International Proletarianism: With Reference to the South African Revolution
Pandemonium Electronic Publications
Merida, Venezuela.
© 2001 Franz J. T. Lee All Rights Reserved.
Senior
Lecturer in Political Science at
the Fachhochschule Darmstadt, West Germany, 1972 to 1977; Senior
Lecturer in
Marxist Studies at the University of Guyana, 1977 to 1979; Professor in
International Politics and African Studies at the University of The
Andes,
Merida, Venezuela, 1979 to 1982. Currently Visiting Scholar at the
University
of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Paper
presented at the Marx Centenary
Conference, Marx and Africa, held at the Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria,
Nigeria, from March 14-18, 1983.
3. The
Marxist Revolutionary Theory
4.
Theoretical Positions prior to the October Revolution in Russia
5. The
Factional Struggles with the Russian Communist Party (1924-30)
7.
Bourgeois Ideology and Proletarian Class Consciousness
8. The
Theory of Permanent Revolution
Summary:
Relevance of International Proletarianism to Africa in General
Proletarian
Internationalism and Southern Africa
Proletarian
internationalism and
international proletarianism in this paper simply mean the
revolutionary
theory-praxis of the working classes on a global scale. We will
primarily be concerned
with the following:
Section
One:
The
concept „Revolution“
Marx’s
Concept of Revolution
Marx’s
Revolutioncry Theory-Praxis
Lenin
and Trotsky: Enrichment of Marx’s
Concept of Revolution
Section
Two:
Proletarian
Internationalism and
Southern Africa.
It
is pertinent to deal with the topics
in Section One in great detail because misunderstanding of these has
caused
great confusion within the ranks of international scholars of
Scientific
Socialism. However, although deliberately polemical, nevertheless, the
exposition attempts to encourage African Marxists to view Scientific
Socialism,
not as a European discovery, but as a great historic achievement of all
working
men and women on this planet. By no means, the analysis is all
encompassing or
complete, but it is only intended to arouse interest and critique of
Marxism,
which is still virgin land in Africa.
Section
Two is only a brief reference to
central problems of proletarian internationalism, which have their
genesis in
Marx’s momentous work, and which are our legacy to solve through
revolutionary
theory-praxis. For Marx the most important task of his life was to make
history, that is, make revolution, in order to emancipate Man from
class
violence. Through class struggle, the proletariat can realise Socialism
on a
world scale. But, Marx even saw further, through humanisation of
Nature, and
naturalisation of Man, we can realise Communism dialectically moving
from
Necessity to Freedom. For this reason, this paper is mainly concerned
about
Revolution.
The
historic objective of proletarian
internationalism, as originally defined by Marx and Engels in the
Communist
Manifesto (1848) is social revolution. Hence, firstly, let us elaborate
what we
understand by revolution.
2.1
General
Ever
since the American and French
Revolutions, and the English Industrial Revolution, numerous scholars
have made
serious scientific attempts to explain these momentous historical
social
changes which took place in Europe and North America during the 18th
and 19th
centuries. In this context we will just mention some of the original
contributions in the fields of history and political sociology.
Augustin
Thierry (1795 - 1856), the
French historian and romanticist writer, saw national development as a
struggle
between two major races, the invaders and the invaded; Francois Pierre
Guillaume Guizot (1787 - 1874) another French historian, who, between
1829 and
1832, wrote the 6-volumed work, General History of Civilisation in
Modern
Europe, like Thierry, interpreted the above social revolutions as
struggles of
social classes. Louis Adolphe Thiers (1797 - 1877), Premier of France
between
1836 and 1840, and President of the Third French Republic, 1871 - 1873,
a
prominent European historian of his time, like Thierry and Guizot, were
among
the respected scholars who had inspired Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
to
develop their theory of class struggle in the mid-19th century.
From
the Reflection on the French
Revolution of Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) to the contemporary authors of
the
„systems theory“, „modernisation theory“ or „dependence theory“ there
is a
direct historic connection of scholars who had attempted to explain the
essence
and developmental laws of „social change“ or „social revolution“. These
various
authors, irrespective of their specific political ideology, tried to
catch the
manifold causes, pre-conditions, strategies, tactics and consequences
of
„social change“ within a sophisticated network of theoretical concepts
and
categories of the discipline „Social Sciences“.
Especially
since the failure of the
Paris Commune of 1871, numerous radical revolutionary-theoretical works
appeared on a global scale. The failure of the First Russian Revolution
of 1905
and the success of the Second Russian Revolution of 1917 had elevated
the
problematic of revolution to a central place within the field of
political
sociology. The various colonial revolutions of the 1960s had magnified
this
problem and numerous „theories of social change“ were formulated by
non-Marxist
scholars. Well-known is the „theory of revolution“ of Chalmers Johnson
(Revolutionary Chanqe, 1966) which became the prototype of the
revolutionary
model for the „systems“ theory. Contemporary Marxist scholars like
Ernest
Mandel have criticised these „bourgeois“ models, which, in the final
analysis,
intend to maintain the capitalist status quo on a world scale.
Nevertheless,
contemporary „official“
social science is just as helpless to explain the current social
changes or
revolutions, as it is hopeless to analyse wars. Yet both forces,
revolutions
and wars, belong to the major historic phenomena of the 20th century.
Wars,
revolutions and counter-revolutions are shaking the contemporary world
and yet
they are not yet definite subjects of ,a. specific discipline, like
Political
Science# at universities. They are dealt with as sub-ordinates of
various
„important“ subjects like „History of Political Thought“ or
„Contemporary
Political Systems“. Very often, studies in this direction, for example,
a cause
in „Revolutionary Theory-Praxis“ will be discouraged at most Western
universities, in the same manner as Theology declared Natural Sciences
taboo
during the Middle Ages in Europe.
Concepts
lie „revolution“ or
„counter-revolution“ are very difficult to determine scientifically,
especially
when one uses the method of formal logic, Which has dominated the world
since
Aristotle. These phenomena have the essential characteristic of being
incomplete, processual and anticipatory -_ traits which W not
compatible with
the norm of generally fixing concepts, giving them absolute meanings: A
= A, a
machine is a machine forever, no matter which changes will occur. When
theory
of this nature tries to explain world processes like revolutions, it
again and
again verifies the acute shortcomings of the idealist view of history
and human
life in general. Yet already at the beginning of the 19th century over
150
years ago, the German objective idealist philosopher, Georg Friedrich
Hegel
(1770 - 1831), had discovered the dialectical method of reasoning
logically,
the majority of modern social science scholars, still today, separate
scientific theory and scientific praxis, in the same way as Aristotle
(384-322
B.C.)
2.2
The genesis of the concept
„revolution“
Today,
especially in the so-called
„Third World“, and more specifically, in Africa we have sufficient
social
reasons to reconsider, re-evaluate and re-define the concept of
revolution.
This is not an easy scientific endeavour. Revolution is the central
topic of
phenomena which became known to us as „socialism“ „communism“ or
„Marxism-Leninism“, and these things are not very much loved in the
western
world. They have been painted as Draculas and Frankensteins. The
bourgeois
scholars of the mid-18th century, Rousseau, Voltaire ox Montesquieu,
were very
well acquainted with feudalism and Catholicism, the arch-enemies of
capitalism
in its power struggle. This is the reason why the bourgeois class was
revolutionary and could be successful historically. How can capitalism
fight
against communism when the masses of people, .and those in important
positions
of social control, do not have the foggiest notion of Marxism? Also how
can we
eradicate historically obsolete mode of
production and introduce a new one to servo the interests of humanity
as a
whole, when we know nothing about the contradictions and crises of
capitalism?
The
two so-called „classical“
revolutions, the French Revolution of 1789 and the October Revolution
of 1917,
both which have introduced the beginning stages of new mode of
production,
capitalism and socialism respectively, can only restrictively explain
the root
causes, social dynamics, historical latencies and tendencies of the
various
current social revolutions, shaking especially Africa, Asia and Latin
America.
The
concepts and categories won from
critical analyses of modern highly developed industrialised societies
cannot be
applied directly to „developing’’ countries; similarly, classical
Marxist
concepts concerning exploitation, classes or imperialism, cannot be
used to
explain „Third World“ realities efficiently. This was at best
demonstrated in
the conflict between the „dependencia“ Marxist authors and the
„Neo-Marxist“ scholars in the 1960s and
1970s. Also, the application of guerrilla warfare tactics and
strategies won in
Vietnam or Cuba to metropolitan revolutionary conditions had resulted
in
disastrous emancipatory situations. Ever since the 1960s there is a
passionate
international discussion, especially introduced by Herbert Marcuse,
concerning
the locality of the present revolutionary subject in the world
emancipatory
struggle. The problem is all the more serious, because, at least, over
the last
decades, the proletariat of highly industrialised countries, such as
the
Federal Republic of Germany or the United States of America, had not
fulfilled
its historic revolutionary task, as originally anticipated and
hopefully
specified by Marxian revolutionary theory - it has more to lose „than
its
chains“, at least, this it „believes“ Hence, what is revolution?
Let
us begin with the current accepted
notion of revolution. In the forefront of the usage of this word, one
normally
finds the idea of a violent upheaval. This is generally, the work of a
conspiratorial terrorist group, preferably „Marxists“, „communists“ or
„fascists“, who want to topple the democratic „law and order“ of the
state.
This group prepares and carries out revolution. This view is based on
the
philosophy of idealism, in which the primordial cause or substance is
the idea,
theory or a Supreme Being. Great ideas make history, great men, like
Napoleon,
Khomeiny or Castro, .lone make history, hence, great revolutionaries,
like Ho
Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Castro or Che Guevara, make revolution. In this
sense,
revolution is a subjective matter, the work of individuals. Certainly
individual popular leaders like Castro or Mugabe, especially in „Third
World“
countries, play a decisive role in history, and in revolutions. This
they
cannot do in a glass cage, isolated from society and historical forces,
in spite
of having the greatest of revolutionary ideas.
Following
further the above line of
idealist thought, „communists“ and „Marxists“, acting as „terrorists“,
use the
poor ignorant masses of people, weapons from „communist“ countries, and
„Marxist ideology“ to further their personal egoistic power-drunk
interests.
Revolutions can be staged as Shakespeare’s play: As you Like It. In
spite of
the „Mistakes of a Night“, the rest will follow, once the show, the
„military
coup“ has been successful. If it was a success, then future „idealist“
historians will call it a „revolution“, if not, it will become known as
a „coup
d’ etat“ or counterrevolution: Fundamental for this type of reasoning
and
argumentation is:
a)
revolutionaries make revolution, and
b)
political power is usurped by the new
group, by violent means.
The
meaning of revolution as a singular
political event, with fundamental social changes within the structure
of the
state, developed after the „Glorious Revolution“ of 1688 in England,
when
William of Orange landed, causing Jacob II to flee. The flight of Jacob
II was
described as a miracle, the work of a Supreme Being, which had nothing
to do
with the endeavours of men. However of relevance to us, to note, is
that the
„Glorious Revolution“ occurred without the help of revolutionaries, who
normally make the revolution. The legal situation of the British
nobility had
become unbearable, thus it called William III to re-establish the
previous
status quo. In reality, we could consider this as a very
anti-revolutionary
act. Ever since, every unique political change in a European country
was called
a revolution.
This
old „objectivistic“ concept of
revolution stand in direct contradiction to the new one which was
created at
‘she eve of the French revolution. The most important contribution of
the
French Revolution to modern revolutionary theory, was the discovery
that, an
objective revolution needs subjective revolutionaries. Ironically to
say, this
was the political achievement of the bourgeoisie when it was still
young and
revolutionary. The modern representatives of this class deliberately
forget
this when they consider the activities of „terrorists“.
Now,
let us investigate the genesis of
the word „revolution“ itself. In the late Middle Ages, the word
„revolution“
appeared in Europe. It was the formation of the noun from the Latin
verb,
revolvere, meaning to „roll back,“ for example, to explain the rotation
of the
moon in a circular orbit. St. Augustine used it in the sense of
„reincarnation“, in his religious battle against the heathens who
believed that
the soul repeatedly „rolls“ through various „bodies“ until it is
purified. For
Dante, „revolutio“ is the changing movement of the sun, stars and
planets.
Thus, as late as the 15th century the concept „revolutio“ was
essentially still
a pre-political astronomic concept. Then came the discoveries of the
natural
scientists, Copernicus (1473-1543), Galilei Galileo (1564-1642) and Sir
Isaac
Newton (1642-1727, which gave the concept a physico-political
connotation. The astrologists
of the 17th century believed that by means of the positions of the
heavenly
bodices, by the horoscope, they could prophesy the faith of the feudal
princes,
who asked them for advice before going to war, This pre-scientific
method is
still t,,- y used in our mass media to determine the behaviour patterns
of wage
worker. in modern capitalism. Nevertheless, since the 17th century,
people
believed that political events were dependent on physical phenomena.
They
thought that political actions were caught within the magnetic field of
the
powers of nature. This was clearly a revolutionary step, away from the
idealist, religious notion that Providence determines human behaviour.
Galileo
even believed that the rotations of the earth cause accidents and
chances in
human life. Ever since, the prefix „re-“ did not mean only a simple
repetition,
but also contained the idea of destruction. Revolution now included an
element
new, which was beyond the reach of human arbitrariness, calculation and
planning.
The
word „revolution“ received its
political connotation in the genesis of capitalism itself. It
originated in the
city-states of northern Italy, were capitalism was developing in
embryonic
form. Words such as „rivoltura“ „rivoluzione“ were used to describe
serious
social revolts or popular unrest. What these words exactly designated,
can he
compared with the present political understanding „f, „social turmoil“
or
„turbulent events“ in domestic or foreign affairs.
3. The
Marxist Revolutionary Theory
3.1
Historical Background
Marx
evolved his theory of revolution in
the years 1840 - 1844, and it was intended to be a program for the
bourgeois-democratic revolution, then overdue in Germany, Germany’s
historical
time-lag as compared with her Western-bourgeois neighbours (England and
France), offered the German social revolution a unique historical
chance, not
only to make up for the „political emancipation“ that had been brought
about by
the Jacobinian revolution in France, but even to surpass it in a „human
emancipation,“
which would go so far as to overcome the contradiction between citoyen
and
bourgeois.
In
clarifying the question of the
subject of such a revolution, Marx not only crossed the line from
radical
bourgeois-ideologist to theoretician of the socialist revolution, but
also from
utopian to scientific socialism, which alone is susceptible of signing
the
bridge of praxis that must of necessity link the criticism of the
present with
the utopia of the future, and of actuating the „alliance of thinking
and suffering
men“ that will liberate human society from the shackles of the
bourgeois mode
of production and hence, from the class system on a world scale.
Two
parties are bound to find themselves
in a temporary alliance prompted by the revolution, although they
differ in
their basic political attitude towards that revolution: a
petty-bourgeois one
that aims at getting it done and over with, and a proletarian one that
keeps
pushing it forward „until all more or less properties classes have
squeezed out
of authority, executive power has been wrested from them by the
proletariat,
and the associations of proletarians not only in one country but in all
leading
countries of the world are so far advanced (....) that at least the
decisive
forces of production will be concentrated in the hands of the
proletariat“.
(Marx and Engels, „Address of the Central Authority to the League“,
March
1850.)
This
postulation of permanency for the
proletarian revolution (an idea which was later further developed by L.
Trotsky
in his theory of the permanent revolution), which at the time was the
common
political platform of the „League of Communists“ and the „Blanquists“,
contains
the following criteria of a socialist revolution:
3.1.1
Achievement of the hegemony of the
proletariat, by means of its party or parties, in the historically
retarded
bourgeois revolution;
3.1.2
Establishment of a proletarian
dictatorship, i.e., seizing control of executive power with a view to
the
expropriation and reorganisation of the means of production;
3.1.3
Internationalisation of the
revolution to bring about cooperation among the proletarian-dominatad
of most
highly developed („dominant“) societies, in order to prevent communism
from
merely becoming a generalised social form of indigenos, which would
invariably
entail new types of inequality, the formation of new classes, and the
setting
up of a machinery of repression vis-a-vis the majority of the people.
3.2
Dialectics and Revolution -
„Communist Manifesto“
The
first period of an independent German
workers’ movement, 1844-1852, was at the same time the first
international
workers’ movement. In the history of the „League of Communists“
nationality
played no major role; solidarity was based on class interests.
In
the „Communist Manifesto“, Marx and
Engels addressed the „proletariat“ in the „third person“, hence at a
little
distance. When they addressed the „communists“, they used the
appellative for
the conclusion of the „manifesto“: „Workers of the world, unite!“ The
manifesto
of Marx and Engels of 1848 did not address the proletarians on a world
scale,
it was formulated for the European proletariat.
For
them, revolution had nothing to do
with conspiracy, blind activism or Blanquism. It was for them an
epochmaking
social transformetion, which has become world historically necessary,
and whose
task it was to eradicate the economically based exploitative relations
of the
bourgeois classes. The possibility of a social revolution has first
theoretically to be derived from the objective conditions of the law of
accumulation of capital, then scientifically tested, only then could
ideas
concerning the organisation of revolution, be formulated correctly.
This means
that first a revolutionary theory has to be developed out of the
specific
conditions, then it must be tested scientifically in revolutionary
praxis, by
active organisation of the working classes.
Until
1847, the revolutionary theory,
worked out by Marx and Engels, was attacked by the various political
tendencies
within the „League of Communists“. It was only on the second congress
of the
„League“ in 1847 that Marx triumphed and that he and Engels were asked
to draft
a communist manifesto, which was published in London in January 1848.
In
this manifesto, Marx and Engels
especially criticised the „utopian communism“ of Saint-Simon, Fourier,
Owen
Proudhon, etc. They argued that the „systems“ of the above authors
mainly were
of pre-scientifice, utopian character, and that they did not comprehend
the
real dialectics of history as being essentially revolutionary processes
of
class struggles. The historic constitution of the proletariat, from a
„class in
itself“ to a „class for itself“, they simply understood as an invented
type of
„social organisation“. World history is, thus, dissolved in propaganda
and the
practical fulfillment of their social schemes. In this process, the
theory and
praxis of proletarian class struggles have no dialectical relation
whatsoever.
The „utopian“ communists hence did not touch the core of this historic
phenomenon, that is, that in history itself theory operates and in
theory
conscious history is contained.
The
Marxian critique of utopian
unscientific socialists of various directions can be summarised as
follows:
Where the historic self-action of the proletariat begins, the
legitimation of
utopianism ends. Where the proletariat becomes a historic force, the
„Icarias“
(Owen) become reactionary, because they act retardingly, hence blunting
the
edges of the class struggle.
The
road of the „Communist Manifesto“ to
Russia led across Bakunin, an adversary of Marx in the First
International; in
1869 he translated it into Russian - thus it found its first historic
„realisation“ in the October Revolution of 1917. The history of the
„Communist
Manifesto“ in a certain sense reflects the history of the European
workers’
struggle. Marx and Engels had accused the „utopians“ of dogmatism,
idealism,
voluntarism and anarchism. But exactly such forces within the Central
Committee
of the League of Communists led to a split into two main factions an
September
15, 1850, into a majority „Marx“ faction and a minority
„Willich-Schapper“
faction. Marx and Engels accused the minority faction of „utopian
thoughts“,
that they anticipated the best of all worlds, but left the real world
to its
alienation.
3.3
The Five Major Postulates of the
Marxian Revolutionary Theory.
3.3.1
Social revolutions are only
possible, when a historic subject exists, whose concrete needs are so
clearly
articulated that revolutionary theor appears as the most adequate
expression of
these needs.
3.3.2
Social revolutions are „real“ and
„total“ and they must have an international character.
3.3.3
As far as the German social
revolution of the mid-19th century was concerned, it would only be
successful,
if the „bourgeoisie“, in alliance with the State, would accomplish the
political revolution; this would, on the one hand, enable the
continuation of
concentration of capital, and, on the other hand, the pauperisation of
the
developing proletariat; thus the central conflict between the German
forces of
production and relations of production will eventually reach an acute,
critical
stage, creating the real historic conditions for the German proletarian
social
revolution.
3.3.4
Social revolutions can only take
place in the face of a universal economic crisis, in which the
antagonistic
structure of bourgeois class society becomes crystal-clear to every
conscious
worker. In such a situation the two major classes of capitalist society
confront each other openly. The world crisis of 1847 was for Marx and
Engels
the real economic base of the European „February“ and „March“
revolutions of
1848; also the period of relative economic prosperity of 1849-50 was
the
economic basis of the European political reaction at the beginning of
the
1850s.
3.3.5
A pre-condition for social
revolutions is a highly developed level of the industrial revolution.
This
creates a highly organised, experienced proletariat, which can revolt
in a
united and disciplined manner, as a „class for itself“ which is able to
overcome
capitalist class society.
In
conclusion, this Marxist concept of
revolution only has validity in highly developed capitalist
industrialised
societies. A prerequisite is a comprehensive theory of social
development. This
concept maintains that the social proletarian revolution is inevitable
on a
world historical scale and how, when or where social revolutions occur
cannot
be determined abstractly, but on the basis of specific historical,
economic,
political, social and cultural conditions.
Concerning
the above-mentioned five
Marxian postulates, generally the following can be said about Marx’s
„theory of
revolution“ as developed by scientific socialists ever since:
3.3.6
Marx was the first scholar who
described the essence of fundamental social changes, as the result of
the
contradiction between the developing forces of production and obsolete
relations of production. At a certain stage of development the material
social
forces of production contradict the existing relations of production,
that is,
the relations of property, within which they had developed until then.
Originally developmental forms of the forces for production, these
production
relations now become chains of the same. The result is that an epoch of
social
revolution sets in.
3.3.7
A mode of production never
desappears, before all its forces of production are developed. New and
higher
relations of production never appear before the material conditions of
existence, necessary for their coming into being, are not yet already
present
in embryonic form in the old mode of production.
3.3.8
Revolution is characterised as a
process, as an epoch. Generally emancipatory violence is necessary to
crack the
old egg shell, in order to give birth to the new relations of
production. But
violence is not necessarily a since qua non for social revolution.
3.3.9
The concept of revolution as
process is confronted with the concept action, with the political
revolution.
This political act, in the past, has practically not occurred exactly
at the
point, where the concentration of the new forces of production came
into
contradiction with the egg shell of the obsolete relations of
reduction. In
this sense, the october Revolution was premature and the revolution in
the
United States is long overdue.
3.3.10
Marx and Engels were of the
opinion that the socialist revolution will take place simultaneously in
all
highly industrialised, „civilised“ countries, at least in England, the
United
States of America, France and Germany. The „uncivilised“ world will
automatically be forced to accept the socialist mode of production.
However,
the World Revolution, which began in October 1971, has not taken the
course
which Marx and Engels had predicted.
3.3.11
It becomes clear that within the
Marxist „theory of revolution“ there cannot be a generally valid,
paradigmatic
model of revolution. Also classical revolutions, do not exist.
3.3.12
A common factor of all
revolutions is that the exploitative social conditions have become so
unbearable for the masses of working people, that the majority of them
are
prepared to place their lives at stake, in revolt against the rulers,
who are
nut capable anymore, to solve the burning social problems.
3.3.13
The only factor which is clear,
is that with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the epoch of social
revolution
between capitalism and socialism has set in, in other words, the
process of the
world revolution began.
3.3.14
This world revolution, which is
reflected in the severe international crises of capitalism on global
scale, has
as important elements the scientific technological revolution, the
rapid
development of the means of production and the forces of production,
and the
emancipatory struggle of nations on a global scale, who have become
socially
conscious of the imminent dangers of capitalism to their very
existence, and
the survival of mankind.
4.
Theoretical Positions prior to the October Revolution in Russia
At
the beginning of the 20th century,
Bolsheviks and left-wing German „Social Democrats“ once more
‘discovered“ the
„topicality of the proletarian revolution“ that is contained in the
Marxian
writings of 1840-48. The First Russian Revolution of 1905 raised the
problem of
the character of this revolution, not only for the Russian „Social
Democrats“,
but also for the Second International in it entirely. Three options
were
developed:
4.1
The „Bolshevik“ one,
According
to the Bolshevik line, Lenin’s
formula for the Russian Revolution up to World War I was that of the
„democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants“. His interest was
mainly
riveted on the classes known to be incubating the revolution, hence its
most
likely protagonists. 150 million landless peasants would break out of
their
semi-serfdom and fight for the distribution of land; 15 million urban
workers
would support the peasant revolt by using the strike as political
weapon in the
cities, with socialist objectives in mind. The result would be a
revolutionary
coalition between workers’ and peasants’ organisations. The Russian
bourgeoisie, in consequence of the special features of Russian
historical
development, would be unable to play an independent political role.
Thus, the
bourgeois revolution, being consummated by peasants and workers would
henceforth take on a proletarian character, at least in the cities, by
virtue
of the forms of workers-struggle adopted. Besides, the Russian
Revolution would
be the signal for the „purely“ proletarian revolution in Western Europe
to
erupt.
4.2
The „Menshevik“ one,
Briefly,
according to the Menshevik
theory, the task of the revolution was restricted to toppling the
tsarist
regime and establishing a bourgeois-democratic republic, in the
framework of
which Russian capitalism would then freely expand, while Russian
„social
democracy“ would by means of its opposition and powerful organisation
protect
the Russian workers from the worst forms of capitalist exploitation. In
the
opinion of the Mensheviks, a socialist revolution would not be feasible
in
Russia, given its historical uneven development, since a highly
developed
capitalism would be the necessary pre-condition for any such revolution.
4.3
The „Trotskyist“ one,
Trotsky
went a step even further then
Lenin. He predicted in 1905/06 that the coalition assumed by Lenin
would of
necessity quickly be followed by the hegemony of the urban proletariat,
since
in view of the inherent weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, the class
of
peasants, having a pettybourgeois attitude, would be incapable of
organising
itself politically, hence, this peasantry would be bound to come under
the leadership
of the proletariat. Once the urban workers had seized political
control, they
would have not option but to put collectivism on the agenda. This would
bring
the proletariat into conflict with the peasantry. Trotsky thus
concluded:
Without support of the Russion proletarian revolution from Western
Europe, it
would not be able to hold its own in backward Russia; the fate of the
Russian
Workers’ revolution would be decided by the success of the
revolutionary
struggles on an international scale, otherwise the Russian revolution
would
degenerate.
During
the time of World War I
(1914-18), Lenin drew closer to Trotsky’s position. Upon his return
from exile,
in his famous „April Theses“, he propagated the second
proletarian-socialist
revolution. The events of 1917 in Russia fully confirmed Trotsky’s
prognosis
made in 1905.
The
Bolshevik seizure of power in
October/November 1917 was doubtless informed by the expectation that
the
socialist revolution would not fail to spread internationally within a
short
time, as evidenced by the party manifestoes and debated of both the
first
Comintern congresses and the party congresses of the „Russian Communist
Party“
(RCP), as well as the writings of the various Bolshevik revolutionary
leaders.
5. The
Factional Struggles with the Russian Communist Party (1924-30)
The
factional struggles within the RCP
and the Third International from 1923 to 1929 basically centered upon
the
question as to how the first isolated „workers’ state“ should
„correctly“
conduct its internal and external policies in the interest of both the
Russian
and international proletariat. In what was a clear breach of the
Bolshevik
tradition of 1917-1923, Stalin, after Lenin’s death, in 1924
inaugurated a new
version of a nationally restricted communism - this became known as
„revisionism”, against which Lenin had already warned and even fought
against.
The
need for throwing into gear the
lagging process of industrialisation in Russia was not in itself a
matter for
factional dispute. The problem arose about the ways and means to be
adopted in
its implementation, this being the essence of the economic controversy
between
Preobrashenski and Bucharin.
The
Third International had been created
as an instrument for spreading the socialist revolution. The question
open for
debate among the factions was that of the policy of alliances in highly
„developed“ as well as „underdeveloped“ countries. It would seem that
Stalin
comparatively early considered the chance of spreading the
internntional
proletarian revolution quite minimal (see his letter of August 1923 to
Zinoviev
on „The Chances of the Communist Revolution in Germany“, in which he
counselled
„soft-pedalling“).
In
China (1925-1927), as later in Spain
(1931-1939), the Stalinist faction, through the mechanism of the
Comintern,
enforced its own conception, predicated on the necessity of fostering a
revolutionary phase which initially was to be bourgeois-nationalist in
outlook.
This meant that the Communist Parties of both countries were not
supposed to
pursue an independent communist policy but to restrict themselves by
lending
„critical support“ to the national revolutinary movement (to the
Koumintang or
the Popular Front, respectively) unless they were impelled to enter
into
alliances with those organisations, calling for the total abandonment
of their
own political principles.
Stalin
thus elevated the old formula of
the „democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants“ (Lenin), to
which he
had subscribed as editor of the Bolshevik organ, Pravda, as late as in
Spring
1917, to the status of a programme for the Comintern. This resulted in
defeats
for the workers’ struggles and for parties representing them.
Just
as Bolshevism and Menshevism had
confronted each other at the beginning of the 20th century, now since
1924,
Stalinism and Trotskyism emerged as the communist enemy-brothers of the
late
„Twenties“ and of the “Thirties“. In autumn 1924, Stalin, in total
opposition
to the whole Marxist revolutionary tradition, in defining his domestic
policy,
proclaimed the thesis of the possibility of achieving „socialism in a
single
country“ - Russia: He stated that even if no further socialist
revolutions were
forthcoming, Russia would be able to achieve socialism, and eventually
communism, under its own revolutionary steam. Stalin thus made a
national
communist virtue out of an imposed autarchic necessity. Trotsky
attacked this
thesis, and called it as early as 1928 a „theory of empty promises“, an
„opiate
of the people“.
Ever
since, both on the theoretical
level and in their practical organisational approach, these two
factions,
Stalinism and Trotskyism, have confronted one another, in both
„developed“ and
„developing“ countries. This split in international communism is
reflected
across the globe; it has caused serious damage to the revolutionary
struggles
everywhere. Today we are experiencing new versions of this ideological
conflict
in the various theoretical positions of „Nee-Stalinism“ and
„Neo-Trotskyism“.
Added to these new „Marxist“ „isms“ came into existence, for example,
„Maoism“
„Castroism“ „Nkrumaism“, etc.
Nevertheless,
in contradiction to
Stalin, Trotsky had the following theoretical position, after 1924: The
question of revolutionary objectives and of the social classes likely
to
achieve them was posed; Trotsky was convinced that there is not a
single
country in the „developing“ world in which the „national bourgeoisie“
is
susceptible of even solving the problems of the bourgeois-democratic
revolution; consequently the achievement of revolutionary aims in
„underdeveloped“
countries has to be entrusted to the Peasantry under a proletarian
leadership.
Later, this theory was confirmed in the Cuban and Vietnamese
revolutions. As
far as the Soviet Union was concerned, Trotsky called for the Second
„October
Revolution“, to sweep away Stalinism. Also in the „First World“ he
called for
the Second „French Revolution“ to complete the socialist revolution. In
his
„theory of the permanent revolution“, he developed the dynamics of the
world
revolution, as expressed in the dialectical relations of these three
historical
revolutionary developments.
In
contradistinction and contradiction
to other social revolutions of previous epochs, the proletarian
revolution of
the 20th and 21st centuries has four distinct features, which determine
its
specific historical character but also circumscribe the immense
difficulties
for its realisation.
6.1
The proletarian revolution, which
commenced in 1917, is the first social revolution in history, which is
being
accomplished nationally and internationally by the poorest and lowest
classes
of society, which constitute a huge revolutionry force, but which are
excluded
from the enjoyment of the massive accumulated wealth of production on a
world
scale.
6.2
It is the first social revolution in
history, which has as revolutionary aim a consciously planned
transformation of
the existing old mode of production, capitalism, into a new one,
socialism, and
eventually, COMMUNISM. Until now, social revolutions were „made“, to a
large
extent, blindly by the social revolutionary classes, without a clear
revolutionary theory, or guiding revolutionary praxis.
6.3
Like previous social revolutions,
the proletarian revelution emerged from the internal class struggles
and class contradictions
of the existing mode of production, but contrary to the others, it
cannot stop
at a certain culmination point, it cannot afford an incomplete social
transformation, it is directed towards a total change of all human
relations, a
conscious, systematic and radical change of the existing order on a
world scale
over a long period of time, which could last centuries. Furthermore the
acquisition of social power of the proletariat, on a world scale is not
the
end, but the beginning of real history, the beginning of its social
transforming actions, among others, the abolition of the contradiction
between
capital and labour, the state, commodity production, of all classes,
including
the proletariat itself, racism and sexual oppression.
6.4
Already indicated above, the
proletarian revolution is the first social revolution in history which
is
essentially international, not limited to an island, state, region or
bloc of
countries. This is an absolutely necessary sine qua non for its
historic
success. Surely, it begins nationally, yet its victory will never he
secure,
unless it is successfully accomplished on a global scale. It is a world
process, a world revolution. Hence, it cannot be a uniform social
struggle but
must correspond to the principles of unequal and combined historical
development.
Lenin,
living in the period of monopoly
capitalism, was in a better position than Marx and Engels to assess the
importance of the above factors for revolutionary theory and praxis.
Cognisant
of these, Lenin further developed Marxism by extending its application
to
central problems of the social superstructure, that is, of the state,
ideology,
class consciousness and the party.
Generally
it can be said, that Lenin,
Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg - and in limited form also Lukacs and
Gramsci - have
formulated the subjective factor of Marxism, which was only implicitly
worked
out by Marx and Engels. This factor is mainly elaborated in Lenin’s
theories of
organisation and the party.
7.
Bourgeois Ideology and Proletarian Class Consciousness
7.1
Bourgeois Ideology
Marx
and Engels had stated concerning
classes and ideology the following: „The ideas of the ruling class are
in every
epoch the ruling ideas, which is the ruling material force of society,
is at
the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the
means of
material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over
the
means of mental production so that thereby, generally speaking, the
ideas of
those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it“. (Marx
and
Engels, The German Ideology (1846), pp. 39f., see below).
Concerning
the eradication of
„ideology“, they said: This whole semblance, that the rule of a certain
class
is only the rule of certain ideas, comes to a natural end, of course,
as soon
as society ceases at last to be organised in the form of class rule,
that is to
say, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular
interest as
general or ‘the general interests’ as ruling“. (ibid. p. 41)
In
order to understand Lenin’s
considerations, it is important to understand these Marxian thoughts in
the
context of capitalist rule. The bourgeoisie nationally and
internationally
controls the ideological production, that is, mass media, schools,
universities
and churches, and use these in its own class interests to perpetuate
its
existence. As long as the bourgeoisie was young revolutionary and
relatively
stable, for example, in the 18th and 19th centuries, its ideology
fundamentally
influenced the working classes. In the first phase of the workers’
struggles,
especially until 1848 in Western Europe, much later in other regions,
the
proletariat as a „class in itself“ still used the ideals, for example,
liberty,
equality and fraternity, and the ideology of the bourgeoisie. But as
the class
struggles intensified on a global scale, especially in the 20th
century,
bourgeois class rule became unstable and shaky, thus an ideological
revolutionary process of the proletariat becoming a „class for itself“
set in.
The workers more and more become conscious of their own class
interests, their
own historic mission. As a subjective reflection of the objective class
struggle a controversy between bourgeois ideology and proletarian class
consciousness, expressed in revolutionary theory develops. Here again,
note
that something like „proletarian ideology“ or „Marxist ideology“ is
scientifically alien to scientific socialism. There are only concepts
of
„bourgeois ideology“, sometimes used by „Marxists“.
With
his theory of organisation, Lenin
tries to explain the inner dialectics of this process of achieving
political
class consciousness, as it develops within the concrete class
consciousness,
are it develops within the concrete class struggle of the proletariat.
7.2
Theory of Organisation
Lenin’s
theory works with three
operative catogories: the working class (working masses); the
proletarian
vanguard (that part of the workers which is already class conscious)
and the
revolutionary organisation (the Marxist Party).
7.2.1
The Working Class
Marx
and Engels had developed an
objective and a subjective „class“ concept. The subjective class
concept, which
was mainly developed by the young Marx in the Communist Manifesto
(together
with Engels) and in his works of 1850-52, denotes that the working
class, with
a minimum of selfconsciousness could develop by itself, within she
class
struggle, to a „class for itself“. Hence, a workers’ party would not
necessarily play a decisive role.
However,
Marx and Engels later, after
1852, formulated an objective class concept, which signifies mainly the
„class
in itself“ that is, a social group which is determined by its specific
objective political consciousness. This objective concept is
fundamental for
Lenin’s theory of organisation (see his book, What is to be done?).
Similarily,
it is of significance to understand the works of the „left“ opposition
within
the German Social Democracy, under Engels, Bebel and Kautsky.
7.2.2
The Proletarian Vanguard.
Lenin
stresses that only because the
proletarian class exists objectively in a revolutionary position, it
can carry
out a rovolutionary class struggle. Furthermore, only in connection
with this
class struggle, the concept of a revolutionary vanguard of the
proletariat has
a scientific meaning. Outside this historic combination, objective
proletarian
class and concrete class struggle, revolutionary activity can only
constitute a
„party core“, but not a proletarian party. Hence, there cannot be a
self-proclaimed „vanguard party“. A real revolutionary proletarian
party can
only win the historic right of a proletarian vanguard within the actual
class
struggle.
7.2.3
Revolutionary Organisation
The
constitution of the proletariat as
an objective category is itself a historic process. The working classes
emerged
from various social groups, which brought with them different forms of
self -
or political - consciousness. The workers on the frontier of the class
struggle, the revolutionary vanguard, will be the most advanced
consciously.
The category of revolutionary party, has its analytic basis the
postulate that
socialism is a science which cannot be acquired or mastered
collectively, but
can only be comprehended individually. Only in this way scientific
socialism
can be distributed in its totality throughout society.
We
should remember, concerning this
aspect, that in the mid-19th century, scientific socialism claimed to
be the
dialectical „blossoming“ and the „selfabolishment“ of at least three
major
classical social sciences: German philosophy, English national economy
and
French political science. Such a scientific assimilation has as
prerequisites a
thorough grasp of materialist dialectics, historical materialism,
Marxist
economic theory, the history of modern social revolutions and of the
contemporary working class movements. Surely, a semi-educated factory
worker,
over-flowing with bourgeois ideology and illusions, is unable to learn
and
grasp the above scientific facts in their historic totality. Thus,
Lenin argued
that only through individual selection of the most experienced working
groups
of the proletariat can class consciousness and socialist ideas and
praxis be
eventually distributed socially. Because of the fact that class
consciousness
is inicially acquired individually, members of other social groups, for
example, intellectuals, can directly participate in the proletarian
class
struggle, provided that they further and protect working class
interests.
Against this background, Lenin developed his theory of the party.
7.3
Proletarian Class Struggle and Proletarian
Class Consciousness
From
the above, according to Lenin, it
follows that the dialectical unity (as a process) of proletarian
masses,
proletarian vanguard and revolutionary party, is determined by the
transformation of the elementary proletarian class struggle into the
revolutionary class struggle, into the proletarian revolution itself,
and, by
the effects of this historic transformation on the class consciousness
of the
working masses.
As
we have already stated before, for
millennia, class struggles has been waged, without that the
revolutionary
classes had known consciously what exactly were their historic mission.
Furthermore, working class struggles occurred long before there ever
existed a
socialist movement, scientific socialism or the „Communist Manifesto“.
Such
struggles included methods like strikes, „go-slows“, violent protests,
demonstrations or even trade unions in embryo. These were direct
products of
workers, actions against oppressive ruling class conditions, and can be
classified as elementary forms of proletarian class struggle.
Also,
only experience gained from action
can produce social consciousness and reproduce it. Great masses of
people can
only change their social consciousness through mass actions. However,
the
majority of workers is only active during the struggle itself.
Thereafter, they
return to „private life“, that is, to the struggle for survival under
capitalist alienation. Certain progressive small groups of workers -
the
proletarian vanguard - behave differently. After the workers’ battle,
they
continue the struggle actively on other fronts. The driving force
behind this
vanguard is less theory but mainly the actual experience, the praxis of
class
struggle.
Lenin
showed that the collective action
of progressive workers is very hard to achieve. Through past experience
they
know that ephemeral actions do not lead to their goal of liberation.
Also, they
have no illusions about the strength of the bourgeoisie. Hence, he
stressed
that these progressive workers have to be assimilated with the
revolutionary
cores of workers in order to establish a revolutionary proletarian
class party.
Also,
the „ripening“ process of a
potentially revolutionary situation articulates itself in the continual
corresponding actions of the broad working masses with those of the
progressive
workers. A revolutionary situation, that is, the possibility to conquer
social
power, exists when the assimilation of the proletarian revolutionary
vanguard
and mass actions is achieved, and, when at the same time, the political
consciousness of the vanguard has become revolutionary consciousness.
The
transformation of the elementary
class struggle into the proletarian revolution, thus, has important
quantitative and qualitative pre-conditions: a very large number of
progressive
workers is necessary, but also very clearly formulated revolutionary
objectives
- a definite transitional socialist programme. Hence, only when all the
above-mentioned factors are successfully dialectically united with each
other,
according to Lenin, is a successful proletarian revolution possible.
8. The
Theory of Permanent Revolution
As
already explained, the originators of
the theory of permanent social revolution were Marx and Engels. It is
in the
nature of matter to undergo permanent dialectical change. This truth,
the
classical scientific socialists had applied to historic processes and
society
in general.
After
the split of the Russian Social
Democratic Revolutionary Party (RSDRP) around 1903/04 into two opposing
factions, the „Party of Reform“ (Mensheviks) and the „Party of
Revolution“
(Bolsheviks), the concept „revolution“ again won topicality within
„Social-Democratic“ debates. According to the Menshevist
interpretation,
propagated mainly by Plechanov and Martynov, between 1905 and 1917,
Russia was
facing a „classical“ bourgeois-democratic revolution. Czarism
(feudalism) would
be abolished by a Democratic Republic, hence, allowing liberal
capitalism to
develop freely. The liberal bourgeoisie, which then existed only in
embryonic form,
should lead this social revolution, being supported by the progressive
workers,
under the leadership of the Russian Social Democracy.
Until
1917, Lenin, leading the
Bolsheviks, saw the decisive revolutionary potential in the huge
Russian
Peasantry, assisted by the proletariat. In case of victory, the
political
result would be a „democratic dictatorship of the peasantry and
proletariat“,
but as basically peasant revolution. Thus the Bolsheviks differed from
the
Menshevists concerning the historic subject of revolution. In 1904,
during this
conflict situation, Trotsky left for Munich, where he lived in the
house of
Parvus-Helphand, a German Social Democrat. Already in 1892, Pravus was
of the
opinion that the Russian Revolution could not be headed by the
bourgeoisie. In
1904, he published a series or articles, under the heading, „War and
Revolution“, in the Iskra, in which he developed his own theory of the
Russian
Revolution.
According
to Parvus, the world process
of capitalist development necessarily leads to revolutionary overturn
in
Russia, this political change must be extended to all capitalist
countries. The
Russian revolution will shake the political foundations of the
capitalist
world, hence, the Russian proletariat will have the historic chance of
becoming
the vanguard of international socialist revolution. These political
ideas,
Trotsky discussed with Parvus; they eventually led to the formulation
of
Trotsky’s own theory of the permanent revolution in 1905. Trotsky
published a
booklet, „Before January 9“. Parvus made a contribution, „Vorwärts“, in
which
he wrote: „Only the workers can complete the revolutionary
transformation in
Russia. The Russian revolutionary provisional government will be a
‘workers’
democracy“ (31.1.1905). Contrary to Lenin, who hoped up to 1917, for a
coalition government of the Peasant Party and social Democracy, Parvus
wanted a
Social Democratic majority government. However, it would not be able to
introduce socialist measures.
Trotsky went further than Parvus, he made the prognosis, that once the proletariat has achieved political power, due to the internal logic of the revolutionary situation, it would be forced to introduce socialist measures for survival. The proletariat will have no other alternative but to continue the social revolution. This idea of „permanent revolution“ now for the first time broke through the „dogmas“ of the Russian Orthodox-Marxism. (See: „Results and Perspectives“ (1906), a chapter of his book Our Revolution).
Although
Social Democrats like Lenin,
Luxemburg, Parvus, Mehring and Kautsky, basically, until 1917, saw the
Russian
Revolution as a „proletarian revolution, assisted by the peasantry,
with
bourgeois objectives“, nevertheless all of them have used the concept
„permanent revolution“ in their works, ever since 1906.
Now,
what is the essence of the theory
of the permanent revolution as developed in Trotsky’s works like,
„Results and
Perspectives“ (1906), „The Permanent Revolution“ (1930), „The
Revolution
Betrayed“ (1935), etc?
The
Russian social revolution, which
would abolish feudalism and introduce socialism, will be carried by the
millions of peasants and the city workers. The peasantry would not be
able to
organise itself politically and nationally, due to the specific Russian
historic conditions and the huge territory. Due to the enormous number
of
peasants, it will basically be a peasant revolution, but it
necessitates a
proletarian leadership, drawn from the 5 million factory workers (this
figure
was probably much higher). The peasantry, mainly the soldiers, would
form a
coalition with the progressive workers; together as a revolutionary
force, they
will be able to achieve the objectives of the bourgeois-democratic
revolution,
for example taking over political power, due to the absence of a
developed
liberal bourgeoisie. If the peasantry led by the proletariat, can
conquer and
retain political power, then the social content of the
bourgeois-democratic
revolution will change. The proletarian hegemony would lead to the
transformation of the bourgeois, into the proletarian socialist
revolution.
This workers’ government out of necessity would have to introduce
industrialisation by socialist measures; also, collectivism in
agriculture,
which would lead to conflicts with the peasantry.
Concerning
the permanence of the Russian
Revolution within the context of world revolution, that is, proletarian
internationalism, Trotsky stated in his book, The Permanent Revolution,
that
the international economic situation in its totality was in 1930
objectively
beyond doubt „ripe“ for the „dictatorship of the proletariat“, for
proletarian
political power, even before it becomes „ripe“ for self-construction of
socialism, that is, for introduction of deep going socialisation
processes, for
achieve proletarian political power does not pre-supposes a „ripeness“
of the
national economy for socialisation, but on the ability of the
proletariat to
take over the leadership of the national democratic revolution in the
various
semi-colonial or colonial countries, and the capability as
„dictatorship“ to
complete this revolution.
The
fate of such „dictatorships of the
proletariat“ on a global scale will not be decided nationally, by
constructing
„socialism in one country“, but rather, even including those of
„advanced
industrialized societies“, on the tempo and expansion of the world
revolution.
Only on an international scale the unequal and combined development,
caused
historically by discrepancies in economy and politics, can be resolved
dialectically, ushering in the socialist mode of production on a global
scale.
Thus, Trotsky (and Lenin) were convinced, that if the socialist
revolution does
not spread to Western Europe and elsewhere within a very short time,
necessarily the Russian Revolution would degenerate, losing thus its
own
socialist objectives, into a bureaucratic regime. To avoid
„dictatorship of the
party“ (bureaucracy), already in 1906, Trotsky demanded that a
triumphant
workers’ movement in Russia should immediately after victory be
transformed
into a process of „political self-determination of the proletariat“.
Otherwise,
the revolutionary party would commit a historical error. Thus, to
„internationalise“ the Russian Revolution, the Third Communist
International
was founded in 1919. In this context, Lenin and Trotsky already
included the
coming „colonial revolutions“ of Africa, Asia and South America.
In
a memorandum to the central committee
of the Comintern of 5.8.1919, Trotsky wrote about the possibility that
„the
future revolutionary road to Paris and London, could lead over Kabul,
Calcutta
and Bombay“ - this deviation over the so-called „Third World“ actually
took
place in the 20th century. Hence the „colonial revolution“ became an
intrinsic
part of the „world revolution“, of the „permanent revolution“.
In
1920, at the Second Congress of the
Comintern a resolution was passed calling the industrial proletariat of
„advanced°“ countries and the peasantry of „backward“ countries,
together to
fight against world imperialism. Lenin’s famous „Theses on the National
and
Colonial Questions“ (written in June, 1920, for the above congress, but
only
discussed in 1926, after his death) paved the road for the historic
connection
between the Russian Revolution and the „colonial revolutions“. A year
before,
he stated that, „without the working masses of all subjugated colonial
nations,
and in the first place the Oriental nations, the proletarian revolution
cannot
be triumphant“. (See his lecture to the 2nd Congress of Oriental
Communist
Nations of 22.11.1919).
In
1926/27, Trotsky interpreted the
Chinese events as „permanent revolution“. But the Comintern, led by
Stalin and
Bucharin, demanded a coalition between the Chinese Communist party and
the
Kuomintang. This political adventure ended with the massacre of ten
thousands
of Chinese workers by Chiang-Kai-Shek in April 1927, thus, postponing
the
Chinese Revolution for another two decades.
Generally,
we could say that Trotsky’s
theory of permanent revolution is essentially applicable to „Third
World“
countries. However, we must note that the political precondition of the
Russian
Revolution, on which this theory was developed - existence of an active
revolutionary proletariat and an experienced, well-organised socialist
party -
are not necessarily indispensable for all „Third World“ social
revolutions. In
the Chinese Revolution, the industrial proletariat was „replaced“ by
other
historic factors; in the Cuban Revolution, similarly, the socialist
party.
Hence the „combined development“ of „backward“ countries in future will
have more
revolutionary surprises in store, simply because there is no „classic“
social
revolution. Thus, we do not have a „classic“ revolutionary theory,
universally
or individually applicable. Applying the principles of scientific
socialism, we
have to derive a specific revolutionary theory from specific social
reality. In
spite of the fact that revolutionry theory and revolutionary praxis are
intimately dialectically linked up, nevertheless, as Lenin correctly
stated:
without revolutionary theory, there will be no proletarian revolution
in any
country. This in the same sense, as Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky and Ernst
Bloch
stated: No Socialism, without Democracy, no Democracy, without
Socialism.
Summary:
Relevance of International Proletarianism to Africa in General
On
a world scale the international
proletariat has today three major strategic tasks. The first one
concerns us in
the so-called „Third World” of which Africa is a significant part. This
sector
of the permanent world revolution, in the sense of Marxism, due to its
historic
dimension vis-a-vis the international division of labour and the
„unequal
exchange“ of values on the world market, has the historic task to
overthrow
feudal, colonial, neocolonial and bourgeois-capitalist relations, that
is, by
comprising State power and establishing Socialist property relations.
In
the workers’ states, where socialism
- as a mode of production, distinctly different from capitalism,
without
commodity production, private property of the means of production,
without the
major part of surplus value being used for the arms’ race, without
classes and
„races“, etc. - has not yet been realised, the proletarian struggle
continues
to establish nationally and internationally world socialism.
In
imperialist countries, in a „classical“
sense, as expounded by Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky,
Mandel,
etc., the proletarian struggle continues against capitalist
exploitation.
These
three sectors, combined
dialectically in a world revolutionary process, encompasses what we
understand
by proletarian internationalism today. The problem is only especially
concerning Africa, how is the underlying solidarity and unity of the
world
proletariat asserted through this historic process. In each sector, the
toiling
workers, whose livelihood depend on commodity production, who are
wage-earners,
who produce exchange values and surplus values, who use money to buy
their
basic necessities, etc., have to seize political power or maintain it,
by
establishing true socialist democracies, genuine proletarian states. In
the
case of Africa, and South Africa, obviously in relation to the above
features
of „toiling workers“, the proletariat, as a historical phenomenon, as a
fluid
category, surely cannot be understood anymore in the sense of the
Communist
Manifesto of 1848 - Marx would have been the first scholar today, on
the basis
of new historic realities, to redefine and actualise this concept. To
be able
to do this, is part of the quintessence of Marxism, whose subject
matter is a
matter in flux, obeying the universal laws of dialectics. Apart from
the
specific tasks of the proletariat in each individual country or region,
these
are dialectically oriented towards the global tasks of the world
revolution,
the creation of a classless society and socialism.
Once
we have established that we are
part and parcel of the world proletariat, there is no more a problem to
understand that the international proletariat has common class
interests, which
immediately cut across bourgeois nationalism archaic „ethnic“
squabbles,
degrading „race“ vendettas. No matter where a proletarian struggles,
whether in
New York, Moscow, Peking, London, Caracas, Accra or Cape Town, it can
never be
contrary to the interests of proletarian internationalism, if it is, he
has to
check seriously his strategy on the basis of scientific socialist
principles.
Because, for sure, there is something wrong in theory-praxis with his
„African“, „Arab“, “co-operative”, „democratic“ or „revolutionary“
socialism.
Finally,
as a result of dialectics, the
actual world process of revolution does not advance continuously and
simultaneously on all fronts, in other words, the Marxist law of uneven
and
combined development operates, and for this very reasons, it is of
ultraimportance to unify and combine the African workers, and to
develop a
common revolutionary theory-praxis on the basis of proletarian
internationalism
and international proletarianism.
Proletarian
Internationalism and Southern Africa
Historical
Dimension
In
this section we will be more
concerned with South Africa, although the South African Revolution
encompasses
the whole of Southern Africa, simply because the key of total
emancipation in
the region lies within the present Republic of South Africa. To this
area, very
early already Scientific Socialism had bean introduced, and the level
of
consciousness of the current South African proletariat exactly reflects
this
long historic process of revolutionary theory-praxis.
In
1907, two years after the failure of
the First Russian Revolution, „White“ middle class members in South
Africa,
immigrated British trade unionists, but also some socialists from
Eastern
Europe, founded the South African Labour Party (SALP). Concerning
„race“
relations, due to an overwhelming liberal and „white“-working class
oriented
policy, the SALP was basically reactionary and conservative. At the
time of the
First World War, in September 1914, many leaders of the „left“ wing,
led by
S.P. Bunting, opposed the SALP’s position of South Africa’s entrance
into the
war. Thus they were expelled from the party, and founded the
„International
Socialist League“ (ISL). On July 21, 1921, finally, the „South African
Communist Party“ (SACP) was formed, and in the same year, the ISL
joined it.
Hence while Lenin was still alive, South Africa had a communist party,
which
became a member of the Comintern. So long dates back the history of
South
African international proletarianism. (For further information see:
Franz J.T.
Lee, Südafrika am Vorabend der Revolution, Second Edition 1976,
ISP-Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main, PP. 78-123).
By
1927, the SACP had three African
(Black) executive members - Makabeni, Khaile and Thibedi and it had all
possible chances to become the proletarian vanguard party of all South
African
workers. However, with the split in international communism, after
Lenin’s
death, especially due to Stalin’s rise in power, and Trotsky being
ostracised,
proletarian internationalism and workers’ solidarity and unity were
seriously
affected in South Africa.
This
led to the foundation of factional
organisations in Sourth Africa, alongside with the SACP, which allied
itself
with the Comintern, directed by Stalin and Bucharin. The „Trotskyists“
were
expelled from the SACP, and they founded organisations like the „Lenin
Club“,
„Spartacus Club“, the „Workers’ Party of South Africa“, etc. (See:
ibid., pp.
71-76) In 1934, the „Lenin Club“ went so far as to demand a „Fourth
International”, and four years before Trotsky founded on in
Switzerland, South
Africa already had its „Fourth International Organisation of South
Africa“
(FIOSA). A severe ideological struggle was set loose in South Africa, a
life-and-death struggle of „Trotskyism versus Stalinism“. This led to
two
„united fronts“ in South Africa by the 1950s: the „Unity Movement of
South
Africa“ (UMSA), led by Isaac B. Tabata, and the „Congress of the
People“ of
Albert John Luthuli, and later led by Nelson Mandela and others.
Towards the
end of the 1960’s due to a new split, the Sino-Soviet conflict, even
„Maoism“
entered the South African scene, and now „African Nationalism“ versus
„Pan-Africanism“ (led by Robert Sobukwe) shook up the foundations of
workers’
unity in South Africa. It was only after the Sharpeville Massacre, when
the
South African struggle entered a qualitative new development, that with
the
Soweto Massacre „Black Power“ transcended these ideological and
„racial“
boundaries, and ushered in a new epoch of true international
proletarianism,
within the framework of guerilla struggle and socialist revolutionary
praxis.
At
last, the South African liberation
struggle reached a „mature“ scientific socialist age, moving from the
„race
struggle“ to the „class struggle“. (For further reading, see: Ernest
Harsch,
South Africa: White Rule, Black Revolt, Pathfinder Press, New York,
1980, pp.
179-238; No Sizwe, One Azania, One Nation, Zed Press, 1979, pp. 42-61;
Steve
Biko, Black Consciousness in South Africa edited by Mr. Arnold, Vintage
Books,
New York, 1979.) Against this perspective the present guerilla struggle
of the
„African National Congress of South Africa“ (ANC) has to be seen. As
everything
changes, and South African history changes, so the ANC’s theoretical
position
and practical policy has changed from 1912 till today. Whether the ANC
will be
the vanguard of international proletarianism in future, depends on
whether it
succeeds to unite dialectically revolutionary theory with concrete
revolutionary praxis in South Africa, and these within the context of
world
permanent revolution as elaborated before.
Continental
Dimension
The
South African Revolution is part of
the social revolution against neocolonialism, capitalism and
imperialism in
Sourthern Africa. Hence, the victories of the proletariat in
neighbouring
countries, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, etc. have directly affected
and
encouraged the emancipation struggle in South Africa itself. Similarly,
the
level of proletarian struggle in South Africa, where a modern big
proletariat
exists, will surely affect, raise the level of political consciousness,
and determine
the forms of class struggle in the rest of Southern Africa, and beyond
this
region. The present conflict situation in Namibia-Angola reflects very
clearly
the dimensions of proletarian internationalism. It is a brilliant
example of
imperialist international „solidarity“ against the „world revolution“,
and
proletarian internationalism in action.
However,
what is at stake, in the first
place, is the African Revolution, The Republic of South Africa, armed
to its
teeth by imperialist NATO, is in reality part of a secret SATO, and
probably in
the field of nuclear war has an essential role to play. (See: Franz
J.T.Lee,
„South Africa’s Nuclear Build-up“, in: Review of international Affairs,
Belgrade, 5.11.1980.) The political and economic interests of world
imperialism
in Southern Africa are well known, and to lose that region could make
the
currant „world recession“ and „oil crisis“ look like a „lovers’
quarrel“, when
compared to what might thereafter happen in the international division
of
labour and the world market. The Cuban and Soviet material and human
support
for Africa in this region are in accordance with what we have
previously
determined as the dynamics and dialectics of world revolution. But, at
the same
time, the actions of the followers of Nkomo or Savimbi, and many
others, have
demonstrated to us, that the machinations of capitalism, ahartheidend
neo-colonialism know no colour, its agents are like „Big Brother“ of
George
Orwell in our midst, with „blood and filth, spilling out from every
pore of them,
from head to foot“ (Marx).
Thus,
on a continental scale,
proletarianism must be guided by class struggle principles, as
elaborated
before in Section One. Without a principled struggle, „enemies“ of
apartheid
could trade wheat with South Africa, and oil sheiks could be
„directors“ of
companies which huerue Black surplus value from the sweat and blood of
exploited South Africans. Foreign policy is an extension of national
policies,
and if a state is not anti-capitalist, how can a foreign policy be
anti-apartheid,
which breeds on capitalist exploitation? Unless, of course, we mix up
proletarian internationalism with Black Nationalism with ideological
phenomena
of the superstructure. Racism has the same genesis as capitalism.
Unless
we are only formal logicians, in
which case „democracy“ will mean the same for Aristotle as for Chief
Buthelezi,
and „ideology“ will mean the same for Lenin and Che Guevara’s great
grandchilfen, it is quite obvious that in an international context we
have to
re-evaluate, re-consider and reformulate all our concepts and
categories
concerning African proletarian internationalism but on the basis of
Scienctific
Socialism. Precisely this Marx did, when he studied Adam Smith, David
Ricardo,
Saint Simon, Robert Owen, Kent and Hegel. Unless this is achieved,
Scientific
Socialism in revolutionary theory and praxis will remain alien to the
African
toiling masses, and we will be busy asking such ahistorical questions;
Was Marx
a „racist“? Concerning the latter, how many Africans, born and bred in
capitalism, from the cradle to the grave, including the
„revolutionaries“, who
inherited the praxis of class struggle from Marx, are really not
„racist“? If
history is the search for Freedom and Truth, and „racism“ and
capitalism is a
twin, then the above question shows how Man is a historical product,
within the
limits and limitations of his time, and the necessity of transcending
these in
theory-praxis.
Unless
the Non-Aligned Movement, the
OAU, OPEC, ECOWAS, etc. do not reflect international proletarianism,
the class
interests of the international proletariat they will forever be
utilised in the
interest of the international bourgeoisie, which is multicoloured, with
a
disrespect for „race“ feelings. The latter has only one major interest:
the permanent
accruing of surplus value on an international scale. The former can
only
counter this with permanent proletarian revolution on a global scale.
Finally,
only in this way Man can solve
its minor contradiction, class antagonism, class violence. The
objective of
socialism is to annihilate this contradiction caused by it is the
ideological
reflection of the international division of labour, of the „unequal
exchange“
of values (economic resources). Hence, who says not to „racism“ and
apartheid,
and does not in the same breath unequivocably negate capitalism, cannot
be
serious about socialist revolution, not even to mention proletarian
internationalism. The above, inter alia, are fundamental issues within
the
continental dimension of proletarianism.
International
dimension
Marx
took many decades to study the laws
of motion of capitalism, specifically competitive liberal capitalism,
and
Lenin, with Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism made an
invaluable
contribution, to elaborate the laws of motion of capitalism within
monopoly
capitalism at the beginning of this century. Until Mandel’s Late
Capitalism,
very little had been done, to bring Marx’s Capital up to date. In
honour of
Nkrumah’s Neocolonialism, the last Stage of Imperialism, and many other
valuable
works of political economy, written by „Third World“ authors,
Contemporary
Capital, especially the African section, has not yet been written. In
any case,
we would need many jumbo jets to transport this work between Cape Town
and
Cairo, should it have the same quality of Marx’s Capital.
The
relevance of the above for the
African Revolution within the context of World Revolution, Lenin had
underlined
when he stated: without revolutionary theory, no revolution. And he did
not
say: ideology, in spite of the earlier confusion about „socialist“ or
„proletarian“ ideology. The corruption of the best, is always the worst
corruption, thus precision of Marxist scientific concepts in our time
becomes
very necessary. The same applies to everyday concepts like „socialism“,
„democracy“, and “Proletariat“ and „revolution“, the division of
intellectual
and manual labour, and intensified by the international division of
labour.
However, there is a major contradiction, which is often forgotten
within the
political heat and revolutionary dust of the class struggle, the
contradiction
between Nature Society. Already the „young“ Marx stressed the necessity
of the
naturalisation of Man and the humanisation of Nature, if we do not
achieve
this, which will be the main objective of the mode of production of
communism,
then we will never make the dialectical jump, the qualitative
transcendence,
from the „reign of necessity“ to the „reign of freedom“, in which homo
sapiens
can become the god in reality, who had for so many of thousands of
years been a
most sacred human fantasy and utopian dream.