not so foolish as to say openly that they are in favour of the bourgeoisie. What confidence would the proletarians then have in them?

Interesting quote above.

Today, one can no longer maintain that it’s really necessary for the internal regime of the party to continue to apply methods valid at the time of civil war. That is why, in order to defend the aims of the party, it is necessary to strive - even if reluctantly - to utilise the methods which are not those of the party.

While the threat of counter-revolutionary violence seemed to have been crushed for the most part, I would say that the conditions of famine, drought, under-development, etc. were still very unfavorable conditions that did not allow for the implementation of just any institutions (which it seems the quote above somewhat argues).

In the present situation, it is objectively indispensable to constitute a Communist Workers’ Group, which is not organisationally linked to the RCP, but which fully recognises its programme and the statutes. Such a group is about to develop notwithstanding the obstinate opposition of the dominant party, of the soviet bureaucracy and of the unions. The task of this group will be to exert a decisive influence on the tactics of the RCP, conquering the sympathy of the proletarian masses, so as to compel the party to abandon the broad lines of its policy.

I do not agree with this. I think that this group should have been organizationally linked with the RCP for sure. It should have formed as a tendency in the proletarian party, gained support from the proletariat, and then "fixed" the flawed policies of the party.

4. In the current conditions, the struggle for wages and a decrease in the working day through strikes, parliament, etc., has lost its former revolutionary scope and only weakens the proletariat, diverting it from its main task, reviving illusions about the possibility of improving its conditions within capitalist society. We must support the strikers, go to parliament, not to advocate a struggle for wages, but to organise the proletarian forces for a decisive and final battle against the world of oppression.

The above quote is from the "Conclusions" section. While I agree with the majority of it, I harshly disagree with the bolded section. I do not think the proletariat party should participate in any bourgeois parliaments, although I doubt to many around here would disagree with me on this point.

Even in the case of a revolution in one of the advanced capitalist countries, the NEP would be a phase of socialist revolution that it is impossible to pass over. If the revolution had broken out in one of the countries of advanced capitalism, this would have had an influence on the duration and development of the NEP

I don't agree with this. I think the NEP was specific to Russia in it's time, but I do not agree that more industrialized countries like the United States would have to pass over a bolshevik-style, 1921 NEP.

To prevent the New Economic Policy from turning into the “New Exploitation of the Proletariat”, the proletariat must participate directly in the resolution of the enormous tasks facing it at this time, on the basis of the principles of proletarian democracy; which will give the working class the possibility of protecting its October conquests from all dangers, wherever they come from, and of radically altering the internal regime of the party and its relations with it.

Honestly, I think more important than this is the development of the means of production, the fight against the petty-bourgeoisie in the countryside, etc. I mean, the direct participation of the proletariat could obviously help these developments.

In the conclusion section, there are parts which seem to argue for giving over production to the factory councils (this was also stated in other parts of the manifesto). I disagree with this demand. The factory councils aren't necessarily bad, and can prove to be highly revolutionary, but they have great potential to fall into immediatism, workerism, opportunism, and many other pitfalls.

Wasn't the point of the NEP to rapidly industrialize the RSFSR? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
If so, wouldn't it be kind of redundant for an NEP-style policy in an already industrialized nation like the US?

Yeah, I agree. I don't see the point in an NEP-style policy in an industrialized nation.

The NEP was used to industrialize Russia, counter some of the over-centralization and other problems that existed in war communism, and fight the petty bourgeoisie in the country.

I think you're taking this out of context. The WG was not saying that advanced capitalist countries would need their own NEP. They were arguing that even if there was a revolution in Germany, France, the U.S., etc., Russia would still need to go through an NEP-type phase, but the extent and duration of this phase of Russian development would be altered by those revolutions.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification Miles.

The NEP was used to industrialize Russia, counter some of the over-centralization and other problems that existed in war communism, and fight the petty bourgeoisie in the country.

That is completely untrue.
Actually, NEP wasn't used to industrialize Russia as that was the function of the economic policy enshrined in the first and subsequent five year plans.
Contrary to that, NEP fulfilled the function of easing the burden of requisitions faced by the peasantry, and more broadly, to stabilize and normalize the relationship between the town and the countryside whereby the industrial proletariat could count on a more stable inflow of food.
And it did precisely the opposite of fighting the petite bourgeoisie in the county - it created a "new" stratum of these, know as Nepmen.

That is completely untrue.
Actually, NEP wasn't used to industrialize Russia as that was the function of the economic policy enshrined in the first and subsequent five year plans.
Contrary to that, NEP fulfilled the function of easing the burden of requisitions faced by the peasantry, and more broadly, to stabilize and normalize the relationship between the town and the countryside whereby the industrial proletariat could count on a more stable inflow of food.
And it did precisely the opposite of fighting the petite bourgeoisie in the county - it created a "new" stratum of these, know as Nepmen.

I really don't disagree with anything you just said, because you are completely correct. It didn't really fight the petit-bourgeois, etc. You are also correct that the 5 year plans were the policy to industrialize Russia. Also, yes, the main purpose of the NEP was consolidation to the peasantry from the war communism years. I disagree with the idea that the NEP was not being used to try to develop to means of production (which it seems you're implying, but I might be incorrect) because Russia was trying to develop their means of production (at least in agriculture).

Honestly, I am REALLY hungover right now so I have no idea if that made sense. If it didn't I will go into detail tommorow but I feel like i'm going to puke and my head is pounding.