Who Should Represent the Workers?

[MilitantWorker]

let's talk about...

Substitutionism - When the revolutionary vanguard substitutes itself for the whole of the working class.

The question posed in the title of this thread is a most important one. Especially for frequent visitors of revleft. I see a lot of threads get off topic on questions of how the working class relates to the vanguard, and how the vanguard relates to the party. So let's debate!

(respectfully please)

[MilitantWorker]

Early on (1905?), old Leon T. launched a critique of Lenin for being
"substitutionist." (See, e.g., Deutscher, THE PROPHET ARMED.) The critique
was very abstract (and self-described Trotskyists have ignored it), but it's
relevant. The problem of a vanguard arises when it starts substituting
itself for the class it's supposed to lead. Rather than combining teaching
workers with learning from them, a substitutionist organization tries to ram
its "correct" line or program down workers' throats. It claims to speak in
the name of the workers -- or even worse, claims to act in the name of the
workers -- without being held responsible to that class. If such an
organization takes state power, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can
become the dictatorship in the name of the proletariat or (worse) the
dictatorship over the proletariat. In such a situation, the central
committee is likely to substitute itself for the party rank and file, while
eventually the Leader subsitutes him or herself for the central committee.

Note that an organization doesn't have to be "Leninist" or communist to be
substitutionist. A social democratic party typically substitutes the
parliamentary representatives and the party bureaucracy for the rank and
file. The careers of the leaders dominate the wishes of the members. I am
sure that a lot of pen-l people have been members of organizations where the
"national office" staff end up dominating the organization.

Many organizations -- like the old (US) RCP -- start substitutionist and
stay that way. But substitutionism can be thrust upon an organization. For
example, after the relatively popular October Revolution (during which the
Bolsheviks became much more of a grass-roots organization), the Bolsheviks
found that their popular support was wiped out by civil war, imperialist
invasion, famine, etc. The need to cling to state power imposed
substitutionism on them. Of course, those Bolsheviks who were more
substitutionist in orientation (Stalin, etc.) rose to the top.

Some random comments I found on the internet which sum up my opinions on the matter.

and also this ICC piece: http://en.internationalism.org/node/2659

[New Tet]

Very good question. For one answer to that point-blank question you should read this pamphlet (in pdf format):

"After The Revolution, Who Rules?"

[MilitantWorker]

Interesting. I read the first 10 pages word for word, and skimmed through the rest. It's not a bad piece really, but there are some major points I disagree with. For example, "Socialist Industrial Unions".

Unions have long ceased to be revolutionary organizations in this period of capitalism. They have been co-opted into the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie.

Anyways, to get back to the point..I don't think anyone here would disagree that the workers must represent themselves. I like the way the SLP put it:

Only a working class theoretically informed about its
revolutionary tasks and knowledgeable about its own past will be able to
emancipate itself.

I'll finish with a question to keep the debate on track. Also from the SLP:

...how does the proletariat organize its rule?

[New Tet]

Interesting. I read the first 10 pages word for word, and skimmed through the rest. It's not a bad piece really, but there are some major points I disagree with. For example, "Socialist Industrial Unions".

Unions have long ceased to be revolutionary organizations in this period of capitalism. They have been co-opted into the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie.

Anyways, to get back to the point..I don't think anyone here would disagree that the workers must represent themselves. I like the way the SLP put it:



I'll finish with a question to keep the debate on track. Also from the SLP:

Thanks for the fair-minded reply.
What you say is entirely true: the unions, as we understand them, are totally co-opted by capitalist class rule.

Contained within the program of socialist industrial unionism is a critique of the past and present state of the union (no pun intended). The SLP has published hundreds, perhaps thousands of books, pamphlets, leaflets and study guides intended to educate workers as to the true mission of working class unionism.

At the risk of sounding circular, my answer to your question is the SIU.

[MarxSchmarx]

What you say is entirely true: the unions, as we understand them, are totally co-opted by capitalist class rule.

I really question whether this is a congeneric defect or whether it is part and parcel of dealing with the capitalists. Of course when they negotiate a contract for their membership, unions can't bring to the table the absorption of the company into the community planning board. And in some countries, they aren't afraid to flex their political muscle at the ballot box. The struggle has to involve a fight for concessions. Not as an end in itself, of course. But such concessions can be won in many ways, and one such way is direct engagement of the capitalist class.

But by the same token, even in my mainstream union, there are quite a few radicals - most of the heavily engaged individuals (on the ground organizers and our reps and staff etc...) I know reject capitalism and are, in general, committed to working class power and solidarity. To be sure there are union members and bosses who have deeply reactionary views on many issues and deeply reactionary unions. I think even tho few unions aren't more radical in a "big picture sense" that they have lofty ideals in their constitutions and documents, as a generality they tend to either radicalize their membership and attract radicals to their cause.

[black magick hustla]

I think my problem with anarcho syndicalism is the union question. Every attempt at building anarchist unions becomes that either the iunions are more like leftist clubs or if the union becomes actually a union, it has to cater to the infrastructure of capitalism and has to turn yellow. I think communists should not necessarily look to build mass organizations, but organizations of militants.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think my problem with anarcho syndicalism is the union question. Every attempt at building anarchist unions becomes that either the iunions are more like leftist clubs or if the union becomes actually a union, it has to cater to the infrastructure of capitalism and has to turn yellow. I think communists should not necessarily look to build mass organizations, but organizations of militants.

To be fair, no organization working under capitalism can divorce itself from the capitalist infrastructure. To some extent the danger is systemic, but it is also a matter of instituting safeguards against such risks. For example, a strong insistence on grass-roots decision making can help ameliorate the bureaucratization and ultimate collaboration that infects many unions. Moreover, I see no reason why an organization of class militants can't also be a broad organization. Of course the more radical elements can meet among each other, but they can avoid divorcing themselves from the mass struggle by working within such mass organizations to make them more radical.

[Tower of Bebel]

To answer the question: substitutionism is not the way to go. It happened in the past, but it cannot be the solution. The working class should represent itself. Actually, representation should be part of a broader direct democracy, not indirect democracy like capitalist parliamentary democracy. The vanguard cannot substitute its rule to working class rule, it must take part in class rule.

[Il Medico]

Who Should Represent Workers?

The Workers.

[Invariance]

[FONT=Verdana]I certainly support the view that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.’ Yet, I do not see how a party contradicts that principle. A party, or any other organization, is employed as a weapon – a party is a weapon furnished by workers themselves in political struggle. Substitutionism is one thing, the anti-organizational ‘orthodox Marxist’ rhetoric is just as dangerous. Yes, the task of the emancipation belongs to workers themselves because that is the only conceivable form of proletarian revolution, but that doesn't exclude the leadership role of communists in educating, organizing and struggling for that goal too.
[/FONT]

[MarxSchmarx]

[FONT=Verdana]I certainly support the view that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.’ Yet, I do not see how a party contradicts that principle. A party, or any other organization, is employed as a weapon – a party is a weapon furnished by workers themselves in political struggle. Substitutionism is one thing, the anti-organizational ‘orthodox Marxist’ rhetoric is just as dangerous. Yes, the task of the emancipation belongs to workers themselves because that is the only conceivable form of proletarian revolution, but that doesn't exclude the leadership role of communists in educating, organizing and struggling for that goal too.[/FONT]

But wouldn't you agree that a party begins to develop its own internal interests, quite separate from the interests of the workers broader struggle?

If not, then I'd like to hear how you see this dilemma can be avoided, and why you think such fixes have not been widely applied. How would you think that a party, jointly committed to the realms you describe AND the workplace, should be organized?

If in fact parties develop their own interests, should the struggle in the workplace lag behind the political struggle, don't you think it is inevitable that a party bureaucracy becomes the new ruling class?

[Invariance]

But wouldn't you agree that a party begins to develop its own internal interests, quite separate from the interests of the workers broader struggle?

How so? Disputes arise as to what the struggle wants to achieve and how to get there. These debates aren’t separate from the ‘workers broader struggle.’ They are debates between workers on what they want and how to get there. The more pertinent question would be: if a party develops its own internal interests separate from the working class, why? Why was the Bolshevik party a vibrant political party up until, say, 1922-24? Why did the German SPD capitulate to national chauvinism? Clearly circumstances changed, and as such so did the party. It would then be a theoretically wrong conclusion to say that the party was the cause of such 'betrayals.' Rather, the change in the party organization was a symptom of the circumstances, but no cause of them.

If not, then I'd like to hear how you see this dilemma can be avoided

I don’t see anything wrong with factions inside a party; I would be more concerned if there weren’t any.

and why you think such fixes have not been widely applied.

Where? When? Its easy to apply broad principles to history which cannot be questioned if you're unwilling to give examples. If you’re talking about Russia, I think that the ban on party factions was wrong, but historically explainable in the context. One can’t reduce the failure of revolutions to how an organization is structured – that is through and through anti-Marxist and a historical. The failure of the Russian Revolution was never a failure of ‘democracy’ – only bourgeoisie historians would say so.

How would you think that a party, jointly committed to the realms you describe AND the workplace, should be organized?

I don’t set up a perfect party in my mind, because I think that is the task of Utopians. There are, however, two criteria which concern me regarding a party: (1) Is this party for the emancipation of the working class? (2) Is this party structured in the most effective way to achieve that goal? Anything else is superfluous.

Revolution has never been a question of organization. Organization is thoroughly a question of practicality restricted by one principle – will this lead to the rule of the working class. Hence, it is rare that we can draw any true principles about how best for such a party to be organized because such principles would be ignoring the historical circumstances in which those principles were made. However, capitalism itself centralizes the working class just as it centralizes its capital, and this is something we should abuse to our own advantage.

Just as the Italian Left, and other ‘Leninists’ fetishized the so-called ‘Leninist vanguard’ as a principle set-in-stone, so did the German/Dutch Left (Pannekoek, Mattick) draw a wrong conclusion from the Russian revolution regarding the role of parties - a rejection of the role they can play. Communist parties should have an organic connection to the working class. They should strive for as much power and presence in workplaces as possible. And via the party they should unite all workers, irrespective of their trade and workplace, into a centralized weapon of political force which should be wielded against capitalism. Beyond those broad principles, the circumstances should dictate how best a party should be organized.

If in fact parties develop their own interests, should the struggle in the workplace lag behind the political struggle, don't you think it is inevitable that a party bureaucracy becomes the new ruling class?

I hope the party becomes the new ruling class, because the party is the working class, and I want proletarian class dictatorship. Experience shows that workers should form factory councils which in turn form higher councils and so on. Don't give me buzzwords about 'bureaucracy.' A revolutionary society requires organization, it requires leadership, it requires people who act in a what you would condemn as a bureaucratic manner. How should it be controlled? By whatever means workers deem acceptable - instantly recallable delegates, forms of rotation, equal pay etc. Marxists don’t recognize that there is any inherent tendency which condemns a party and revolution to stagnation because of how it is organized.

It was only in the circumstances where the German SPD, having betrayed its own workers in supporting WW1 (and prior to that in her struggle against the trade union leaders), that Rosa Luxemburg made the issue of democracy and the role of the working class paramount. Why? Because the German SPD leadership were behind the workers. It was only in the circumstances of an autocratic Russia, where the Bolsheviks were the main party which opposed WW1, that Lenin & Co. argued for the leading position of their party. Why? Because they (and in particular Lenin) were theoretically ahead of other socialist parties and many workers themselves.

How can we reduce then, these two historical examples to any principles? We can’t. The principles are contradictory – one is urging power to the masses, the other stressing the role of the party. Yet both were historically the correct political stances in the circumstances.

[LeninKobaMao]

Perhaps the workers should represent the workers?

[Pogue]

Perhaps the workers should represent the workers?

Is this in line with your ideas though, as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist? Surely you beleive in such institutions as a centralised state, a vanguard party, a guerilla force, etc?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Substitutionism is one thing, the anti-organizational ‘orthodox Marxist’ rhetoric is just as dangerous.

Um, "orthodox Marxist" rhetoric emphasized organization (see my sig).

It is New Left politics, from the 1968ers down to post-modernism of the Hardt and Negri type, that are anti-organizational.

But wouldn't you agree that a party begins to develop its own internal interests, quite separate from the interests of the workers broader struggle?

Comrade, yes there are internal interests, but that doesn't take away the dictum of workers being unable to unite or act as a class for itself without organizing into a political party of the pre-war SPD and especially USPD type, with its own alternative culture, distinct from and opposed to all non-worker and class-conciliationist parties. Every class struggle is a political struggle. The "broader struggle" you speak of is mostly comprised of mere sectional struggles (including modern "social movements") unable to pose key political questions.

[Nwoye]

I think it should also be noted here, that, historically, in organizations meant to act as representatives of the working class, the leaders were often much less radicalized then the rank and file, or even non member revolutionaries. For two examples, take the Bolsheviks in 1917 (where the bolsheviks gained substantial support for being not in-league with the provisional government, despite being much less radical then the industrial working class) and the CNT during the spanish civil war (where CNT leaders in government begged the workers to put down their guns during the raid on the telephone exchange in Barcelona, or where CNT leaders refused to seize power in Catalonia after the the dissolution of the Madrid government, even though the move was widely supported). I'm not saying that the working class shouldn't in any circumstances seek organization, but rather that the notion of a party "leading" a revolution is incorrect.

[mikelepore]

[FONT=Verdana]I certainly support the view that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.’ Yet, I do not see how a party contradicts that principle. A party, or any other organization, is employed as a weapon – a party is a weapon furnished by workers themselves in political struggle. Substitutionism is one thing, the anti-organizational ‘orthodox Marxist’ rhetoric is just as dangerous. Yes, the task of the emancipation belongs to workers themselves because that is the only conceivable form of proletarian revolution, but that doesn't exclude the leadership role of communists in educating, organizing and struggling for that goal too.[/FONT]

In addition to the task of educating and organizing, a political party of the working class is also necessary for the purpose of taking the state out of the hands of the ruling class, depriving them of a powerful weapon that they would use against the workers. A political party is the only kind of organization that can do that.

[*Red*Alert]

Is this in line with your ideas though, as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist? Surely you beleive in such institutions as a centralised state, a vanguard party, a guerilla force, etc?

All of the above should represent the Workers, by being led by the Workers.

[LeninKobaMao]

Is this in line with your ideas though, as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist? Surely you beleive in such institutions as a centralised state, a vanguard party, a guerilla force, etc?

Yes but of course the vanguard needs the proletariat with them to achieve something plus what *Red*Alert said the vanguard must be led by the workers.