During this period, the task of revolutionaries was, as
representatives of the movement's overall and ultimate objective,
to participate actively in the
of the class.
Unions were a school for the fight and the fight was a school
of communism. Reform was an opportunity for the working class
to achieve a lasting improvement in the capitalist society.
Capitalist society had a reform opportunity to humanity
through their everyday struggles.
"In the upward phase of the capitalism, the party was the
organ of the unification body of the class, which campaigned
for parliamentary reform and in which the revolutionaries could
defend the proletarian revolution program. In parallel to the
political party, the trade unions were representative of an economic
view. These two types of unit organizations could exist in society
in a permanent manner, therefore, the capitalism would be able to
provide some reform to the working class."
3.2 During the decadence phase of capitalism
“The sailor Khorrin tells in his memories how the seamen
who considered themselves Social Revolutionaries would in
reality defend the Bolshevik platform. This was to be
observed everywhere. The people knew what they wanted,
but they did not know how to call it by name (…)”
(Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, vol.2)
During the period of capitalist decadence, proletarian
political organization could only take the form of revolutionary
minorities whose task is not to organize the working class or
take power in its place, but constitute as
a political leadership.
Prerequisites for a communist revolution could be possible if the
revolutionary organizations clarity and influence within the working class.
What is the Marxist definition of the party? The party is the
that the proletariat creates to develop and deepen their class
consciousness, and by providing political leadership, orientation, focus
and lead the proletariat in the direction of a frontal attack on the state
and capitalist society in the direction of building a communist society.
The main ambiguity in the organizational view of the ICC is that the
ICC doesn’t have a
view of the revolutionary
organization or the party. This is a logical consequence of the
ICC’s unclear view about the
proletariat’s class consciousness.
When the proletariat class consciousness does not need to be
developed and deepened in a dynamic process, should only be
generalized, then it is entirely logical that the revolutionary
organization (or the party) reduces its role and activity to a
publishing level, as a publisher will only generalize class
consciousness. Therefore, the political leadership becomes insignificant.
The only publication that we have seen from the ICC and their
view about the
, is a text of the International
Journal No. 5, entitled "Partito Comunista Internazionalistas (PCInt)
6:th congress." But there are texts from the ICC that rejects the
political leadership as Leninism perceptions. The text “Association
Workers' Power or the rådsocialismen as leftist radical conscience”
in the International Revolution No. 2 the ICC writes:" ... Leninism
perceptions of the party's leading role ... ". In page 37 in the same
issue: " 'The party's leading role' is in our opinion, a principle
which is not at all correspond to the experience of working class
out problems of the revolution."[Our translation]
We could not even take what felt the ICC with Leninism!?
Would not the terminology of the ICC lead to confusion
within the working class? We agree with the ICC, when
they say "No to 'Leninism' yes' to Lenin and the Communist
Left! "" Leninism (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism), it is
counter-revolutionary treason against Lenin. "Leninism"
means a split between Lenin and Luxemburg, from the Bolshevik
faction and the other leftist factions. Note that all the time
"Leninism" in quotation marks.
The ICC says:
“It has shown us that revolutionaries, far from imposing
on the proletariat a political leadership brought from outside,
far from adopting a voluntarist attitude worthy only of petty
corporals, far from forcing the course of events, simply worked
to make the proletariat as a whole conscious of its historic
And the ICC continues to equate the “leading” with the “ordering or
commanding” and where to give the same meaning to “leading”
with the “ordering or commanding”.
“Orientating the proletarian movement is too passive a task
for their taste. They want something a bit
, a bit
more lively. Thus they slide away from the idea of ‘orientating’
or ‘giving a direction’ towards a false political interpretation
of the role of revolutionaries. By making the apparently simple
jump from ‘giving a direction’, to ‘leading’ in the sense of
ordering or commanding, they give the impression of according
greater importance to the activities of the party. In reality,
they do nothing of the kind.”
The consequence is a paradox in the organization's view of
the ICC. On the one hand, the ICC stresses the
of responsibilities of the party, on the other hand, treats
"leader" with "commander". Of course our perception of
"leadership" that is
, is not the same as found
in the left of capital or conservative organizations (parties)
and should be individualized.
“But some revolutionaries mistrust such simplicity, which seems
to them to hide some unpleasant trick. In their eyes, such simplicity
can only be an easy way out, an ignorance and underestimation of the
party’s lofty responsibilities. To put a bit more shine on this
‘simplicity’ and surround the party with its full glory, they feel
obliged to give it the role of ‘leader’ or commander.”
Councilists calling itself often "anti-Leninists" and "anti-Bolsheviks"
instead of calling themselves "anti-capitalists" despises the political
leadership of the party as the view of Leninism and the idea of doing
two things. The first thing they do is to disarm the proletariat from
its main instrument, the party and its role as a political leadership.
Second, they create confusion within the working class, Stalinism,
Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. is described as the continuation of the Bolshevik
faction. An example from Russia, describing how it works in practice the
“The sailor Khorrin tells in his memories how the
seamen who considered themselves Social Revolutionaries would in reality
defend the Bolshevik platform. This was to be observed everywhere. The people
knew what they wanted, but they did not know how to call it by name (…)”
The political leadership of the party is a
not an individual leadership that is popular in the bourgeois parties.
The leadership of the party is a
leadership and will not
be reduced to a
level. It is not important what calls
itself the various groups of the proletariat, most important is
that they defending party's platform, then the party's political
leadership, is a real fact.
3.2.1 The view of Substitution within the working class
The question of Organization is not something that has been decided
from the beginning of the working movement, but an issue that has
been under development for the proletariat. Bourgeoisie ideologues
accuse the Bolsheviks were power hungry and their goal was to
establish political dictator and it should not be forgotten that
the anarchists, rådister etc., how in a shameful way joined this
profession. The Bolsheviks had not the view of substitution from
the beginning but they said
"all power to the soviets"
“No party substituted itself for the practical and decisive activity
of the workers. The Bolsheviks acted in a decisive way within their
but they did not take power in the place of the workers
With the revolutionary wave failure, especially in Germany,
condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation. It was the
isolation of the revolution, which strengthened the substitution
view with the Bolsheviks which had its roots in the Second International
ambiguities. The question is, should the Bolsheviks condemned, or we will
draw lessons from their experiences.
“The progressive degeneration of the Communist International provoked
an upsurge amongst the most healthy revolutionary elements. But how
difficult this upsurge was! Those who today pretend to invent everything
anew and who judge history from their superior intellectual heights in
fact adopt a purely infantile attitude, imagining what ‘should have been’
in that period and condemning every thing that goes outwit their abstract
schemas. We don’t judge history, but draw from it lessons for the future.
It would also be ludicrous for us to analyse the reflux of the revolutionary
wave and the death agony of the Communist International as if they were the
products of the machiavellian plans of the Bolsheviks!”
In fact, the view of substitution was not only influenced the Bolsheviks,
but also at Spartacists and Rosa Luxemburg, too. Rosa Luxembourg said they
will not take power before they were supported by the majority of the proletariat.
“The Spartacist League refuses to take over the power of government
merely because the Scheidemann-Ebert element have completely discredited
themselves… The Spartacist League will never take over the power of
government otherwise than by a clear manifestation of the unquestionable
will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of Germany (Proposed
programme adopted by the KPD at its foundation in 1918.)”