Waarom ik lid werd van de PVDA, “in het fabriek ging werken” en op basis welke ideologische opvattingen ik die keuzes maakte.

In 21-12-14 Wordt de ideologie van AMADA (1970), op 9ePVDA-congres (2015) gewist uit collectief geheugen?(1) vertelde ik hoe ik ertoe kwam in 1979, om als universitair geschoolde als arbeider in een fabriek te gaan werken én dan ook een aanvraag te doen tot toetreding tot de PVDA.Maar er waren nog meer “triggers” geweest, die ik hier nu even wil aangeven. (Ik geef toe, .....het is om te tonen aan jonge mensen, die "radicaliseren" en op zoek zijn naar maatschappelijk engagement, hoe een communistische overtuiging kan groeien...)

Ik had mij ondermeer geïnspireerd op "Dat was '68"(EPO, 1978) Maar op internet is een latere druk te vinden.... Dus uit "Een kwarteeuw mei '68, Ludo Martens, Kris Merckx, EPO, 1993" (op www.npdoc.be):

In de fabriek gaan werken?

Eind ‘69, een avond in de Gentse Blandijn. Mandel spoelt een glas water door het keelgat ter compensatie van de intellectualistische woordenvloed waarmee hij de aanwezigen anderhalf uur heeft stilgehouden. Het debat breekt los en evolueert snel tot een schreeuwende ruzie. De aanwezigen trachten moeizaam de score te volgen. Waar gaat het om?

Tijdens een algemene textielstaking in het Gentse zijn een zeventigtal studenten ‘s nachts bij de stakingspiketten gaan postvatten. Van dan af groeit het ordewoord: ‘In de fabriek gaan werken en leren revolutionair werk te verrichten onder de arbeiders.’

Mandel ruikt een kans om zijn trotskistische sekte uit te breiden. Hij weet dat sommige linkse beginnelingen aarzelen voor de beslissende keuze. Mandel zal dan ook al hun twijfels met zijn zogezegde marxistische kennis onderstutten. Mandel brengt zijn stellingen naar voren: ‘Onze vrienden maoïsten begaan de fout van het populisme, bij gebrek aan kennis van de geschiedenis van de arbeidersbeweging. Zij leven met de waangedachte dat zij het zuivere socialisme zullen vernemen uit de mond van de arbeider aan de fabriekspoort...

Welnu, Lenin heeft in Wat te doen? bewezen dat het socialistische bewustzijn een wetenschappelijke kennis vereist en de intellectuelen kunnen die verwerven door wetenschappelijk, marxistisch werk te verrichten. Onze vrienden maoïsten hebben hun katholieke indoctrinatie niet kunnen afwerpen. Zij hebben wroeging omdat zij geen proletariërs zijn. Zij willen nu aan apostolaat doen, zelfkastijding en boete verrichten door in de fabriek te gaan werken.’

Mandel is zelden zo duidelijk naar voren getreden als de woordvoerder van zelfgenoegzame intellectuelen, die hun afkeer voor de arbeidersklasse weten te verpakken in marxistisch cellofaan. ‘In de fabriek werken is zelfkastijding, boete.’ Mandel zegt tot de jonge linkse intellectuelen: behoud de privileges en ook de mentaliteit van de intellectuele kleinburgerij. Zo kan je een vrij gemakkelijk leven leiden als leraar, advocaat en aangenaam intellectueel werk verrichten en je verdient er nog veel geld mee ook.

De maoïsten willen u een schuldcomplex bijbrengen, u verplichten tot zelfkastijding met dat fabriekswerk.

‘Wie dienen? Voor welke klasse werken?’ Deze vraag van Mao was voor de studenten een beslissende vraag. Werken voor het proletariaat is een bewuste en moeilijke keuze. Als intellectuelen zijn studenten een deel van de kleinburgerij en hun spontane neiging drijft hen naar dergelijke milieus. Het trotskisme neemt de nefaste trekken van de kleinburgerij over, maar bedekt ze met een ‘socialistisch’ laagje. De kleinburger zit kortzichtig te navelstaren en de individuele ‘sexuele bevrijding’ komt hem als iets nobeler voor dan het vrij alledaagse, collectieve optreden tegen verdrukking in een fabriek. Het trotskisme stimuleert hem in die richting (en hitst hem ondertussen op tegen China, tegen het stalinisme, tegen de ‘autoritaire’ maoïsten, kortom, tegen het communisme).

Wie dienen? Het is de vraag naar een langdurig en volledig engagement voor een welbepaalde klasse: de arbeidersklasse. ‘Links zijn, ja, maar op een individualistische wijze. Links zijn als sociaalgerichte hobby, vrijblijvend en zonder verplichtingen die je voor eeuwig en altijd aan één bepaalde zaak ketenen. Links zijn, ja, als dat kan samengaan met het nastreven van persoonlijke genoegens.’

Wie dergelijke rommel niet overboord kan gooien, wordt nooit een echte revolutionair. Voor elke revolutionaire intellectueel stelt zich de vraag of hij, niet voor één, twee of drie jaar voor die ene klasse wil werken maar voor de rest van zijn leven. Om dit besluit te nemen en vol te houden, moet elke intellectueel ‘zichzelf pijn doen’, ‘zijn wereldopvatting omvormen’. Hij moet inspanningen leveren om zichzelf om te vormen: het werken in de fabriek kan hier een voornaam onderdeel van zijn.

Een tweede punt: waar haalt Mandel die minachting voor de fabriekspoort en het fabriekswerk? De manier waarop men het marxisme begrijpt is afhankelijk van de klassepositie waarin men zich bevindt. Voor de intellectueel is het nodig dat hij leert van de arbeiders: door het werk in de fabriek, door deelname aan stakingen, door langdurige samenwerking met arbeiders; het is een absolute voorwaarde om het marxisme correct te kunnen begrijpen. Als Mandel, met de ogen van een bourgeois Wat te doen? leest, komt hij tot het besluit dat intellectuelen niet in de fabriek moeten werken. De SVB-studenten hadden ditzelfde werk gestudeerd, maar zij haalden eruit dat de voorhoede-arbei­ders de stevigste peilers zijn van een communistische partij en dat men er alles moet voor doen om dergelijke arbeiders op het wetenschappelijke, socialistische peil van de communistische intellectuelen te brengen. Om die voorhoede te bereiken en te vormen, wilden zij dan ook in de fabriek gaan werken.

Een derde punt: de ernst waarmee je het marxisme-leninisme als wetenschap bestudeert, hangt af van je politieke praktijk. De revolutionaire studenten gingen in de fabriek werken om tenvolle geconfronteerd te worden met de politieke proble­men van de voorhoede, om de moeilijkheden van de opbouw van communistische kernen in de bedrijven te kennen. Wie met zo’n ervaring in het hoofd het marxisme studeert, kan er veel meer uithalen, er een veel correcter inzicht uit verwerven. De pretentie waarmee de trotskisten zich afkeerden van het ‘onnozele’ werk in de fabriek, was een goede negatieve les. Betekent deze ‘omvorming van de wereldopvatting’ dat intel­lectuelen naar de fabriek gaan om uit de mond van de eerste de beste arbeider de socialistische openbaring te aanhoren? Dergelijke lasterlijke grapjes zeggen vooral veel over het standpunt van hun bedenkers.

Je wereldopvatting omvormen, daar zijn drie zaken voor nodig: men moet het marxisme-leninisme gewetensvol studeren, men moet zich verbinden met de arbeidersklasse en men moet actief deelnemen aan de praktijk van de klassenstrijd. Dit betekent dat men terzelfdertijd leerling en leraar moet zijn, dat men het marxisme actief propageert onder de arbeiders terwijl men terzelfdertijd de proletarische kwaliteiten van de arbeiders opspoort en overneemt.

Een paar voorbeelden.

Het gebeurde dat men een bepaalde arbeider als een model van strijdbaarheid aanzag, terwijl hij later in de praktijk slechts een losbol bleek te zijn. Van bepaalde arbeiders werd gedacht dat ze ongeïnteresseerd en weinig combattief waren, maar eens hun specifieke kwaliteiten ontdekt, ontwikkelden zij zich tot waardevolle medewerkers.

Sommige studenten die in ‘69 in de mijnen gingen werken, geloofden niet dat de mijnwerkers al tot grote strijd in staat waren. Maar toen in januari ‘70 de staking uitbrak en zes weken lang duurde, stelden zij vast dat zijzelf dikwijls aarzelden en achteruitweken, terwijl de mijnwerkers onverzettelijk ble­ven tegenover alle maneuvers om de staking stop te zetten.

Kortom: revolutionairen moeten voortdurend onder de arbeiders werken en luisteren naar hun opvattingen om daarin het waardevolle te scheiden van het verkeerde. Zo kunnen zij zich stap voor stap de beste kwaliteiten die onder de arbeiders leven, eigen maken.

De overtuiging om in de fabrieken te gaan werken werd vooral gesterkt door de grondige studie van een werk van Mao Ze-dong over de intellectuelen, gepubliceerd onder de onaantrekkelijke titel Tussenkomst op de nationale conferentie over het propagandawerk van de Chinese Communistische Partij. Daaruit lichten wij volgende passage: ‘Wij raden de intellectuelen aan zich te midden van de massa’s te begeven, in de fabrieken, naar de velden. Het is zeer slecht als iemand in zijn hele leven nooit met een arbeider of boer in contact komt. Onze ambtenaren, schrijvers, kunstenaars, leraars en wetenschappelijke onderzoekers zouden elke gelegenheid moeten te baat nemen om de arbeiders en boeren naderbij te komen. Sommigen gaan naar de fabrieken of naar het platteland, kijken er even rond en gaan terug naar huis; dat noemen we: naar de bloemen gaan kijken van op zijn paard; het is beter dan thuis te blijven en niets te zien. Anderen blijven verschillende maanden tussen de arbeiders en de boeren, doen er onderzoek en maken er vrienden; dat heet: van zijn paard afstappen om de bloemen te bekijken. Nog anderen gaan er voor langere tijd leren, bijvoorbeeld voor twee of drie jaar, of nog langer; dat kunnen we noemen: zich er vestigen.’

Ook vandaag nog gaat er een grote bezieling uit van het werk van communistische intellectuelen in de fabrieken. Wat niet belet dat kameraden die hun intellectueel beroep uitoefenen ook goede communisten kunnen zijn. Hoewel zij zelf niet in een bedrijf werkzaam zijn, delen zij de ideeën die we hierbo­ven hebben uiteengezet en die aan de grondslag liggen van het werk in de fabriek.

Zij proberen in hun beroep zelf zoveel mogelijk in contact te treden met de arbeidersklasse, bijvoorbeeld door de keuze van de school waar zij lesgeven, of van de kliniek waar zij als dok­ter werken.

Nu moet ik zeggen dat niet de referenties naar Mao Zedong mij uiteindelijk deden beslissen om “in de fabriek te gaan werken als arbeider”. (Mao Zedong had mij tot dan toe, door de studie van zijn werkjes “Over de Praktijk” en “Over de Tegenstelling”, alleen maar overtuigd dat het “Marxisme” of het “Wetenschappelijk Socialisme” of de “revolutionaire kennistheorie” - zoals Mao het zelf noemt, de “wetenschappelijke methode is om de wereld te analyseren om haar te kunnen veranderen”) Deze teksten van Mao Zedong stonden in “Filosofische essays van Mao Tsetoeng” (EPO) dat ieder partijlid toch werd verondersteld te bestuderen....

In de eerste plaats was het dus de studie van “Het Kapitaal” van Marx (of toch van het 1e deel...) die die overtuiging voedde. In de tweede plaats was het de studie van “Staat en Revolutie” van Lenin. Maar tenslotte was het juist de studie van het boek dat hierboven door Mandel (sic!) wordt aangehaald - “Wat te doen” (Lenin) – dat mij verder over de ideologische streep trok. Dat wil zeggen een studie/lectuur OVER dit boek (én het boek “Eén stap voorwaarts en twee achterwaarts”, OOK van Lenin) in de “Geschiedenis van de Communistische Partij van de Soviet-Unie (Bolsheviki)” - door de Amadezen “De Bolsjeviek” genoemd. (Zowel “Staat en Revolutie” (in deel 3 van “Keuze uit zijn werken”, PROGRESS, Moskou, maar ook te koop bij EPO alsook “De Bolsjeviek”, heruitgegeven door EPO, werden verondersteld bestudeert te worden door ieder partijlid.)

Ik geef hieronder de kenmerkende passages (weliswaar in het Engels, omdat die zo op het internet beschikbaar is, en in italic-vet van de door mij beklemtoonde passages.

At this time Lenin was very much preoccupied with the “Economists.” He realized better than anybody else that “Economism” was the main nucleus of compromise and opportunism, and that if “Economism” were to gain the upper hand in the working-class movement, it would undermine the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and lead to the defeat of Marxism. Lenin therefore started a vigorous attack on the “Economists” as soon as they appeared on the scene.

The “Economists” maintained that the workers should engage only in the economic struggle; as to the political struggle, that should be left to the liberal bourgeoisie, whom the workers should support. In Lenin’s eyes this tenet was a desertion of Marxism, a denial of the necessity for an independent political party of the working class, an attempt to convert the working class into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.

In 1899 a group of “Economists” (Prokopovich, Kuskova and others, who later became Constitutional-Democrats) issued a manifesto in which they opposed revolutionary Marxism, and insisted that the idea of an independent political party of the proletariat and of independent political demands by the working class be renounced. (...) The Russian “Economists” advocated the same views as the opponents of Marxism in the Social-Democratic parties abroad who were known as the Bernsteinites, that is, followers of the opportunist Bernstein. Lenin’s struggle against the “Economists” was therefore at the same time a struggle against opportunism on an international scale. The fight against “Economism,” the fight for the creation of an independent political party of the proletariat, was chiefly waged by Iskra, the illegal newspaper founded by Lenin. (...)

Marxism became the fashion. This resulted in an influx into the Marxist organizations of throngs of young revolutionary intellectuals, who were weak in theory and inexperienced in political organization, and who ad only a vague, and for the most part incorrect, idea of Marxism, derived from the opportunist writings of the “legal Marxists” with which the press was filled. This resulted in the lowering of the theoretical and political standard of the Marxist organizations, in their infection with the “legal Marxist” opportunist tendencies, and in the aggravation of ideological confusion, political vacillation and organizational chaos.

The rising tide of the working-class movement and the obvious proximity of revolution demanded a united and centralized party of the working class which would be capable of leading the revolutionary movement.

But the local Party organizations, the local committees, groups and circles were in such a deplorable state, and their organizational disunity and ideological discord so profound, that the task of creating such a party was one of immense difficulty. The difficulty lay not only in the fact that the Party had to be built under the fire of savage persecution by the tsarist government, which every now and then robbed the organizations of their finest workers whom it condemned to exile, imprisonment and penal servitude, but also in the fact that a large number of the local committees and their members would have nothing to do with anything but their local, petty practical activities, did not realize the harm caused by the absence of organizational and ideological unity in the Party, were accustomed to the disunity and ideological confusion that prevailed within it, and believed that they could get along quite well without a united centralized party. If a centralized party was to be created, this backwardness, inertia, and narrow outlook of the local bodies had to be overcome. But this was not all.

(....)

How to begin the building of a united party of the working class was a question on which opinions differed. Some thought that the building of the Party should be begun by summoning the Second Congress of the Party, which would unite the local organizations and create the Party. Lenin was opposed to this. He held that before convening a congress it was necessary to make the aims and objects of the Party clear, to ascertain what sort of a party was wanted, to effect an ideological demarcation from the “Economists,” to tell the Party honestly and frankly that there existed two different opinions regarding the aims and objects of the Party—the opinion of the “Economists” and the opinion of the revolutionary Social-Democrats—to start a wide campaign in the press in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy—just as the “Economists” were conducting a campaign in their own press in favour of their own views—and to give the local organizations the opportunity to make a deliberate choice between these two trends. Only after this indispensable preliminary work had been done could a Party Congress be summoned.

Lenin put it plainly: “Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 45.)

Lenin accordingly held that the building of a political party of the working class should be begun by the founding of a militant political newspaper on an all-Russian scale, which would carry on propaganda and agitation in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy —that the establishment of such a newspaper should be the first step in the building of the Party. In his well-known article, “Where to Begin?” Lenin outlined a concrete plan for the building of the Party, a plan which was later expanded in his famous work What is To Be Done? (...)

As to the character of the Party that was being built up and its role in relation to the working class, as well as its aims and objects, Lenin held that the Party should form the vanguard of the working class, that it should be the guiding force of the working-class movement, co-ordinating and directing the class struggle of the proletariat. The ultimate goal of the Party was the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Its immediate aim was the overthrow of tsardom and the establishment of a democratic order. And inasmuch as the overthrow of capitalism was impossible without the preliminary overthrow of tsardom, the principal task of the Party at the given moment was to rouse the working class and the whole people for a struggle against tsardom, to develop a revolutionary movement of the people against it, and to overthrow it as the first and serious obstacle in the path of Socialism.

“History,” Lenin wrote, “has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark not only of European but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.” (Ibid., p. 50.)

And further:

“We must bear in mind that the struggle with the government for partial demands, the winning of partial concessions, are only petty skirmishes with the enemy, petty encounters on the outposts, whereas the decisive engagement is still to come. Before us, in all its strength, stands the enemy’s fortress, which is raining shot and shell upon us and mowing down our best fighters. We must capture this fortress; and we shall capture it if we unite all the forces of the awakening proletariat with all the forces of the Russian revolutionaries into one party, which will attract all that is alive and honest in Russia. And only then will the great prophecy of Pyotr Alexeyev, the Russian worker revolutionary, be fulfilled: ‘the muscular arm of the working millions will be lifted, and the yoke of despotism, guarded by the soldiers’ bayonets, will be smashed to atoms!’” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. IV, p. 59.) Such was Lenin’s plan for the creation of a party of the working class in autocratic tsarist Russia.

The “Economists” showed no delay in launching an attack on Lenin’s plan. They asserted that the general political struggle against tsardom was a matter for all classes, but primarily for the bourgeoisie, and that therefore it was of no serious interest to the working class, for the chief interest of the workers lay in the economic struggle against the employers for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. The primary and immediate aim of the Social-Democrats should therefore be not a political struggle against tsardom, and not the overthrow of tsardom, but the organization of the “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government.” By the economic struggle against the government they meant a struggle for better factory legislation. The “Economists” claimed that in this way it would be possible “to lend the economic struggle itself a political character.”

The “Economists” no longer dared openly to contest the need for a political party of the working class. But they considered that it should not be the guiding force of the working-class movement, that it should not interfere in the spontaneous movement of the working class, let alone direct it, but that it should follow in the wake of this movement, study it and draw lessons from it.

The “Economists” furthermore asserted that the role of the conscious element in the working-class movement, the organizing and directing role of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, was insignificant, or almost insignificant; that the Social-Democrats should not elevate the minds of the workers to the level of Socialist consciousness, but, on the contrary, should adjust themselves and descend to the level of the average, or even of the more backward sections of the working class, and that the Social-Democrats should not try to impart a Socialist consciousness to the working class, but should wait until the spontaneous movement of the working class arrived of itself at a Socialist consciousness.

As regards Lenin’s plan for the organization of the Party, the “Economists” regarded it almost as an act of violence against the spontaneous movement.

In the columns of Iskra, and especially in his celebrated work What is To Be Done?, Lenin launched a vehement attack against this opportunist philosophy of the “Economists” and demolished it.

1) Lenin showed that to divert the working class from the general political struggle against tsardom and to confine its task to that of the economic struggle against the employers and the government, while leaving both employers and government intact, meant to condemn the workers to eternal slavery. The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government was a trade union struggle for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists. The workers, however, wanted to fight not only for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists, but also for the abolition of the capitalist system itself which condemned them to sell their labour power to the capitalists and to suffer exploitation. But the workers could not develop their struggle against capitalism, their struggle for Socialism to the full, as long as the path of the working-class movement was barred by tsardom, that watchdog of capitalism. It was therefore the immediate task of the Party and of the working class to remove tsardom from the path and thus clear the way to Socialism.

2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working-class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach khvostism (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.

3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous workingclass movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism. “Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement. . . . The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 47, 48.)

4) Lenin showed that the “Economists” were deceiving the working class when they asserted that a Socialist ideology could arise from the spontaneous movement of the working class, for in reality the Socialist ideology arises not from the spontaneous movement, but from science. By denying the necessity of imparting a Socialist consciousness to the working class, the “Economists” were clearing the way for bourgeois ideology, facilitating its introduction and dissemination among the working class, and, consequently, they were burying the idea of union between the working-class movement and Socialism, thus helping the bourgeoisie.

“All worship of the spontaneity of the labour movement,” Lenin said, “all belittling of the role of ‘the conscious element,’ of the role of the party of Social-Democracy, means, altogether irrespective of whether the belittler likes it or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology among the workers.” ˜(Ibid., p. 61.)

And further: “The only choice is: either the bourgeois or the Socialist ideology. There is no middle course. . . . Hence to belittle the Socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen the bourgeois ideology.” (Ibid., p. 62.)

5) Summing up all these mistakes of the “Economists,” Lenin came to the conclusion that they did not want a party of social revolution for the emancipation of the working class from capitalism, but a party of “social reform,” which presupposed the preservation of capitalist rule, and that, consequently, the “Economists” were reformists who were betraying the fundamental interests of the proletariat.

6) Lastly, Lenin showed that “Economism” was not an accidental phenomenon in Russia, but that the “Economists” were an instrument of bourgeois influence upon the working class, that they had allies in the West-European Social-Democratic parties in the person of the revisionists, the followers of the opportunist Bernstein. The opportunist trend in Social-Democratic parties was gaining strength in Western Europe; on the plea of “freedom to criticize” Marx, it demanded a “revision” of the Marxist doctrine (hence the term “revisionism”); it demanded renunciation of the revolution, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin showed that the Russian “Economists” were pursuing a similar policy of renunciation of the revolutionary struggle, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Such were the main theoretical principles expounded by Lenin in What is To Be Done?

As a result of the wide circulation of this book, by the time of the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, that is, within a year after its publication (it appeared in March 1902), nothing but a distasteful memory remained of the ideological stand of “Economism,” and to be called an “Economist” was regarded by the majority of the members of the Party as an insult. It was a complete ideological defeat for “Economism,” for the ideology of opportunism, khvostism and spontaneity. But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin’s What is To Be Done? The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin:

1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement;

2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement;

3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism;

4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party.

The theoretical theses expounded in What is To Be Done? Later became the foundation of the ideology of the Bolshevik Party. Possessing such a wealth of theory, Iskra was able to, and actually did, develop an extensive campaign for Lenin’s plan for the building of the Party, for mustering its forces, for calling the Second Party Congress, for revolutionary Social-Democracy, and against the “Economists,” revisionists, and opportunists of all kinds.

One of the most important things that Iskra did was to draft a program for the Party. The program of a workers’ party, as we know, is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of the aims and objects of the struggle of the working class. The program defines both the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, and the demands for which the party fights while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. The drafting of a program was therefore a matter of prime importance.

During the drafting of the program serious differences arose on the editorial board of Iskra between Lenin, on the one hand, and Plekhanov and other members of the board, on the other. These differences and disputes almost led to a complete rupture between Lenin and Plekhanov. But matters did not come to a head at that time. Lenin secured the inclusion in the draft program of a most important clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat and of a clear statement on the leading role of the working class in the revolution. It was Lenin, too, who drew up the whole agrarian section of the program. Already at that time Lenin was in favour of the nationalization of the land, but he considered it necessary in the first stage of the struggle to put forward the demand for the return to the peasants of the otrezki, that is, those portions of the land which had been cut off the peasants’ land by the landlords at the time of “emancipation” of the peasants. Plekhanov was opposed to the demand for the nationalization of the land. The disputes between Lenin and Plekhanov over the Party program to some extent determined the future differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. (...)

This rebuff was administered by Lenin in his celebrated book, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, published in May 1904. The following are the main organizational principles which Lenin expounded in his book, and which afterwards came to form the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party.

1) The Marxist Party is a part, a detachment, of the working class. But the working class has many detachments, and hence not every detachment of the working class can be called a party of the working class. The Party differs from other detachments of the working class primarily by the fact that it is not an ordinary detachment, but the vanguard detachment, a class-conscious detachment, a Marxist detachment of the working class, armed with a knowledge of the life of society, of the laws of its development and of the laws of the class struggle, and for this reason able to lead the working class and to direct its struggle. The Party must therefore not be confused with the working class, as the part must not be confused with the whole. One cannot demand that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, for whoever confuses Party and class lowers the level of consciousness of the Party to that of “every striker,” destroys the Party as the classconscious vanguard of the working class. It is not the task of the Party to lower its level to that of “every striker,” but to elevate the masses of the workers, to elevate “every striker” to the level of the Party.

“We are the party of a class,” Lenin wrote, “and therefore almost the entire class (and in times of war, in the period of civil war, the entire class) should act under the leadership of our Party, should adhere to our Party as closely as possible. But it would be Manilovism (smug complacency) and ‘khvostism’ (following in the tail) to think that at any time under capitalism the entire class, or almost the entire class, would be able to rise to the level of consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its Social-Democratic Party. No sensible Social-Democrat has ever yet doubted that under capitalism even the trade union organizations (which are more primitive and more comprehensible to the undeveloped strata) are unable to embrace the entire, or almost the entire working class. To forget the distinction between the vanguard and the whole of the masses which gravitate towards it, to forget the constant duty of the vanguard to raise ever wider strata to this most advanced level, means merely to deceive oneself, to shut one’s eyes to the immensity of our tasks, and to narrow down these tasks.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. VI, pp. 205-06.)

2) The Party is not only the vanguard, the class-conscious detachment of the working class, but also an organized detachment of the working class, with its own discipline, which is binding on its members.

Hence Party members must necessarily be members of some organization of the Party. If the Party were not an organized detachment of the class, not a system of organization, but a mere agglomeration of persons who declare themselves to be Party members but do not belong to any Party organization and therefore are not organized, hence not obliged to obey Party decisions, the Party would never have a united will, it could never achieve the united action of its members, and, consequently, it would be unable to direct the struggle of the working class. The Party can lead the practical struggle of the working class and direct it towards one aim only if all its members are organized in one common detachment, welded together by unity of will, unity of action and unity of discipline.

The objection raised by the Mensheviks that in that case many intellectuals—for example, professors, university and high school students, etc.—would remain outside the ranks of the Party, since they would not want to join any of the organizations of the Party, either because they shrink from Party discipline, or, as Plekhanov said at the Second Congress, because they consider it “beneath their dignity to join some local organization”—this Menshevik objection recoiled on the heads of the Mensheviks themselves; for the Party does not need members who shrink from Party discipline and fear to join the Party organization. Workers did not fear discipline and organization, and they willingly join the organization if they have made up their minds to be Party members. It is the individualistic intellectuals who fear discipline and organization, and they would indeed remain outside the ranks of the Party. But that was all to the good, for the Party would be spared that influx of unstable elements, which had become particularly marked at that time, when the bourgeois democratic revolution was on the upgrade.

“When I say,” Lenin wrote, “that the Party should be a sum (and not a mere arithmetical sum, but a complex) of organizations . . . I thereby express clearly and precisely my wish, my demand, that the Party, as the vanguard of the class, should be as organized as possible, that the Party should admit to its ranks only such elements as lend themselves to at least a minimum of organization. . . .” (Ibid., p. 203.)

And further:

“Martov’s formulation ostensibly defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in fact, it serves the interests of the bourgeois intellectuals, who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organization. No one will undertake to deny that it is precisely its individualism and incapacity for discipline and organization that in general distinguish the intelligentsia as a separate stratum of modern capitalist society.” (Ibid., p. 212.)

And again:

“The proletariat is not afraid of organization and discipline. . . . The proletariat will do nothing to have the worthy professors and high school students, who do not want to join an organization, recognized as Party members merely because they work under the control of an organization. . . . It is not the proletariat, but certain intellectuals in our Party who lack self-training in the spirit of organization and discipline.” (Ibid., p. 307.)

3) The Party is not merely an organized detachment, but “the highest of all forms of organization” of the working class, and it is its mission to guide all the other organizations of the working class. As the highest form of organization, consisting of the finest members of the class, armed with an advanced theory, with knowledge of the laws of the class struggle and with the experience of the revolutionary movement, the Party has every opportunity of guiding—and is obliged to guide—all the other organizations of the working class. The attempt of the Mensheviks to belittle and depreciate the leading role of the Party tends to weaken all the other organizations of the proletariat which are guided by the Party, and, consequently, to weaken and disarm the proletariat, for “in its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organization.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 466.)

4) The Party is an embodiment of the connection of the vanguard of the working class with the working class millions. However fine a vanguard the Party may be, and however well it may be organized, it cannot exist and develop without connections with the non-Party masses, and without multiplying and strengthening these connections. A party which shuts itself up in its own shell, isolates itself from the masses, and loses, or even relaxes, its connections with its class is bound to lose the confidence and support of the masses, and, consequently, is surely bound to perish. In order to live to the full and to develop, the Party must

multiply its connections with the masses and win the confidence of the millions of its class.

“In order to be a Social-Democratic party,” Lenin said, “we must win the support precisely of the class.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. VI, p. 208.)

5) In order to function properly and to guide the masses systematically, the Party must be organized on the principle of centralism, having one set of rules and uniform Party discipline, one leading organ— the Party Congress, and in the intervals between congresses—the Central Committee of the Party; the minority must submit to the majority, the various organizations must submit to the centre, and lower organizations to higher organizations. Falling these conditions, the party of the working class cannot be a real party and cannot carry out its tasks in guiding the class. Of course, as under the tsarist autocracy the Party existed illegally the Party organizations could not in those days be built up on the principle of election from below, and as a consequence, the Party had to be strictly conspiratorial. But Lenin considered that this temporary feature in the life of our Party would at once lapse with the elimination of tsardom, when the Party would become open and legal, and the Party organizations would be built up on the principles of democratic elections, of democratic centralism.

“Formerly,” Lenin wrote, “our Party was not a formally organized whole, but only the sum of separate groups, and, therefore, no other relations except those of ideological influence were possible between these groups. Now we have become an organized Party, and this implies the establishment of authority, the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the subordination of lower Party bodies to higher Party bodies.” (Ibid., p. 291.)

Accusing the Mensheviks of organizational nihilism and of aristocratic anarchism which would not submit to the authority of the Party and its discipline, Lenin wrote: “This aristocratic anarchism is particularly characteristic of the Russian nihilist. He thinks of the Party organization as a monstrous ‘factory’; he regards the subordination of the part to the whole and of the minority to the majority as ‘serfdom’ . . . division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him a tragi-comical outcry against people being transformed into ‘wheels and cogs’ (to turn editors into contributors being considered a particularly atrocious species of such transformation); mention of the organizational rules of the Party calls forth a contemptuous grimace and the disdainful remark (intended for the ‘formalists’) that one could very well dispense with rules altogether.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 442-43.)

6) In its practical work, if it wants to preserve the unity of its ranks, the Party must impose a common proletarian discipline, equally binding on all Party members, both leaders and rank-and-file. Therefore there should be no division within the Party into the “chosen few,” on whom discipline is not binding, and the “many,” on whom discipline is binding. If this condition is not observed, the integrity of the Party and the unity of its ranks cannot be maintained.

“The complete absence of sensible arguments on the part of Martov and Co. against the editorial board appointed by the congress,” Lenin wrote, “is best of all shown by their own catchword: ‘We are not serfs!’ . . . The mentality of the bourgeois intellectual, who regards himself as one of the ‘chosen few’ standing above mass organization and mass discipline, is expressed here with remarkable clarity. . . . It seems to the individualism of the intelligentsia . . . that all proletarian organization and discipline is serfdom.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. VI, p. 282.)

And further:

“As we proceed with the building of a real party, the classconscious worker must learn to distinguish the mentality of the soldier of the proletarian army from the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual who makes a display of anarchist phraseology, he must learn to demand that the duties of a Party member be fulfilled not only by the rank-and-filers, but by the ‘people at the top’ as well.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 445-46.)

Summing up his analysis of the differences, and defining the position of the Mensheviks as “opportunism in matters of organization,” Lenin considered that one of the gravest sins of Menshevism lay in its underestimation of the importance of party organization as a weapon of the proletariat in the struggle for its emancipation. The Mensheviks held that the party organization of the proletariat was of no great importance for the victory of the revolution. Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that the ideological unity of the proletariat alone was not enough for victory; if victory was to be won, ideological unity would have to be “consolidated” by the “material unity of organization” of the proletariat. Only on this condition, Lenin considered, could the proletariat become an invincible force.

“In its struggle for power,” Lenin wrote, “the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the ‘lower depths’ of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can become, and inevitably will become, an invincible force only when its ideological unification by the principles of Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organization which will weld millions of toilers into an army of the working class. Neither the decrepit rule of Russian tsardom, nor the senile rule of international capital will be able to withstand this army.” (Ibid., p. 466.)

With these prophetic words Lenin concludes his book. Such were the fundamental organizational principles set forth by Lenin in his famous book, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.

The importance of this book lies primarily in the fact that it successfully upheld the Party principle against the circle principle, and the Party against the disorganizers; that it smashed the opportunism of the Mensheviks in questions of organization, and laid the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party. But this does not exhaust its significance. Its historic significance lies in the fact that in it Lenin, for the first time in the history of Marxism, elaborated the doctrine of the Party as the leading organization of the proletariat, as the principal weapon of the proletariat, without which the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be won.

Lenin deed de ontwikkeling van zijn “partijopvatting” in een tijd waar het feodalisme (het tsarisme) nog moest worden omvergeworpen door een burgerlijk democratisch revolutie. Het standpunt van Lenin was dat de burgerij “hun eigen” revolutie niet consequent tot het einde toe zouden voeren, en bepaalde (voor de burgerij gunstige ) zaken uit de feodaliteit zouden behouden. Lenin concludeerde dat de arbeidersklasse het meeste baat heeft bij een zo ver mogelijk doorgevoerde burgerlijk democratische revolutie om zo de zo gunstigst mogelijke voorwaarden te hebben om verder te gaan met de socialistische revolutie.

Ik moet nu, vandaag de dag erkennen dat er een zeker dogmatisme in het spel is, als men de analyse, om te komen tot een revolutionaire strategie, maar gemaakt op basis van een groot tsaristisch rijk, waar de kapitalistische ontwikkeling (en de burgerij als klasse en de arbeiders als klasse) nog maar in het begin stonden van hun ontwikkeling, “overplant” naar een relatief klein imperialistisch landje als België. Maar ik sta nog steeds achter het grootste deel van de opvattingen die voortvloeien uit die studie (vaak op basis van vorming georganiseerd door de partij zélf) en op basis van dewelke ik ben gaan werken “in de fabriek” als (niet-openlijke) communist.

Ik meende dat mijn politiek en ideologisch werk als communist alsook de werking van de partij in zijn geheel moest beoordeeld worden (doormiddel van regelmatige “bilans”) op basis van die verworven opvattingen....In “Revisionisme in de Europese CommunistischeBeweging 26-5-2006” kunt u lezen hoe ik probeerde hieraan te voldoen en hoe ik meende wat er aan de partijwerking (en wat er bij bepaalde kaders)moest worden verbeterd.(en natuurlijk wat ik vond dat er bij mijzelf moest verbeteren).