3 STAGES OF THE PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE

[magidd]

Marlen Insarov, member of russian section of AIT

3 STAGES OF THE PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE

If we shall study real history of the proletarian struggle, we can see, this history has 3 main stages, which has big differences one from other. This stages has correlation with 3 main stages of evolution of capitalism: revolutionary, reformist and reactionary.
First stage – it is proletarian struggle of epoch of Sturm und Drang of capitalism. In historical centre of world capitalism – in Western Europe – this stage had ended after defeat of Paris Commune (1871). Because capitalist unification of world is result of capitalist development, not it presupposition, in other historical areas of capitalism, where capitalist development had began later, then in Western Europe, chronology of stages is different from Western Europe, and, what is very important, this stages are intermingled. Force of Russian and Spanish proletarian movement of beginning of 20 century had its roots in first stage, weakness of this movement had its roots in second stage.
Actors of first stage are exploited by capitalism craftsmen, artisans, or industrial workers of first generation. This early proletarian class was very revolutionary. Proletarians of first generation didn’t considered capitalism as eternal social system. By their own eyes they had seen beginning of it system and because it they hope to see its end. It was epoch of remarkable revolutionary theories, which was in many aspects more fruitful, than future social-democratic marxism. In difference with dominant in “Soviet” historical science concept, according which all before-marxist socialists was only peacefull utopists as Saint – Simon, Fourier and Owen, is necessary to stress the domination of revolutionary-insurrectionist currents in before-marxist socialism (Babeuf, Blanqui, Pisacane, Thomas Spence, Russian revolutionary narodnichestvo etc.).
In this epoch the domination of old semi-feudal order already was shattered, the domination of new capitalist order yet was not consolidated. For revolutionary proletarians of first generation seemed, that all is possible. They was already free from old narrow-mindedness of pre-capitalist order, and yet was free from new narrow-mindedness of capitalist order. They struggled against old and against new forms of exploitation and oppression – they struggled for dual revolution against old pre-capitalist, and against new capitalist masters. The result of this dual revolution must be the order of direct power of the proletarian assamlees, or as some narodnik said “Lebor Repablik“ (in Russian, “stroy trudovogo tovarishchestva”), which will combine achievements of reason and science with resurrected tradition of old communal collectivism.
In this epoch proletariat was not integrated in political system of capitalism. Workers had not electoral rights, strikes and trade-unions was banned. Proletarian struggle merciless suppressed by bourgeoisie and its state. Because is, this struggle was outside institutions of bourgeois power and against them. Was absent division of proletarian struggle into political and economical – this clear division had become dominant only at next stage of proletarian struggle.
Main form of struggle of early revolutionary proletarian movement was not economical strike at enterprise. Main forms of struggle were meetings, riots, conspiracy and insurrection. Was absent social base of reformism, was absent layer of professional mediators between capital and proletariat – was absent layer of waged officials of legal parties and trade-unions. Main forms of proletarian organizations were political clubs (in times of relative legality), and conspiratorial societies (in times of illegality).
The base of revolutionary-socialist currents of this period was qualified workers of craftsmen type. They had known, they can to govern the production better, than capitalists. The enterprise of this epoch was quite small, and proletarians didn’t think about themselves, that for them is impossible to govern these enterprises. Idea of revolutionary socialism of these period was not socialism as order with high salary and benevolent bosses, but socialism as order without wage slavery and bosses.
Proletarians of first generation had great sense of class solidarity and dignity. Because it they were very sensitive to revolutionary-socialist ideas. They “had carried new world in their hearts” (words of Durruti). Just such proletarians had conquered two young bourgeois democrats, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, to communism.
The decisive defeat of first stage of proletarian struggle in Western Europe, defeat of early revolutionary proletarian movement was defeat of Paris Commune. After end of epoch of bourgeois revolution in Western Europe in 1871 had become clear, hopes of early proletariat upon possibility of dual revolution had failed. Capitalism had entered in its reformist epoch. Had become second stage of proletarian struggle – stage of reformist social-democratic workers movement. The ideology of this reformist workers movement had become marxism.
It will be contradiction to theory of historic materialism, if we shall consider marxism – not marxism as theory of Marx, but marxism as ideology of mass movement - as some suprahistoric truth. Every ideology, which was able to conquer the masses, is part of historic process, part of social reality. Such ideology can be revolutionary only in connection with real revolutionary movement. Where such real revolutionary movement is absent, where exists only reformist mass movement, ideology with fatal necessity had becoming reformist. Marxism of 1840s, marxism of “Communist Manifest” was revolutionary, but this marxism was only equal part of revolutionary-communist milieu of this time (at equal with blanquism etc.). Marxism of social-democracy was different thing (it is necessary to tell, first, who tried to analyze from historic-materialist position history of marxism itself, was German revolutionary Karl Korsch).
It is possible to ask, why was possible to transform theory of revolutionary Marx into ideology of reformist workers movement? As it seems, because progressism of Marx’s theory, it can serve as instrument to unite real reformist practice of present with remaining hopes upon revolution in indefinite future. Social-democratic workers of end of 19 century had remained such hopes, but these hopes had not connection with real practice of present.
Marxism had triumphed in his struggle with enemies from right (proudhonism, lassaleanism), but too – this fact is usually forgotten – in struggle with enemies from left – with revolutionary-insurrectional currents of early proletarian movement (blanquism, bakounism, Russian revolutionary narodnichestvo etc.) Marxism was ideology of real reformist practice – and because it was forced to be reformist ideology.
It is possible to speak about century of reformist workers movement. It had began after defeat of Paris Commune in 1871, it had ended with crisis of Welfare state, with attempts of proletariat to break with Welfare state in 1968 – 1980 and with total counter-offensive of bourgeoisie in 1980s. This epoch is clear divided in three big stages: 1). social-democracy of 1871-1914; 2). period of war and revolutions of 1914-1945; 3). new evolutionary stage after 1945.
Actors of this epoch was not skillful craftsmen or factory workers of first generation, but hereditary industrial workers. They didn’t know other life, than life under capitalism. They forgotten about beginning of capitalism and because it had not faith in possibility of its end. According their dominant concept of socialism, socialism will be the same capitalism, only without its vices – socialism as “one big factory” with high salary and benevolent bosses.
It was epoch of industrialization, epoch of fordism and taylorism. Dominant tendency was tendency to dequalification of workers, old skillful artisans with their professional pride and with their faith into own possibility to govern the production was marginalized by “ouvriers specialises” and by workers at conveyer, subjugated to strict division of labor. Such workers can’t understand, how they themselves can to govern the production, how is possible to abolish division of labor into managerial labor and executive labor.
Workers of this period can’t to coordinate their action without special group of organizers neither in enterprise, nor in society in general. It is necessary to remember, according theory of Marx roots of class division of society lays in division of labor into managerial and executive and without abolishing of such division classless society is impossible.
Disability of industrial workers to coordinate their actions at big scale had as consequence appearance of layer of professional organizers and professional mediators between capital and proletariat – layer of officials of legal workers parties and trade-unions. Such officials had more interests in common with capitalists, than with workers, and just such officials from official workers movement merciless suppressed attempts of proletarian social revolution in Germany and Spain.
Dominance of reformism in workers movement of this century was not consequence only machiavellist intrigues of bad-willed reformists. It was adequate consequence of level of real workers movement, of disability of workers to struggle without layer of professional organizers, .
The main causes of defeats of revolutionary currents in workers movement lay in it. Such currents in developed capitalist countries of this epoch never can become mass currents. Revolutionary currents in epoch of domination of reformism can be only small propaganda groups. Where sometimes they had become mass currents, they quickly was ended as revolutionary currents (see history of French revolutionary syndicalism).
Workers struggles of this epoch had clear division into political and economical. Political struggle was electoral companies under strict control of social-democratic parties, economical struggle was strikes at enterprises, usually under strict control of trade-unions.
Proletariat had ended to be outlaw class, it was integrated into political system of capitalism. Was introduced suffrage universal, was legalized strikes, workers parties and trade-unions. Had began creation of system of social legislation. Was all excellent in this excellent world.
Revisionist Bernstein didn’t propose for social-democracy new tactics, he simply honestly speak about its real tactics.
Even at this period existed other, non-social-democratic, revolutionary proletarian movement. But revolutionary anarchism (exception was Spain) had remained brave individual protests, revolutionary syndicalism – radical economist struggle, currents of left opposition in social-democracy or quickly desintegrated (first oppositions as group of Most and Hasselman and “Young opposition” in SPD), or remained as confused left wing currents of social-democracy (current of R. Luxembourg).
Was all excellent in this excellent world – before beginning of mass slauhtering in 1914 year. Main misery of proletariat is not only absence of well-being, but total depedence of fate of proletarians from capitalism. Sometime level of life of part of proletarians can be not so bad, but tomorrow, according interests of capitalism, the same proletarians will be send at imperialist slaughtering.
As it is possible to see today, crisis of 1914-1945 years was not final crisis of capitalism. It was crisis of transition of capitalism from one stage to another, from stage of very and very relatively free competition to stage of state-monopolist capitalism. But it was point of bifurcation. All capitalist society was in big crisis, and only from real class struggle depended, will be this crisis solved by world proletarian communist revolution, or by new consolidation of capitalism.
In heroic epopee of 1914-1923 years revolutionary currents of II International (not leninist fractions of Russian bolsheviks, German left radicals, Italian abstentionists) had done excellent attempt to break with tradition of social-democratic marxism and to return to revolutionary marxism of “The Communist Manifest”. Many lessons of this period (necessity of break with any form of social-patriotism, necessity of transformation of imperialist war into civil war, necessity to destroy bourgeois state and to establish dictatorship of armed proletarians, organized in general assemblies and in Soviets, necessity of revolutionary organization with clear goal and intransingeant will) forever has all significance for revolutionary proletarian struggle. At some moments seems possible to abolish old split of revolutionary movement into marxist and anarchist parts in new synthesis (Russian revolutionary narodniks from Party of Left S-R-s and from Alliance of S-R-maximalists – representatives of best traditions of early revolutionary proletarian movement – in 1917-1918 years had hopes, bolsheviks generally ended to be marxists. As wrote S-R-maximalists Nestroev, “October revolution had triumphed under scarlet banner of narodnik’s maximalism, but had began to fade under rosy flag of marxism”).
But break of revolutionary marxist currents with heritage of social-democracy was incomplete. Because it and because different objective causes proletarian Sturm und Drang was defeated. Proletariat had lost the battle. To the 1930s, official “Comminist” parties had become new – and more monstrous – form of social-democracy, revolutionary currents of Italian and German Communist Left – had become small propaganda groups, isolated from mass struggle. In Russia all revolutionary currents of Great Revolution 1917-1921 was annihilated by state-capitalist terror – firstly anarchists and revolutionary narodniks, secondly – revolutionary bolsheviks (Decists and Miasnikovists).
After Second Imperialist slaughtering capitalism had entered into period of economic boom. Was created “welfare state”. Proletariat was strictly controlled by social-democratic parties.
End of class compromise and end of welfare state had began at May 1968. All 1970s was new point of bifurcation, new struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie – who will win in fight for its class solution of social crisis. In this struggle proletariat was defeated, and bourgeoisie had began total offensive. Bourgeoisie abandoned politics of class compromise, politics of concessions to proletariat.
In 19 century French bourgeois named proletarians “les classes dangeureuses”. In epoch of 1945-1968 because politics of class compromise proletariat in main centres of capitalism had ended to be “dangerous class” for bourgeoisie. Today bourgeoisie because its monstrous greedy, determined by laws of capitalist accumulation, anew are creating class of own gravediggers. We, fighters for social revolution, can only greet this.
We must to understand, second stage of proletarian movement, stage of reformist marxist workers movement is forever in past. Today proletarian struggle is entered in new stage, in new epoch. We must to analyze this new stage and to act according its demands. We must not to have any illusions. Conditions are very difficult, modern proletariat is not class of skillful artisans and not class of conveyer workers. Modern proletariat is in big degree atomized by development of capitalism. But it is necessary to act in real situation of present.
It is necessary to point some proletarian ptotests of last 15 years. It is uprising in Irak’s Kurdistan (1991), riot in Los-Angeles (1992), semi-revolution in Albania (1997), uprising in Indonesia (1998), in Equador (2000 and 2005), in Bolivia (2003), semi-revolution in Argentina (2001), peak of proletarian protests in Russia 1998-1999 (blocade of railroads in Siberia, occupational strike in Yasnogorsk), proletarian struggle in Kabilia, proletarian protest in events of so called “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Kirgizistan and Uzbekistan (2004-2005), pensioner’s riots in Russia (beginning of 2005), riots in Paris suburbs in 2005 and struggle of French students in 2006. Of course, it is not all. Despite many differences, it is possible to see many common features in all this manifestations of proletariat protest.
First of all, industrial workers ended to be vanguard of proletariat. They participated in all this struggles, but in majority of cases not as gomogenous group with its own demands, but as individuals.
The objective cause of it is tendency to deindustrialisation in modern decadent capitalism. Partly this tendency is conditioned by progress of productive forces from industrial to post-industrial stage, but in most degree it is conditioned by modern decaying of capitalism. Industrial workers with stable work today aren’t neither all proletariat, nor main part of proletariat. They are only minority of proletarian class, circled by huge mass of unemployed, partly-employed and “self-employed” proletarians.
“Workers’ socialism” of old marxists and revolutionary syndicalists is dead. Today it is impossible to equal progress of capitalism with progress of revolutionary capacities of proletariat. Tendency of capitalism is to atomization and degradation of proletarians, all revolutionary qualities of proletariat was generated in fight against capitalism, not in concordance with it. Pro-capitalist optimism of marxists had lost any sense today.
It is impossible neither to identify industrial workers with all proletariat, nor consider them as vanguard of proletariat (last concept is not verificated by facts of proletarian struggle). Industrial workers are only part of proletariat. Proletarians are all, exploited by capital and its state, all, deprived of property and power, autority (in Russian, “vlast’ ”) (this moment is important, because all, who have power, autority in capitalist mechanism – managers, cops, officials – can’t to be the proletarians, of course).
But in polemic against “workerism” it will be dangerous to fall in mistakes of “newleftism”. Industrial workers are only part of proletariat, but they are part of proletariat. More of it. They have the force to stop productive machine of capitalism, what is impossible for students, pensioners and unemployed. In terms of antic military sciences is possible to see in them heavy infantry, which entered in battle the last, but from which is depended result of battle. Because it light infantry of students, declassed youth from suburbs etc. must try to initiate the struggle of industrial workers. Proletarian revolution can be result only common struggle of all proletarian class.
Because main actors of modern proletarian struggle aren’t industrial workers, main form of this struggle aren’t strike at enterprises, but direct action outside enterprise – manifestations, blocage of roads and administrative houses. In part of case, leadership of struggle belong to general assamblees and initiative role belongs to combat minority (strikes exists, of course. But today they don’t represent such radical danger for bourgeois state, as new forms of class struggle).
Great weakness of modern proletarian struggle is absence of organic continuity. Actions of proletarian protest instantly appear and instantly disappear.
But main weakness of modern proletarian protest is absence of “idea - force”, absence of organically rooted in flesh and blood of proletarians idea of new classless world, stateless commune for which is necessary to struggle and to die. Modern proletarians sense, against what it is necessary to struggle, but they don’t know, for what it is necessary to struggle. Because it their struggle in many cases is recuperated and manipulated by different groups of bourgeoisie (Ukraine, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan). In difference with proletarian uprisings of 19 century, in majority of cases bourgeoisie can to suppress modern proletarian uprisings even without bloody repression (such bloody repression in big scale was only in Irak’s Kurdistan in 1991 and in Uzbekistan in 2005), simply by means of recuperation and manipulations.
Most radical from modern proletariat protests, most near to level of revolution was Albania 1997 and (in least degree) Argentina 2001. In Albania bourgeois state machine was crushed, if it existed “idea-force” of social revolution at conscience of Albanian proletarians and if existed revolutionary organization, able to propose revolutionary program of action, victory in Albania was possible. But these conditions was absent.
Living revolutionary-socialist tradition at conscience of modern proletarians is broken. They are very atomized class, they have many illusions about “good” capitalism, “good” bourgeois politicians etc. But we have not the God on sky to give for us other proletariat.
What is necessary to do?
We must to participate in modern proletarian struggles, we can’t to condemn this struggles as “petty-bourgeois”, “lumpen -proletarian”, “non-marxist” etc. But we cannot to participate in illusions of modern proletarians, we must to struggle against illusions of “good capitalism”, “good politicians”, bourgeois parties and trade-unions as saviors. We must to struggle for program of social revolution, destroying of bourgeois state, abolition of capitalist order, for direct power of general assamblees and for socialization of means of production, for communism.
We must to remember, social revolution can be work only of all proletarian groups – from proletarians of intellectual work and proletarians of “hightech” through industrial workers and including most damned and exploited group of proletariat (it is necessary to stress importance of migrant and illegal workers as most opressed and non-integrated in political system of capitalism).
In theory, it is necessary to analyze real modern capitalism and real modern proletarian struggle and to synthesesize in new revolutionary theory achievements of revolutionary theories of past – achievements of revolutionary currents of marxism, anarchism (especially tradition of Bakunin and argentinian FORA) and revolutionary narodnichestvo.

[magidd]

test

[Invité]

Any opinions?