INTERNASYONALISMO

Ang “magsasaka” sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo

“Marxism is first and foremost a critical method, since it is the product of a class which can only emancipate itself through the ruthless criticism of all existing conditions. A revolutionary organisation that fails to criticise its errors, to learn from its mistakes, inevitably exposes itself to the conservative and reactionary influences of the dominant ideology. And this is all the more true at a time of revolution, which by its very nature has to break new ground, enter an unknown landscape with little more than a compass of general principles to find its way. The revolutionary party is all the more necessary after the victorious insurrection, because it has the strongest grasp of this compass, which is based on the historical experience of the class and the scientific approach of marxism. But if it renounces the critical nature of this approach, it will both lose sight of these historical lessons and be unable to draw the new ones that derive from the groundbreaking events of the revolutionary process.” (World Revolution no. 314)

Ang diwa ng metodolohiyang marxismo ay ang walang awang kritisismo sa lahat ng umiiral na mga kondisyon. Ganun din sa kasaysayan mismo ng internasyunal na kilusang komunista sa nagdaang mahigit 200 taon. Kailangang maunawaan natin hindi lamang ang mga tagumpay kundi higit sa lahat ang mga kabiguan at pagkakamali ng rebolusyonaryong kilusan – ang mga obhetibo at suhetibong kondisyon kung bakit nangyari ang mga iyon. Kaya naman ang dogmatismo ay walang puwang sa marxismo.

Ang huling mga komento ni Alex (8 installments) ay nagtatanggol sa “kahalagahan” kundi man “sentralidad” ng kilusang magsasaka sa panahon ng proletaryong rebolusyon at ang diumano “continuity” ng maoismo sa marxismo. Dahil dito, mapapansin natin ang tahasang pagtatanggol niya sa armadong pakikibaka sa kanayunan kung saan “pangunahing pwersa” ang mga magsasaka para makamit ang “sosyalismo sa Pilipinas” (sa “pamamagitan ng pambansa-demokratikong rebolusyon”).

Hindi lamang si Alex ang may ganitong pananaw: naglipanan ngayon sa iba’t-ibang mga bansa sa ikatlong daigdig ang mga “gerilyang pakikidigma” para sa “pambansang kalayaan at demokrasya” ito man ay impluwensyado ng maoismo o hindi. Ang mga kilusang ito ay pangunahing umaasa sa direktang suporta ng masang magsasaka sa kanayunan para sa kanilang pakikibaka at sa mga imperyalistang bansa na karibal ng kanilang kaaway na imperyalista (direkta man o indirekta).

Binaybay ni Alex ang kasaysayan mula pa kina Marx upang bigyang “katuwiran” ang teorya ng “magsasaka bilang pangunahing pwersa” ng rebolusyon sa kasalukuyang panahon at ang maoismo bilang “pagpapaunlad” sa marxismo.

Batayang pundasyon ng marxismo mula noon hanggang ngayon

Bago natin sagutin ng komprehensibo ang mga distorsyon ni Alex sa marxismo para itulak ang kontra-rebolusyonaryong ideolohiya ng maoismo bilang “bahagi” at “rurok” ng marxismo, kailangang ilatag muna natin ang batayang pundasyon ng marxismo mula noon hanggang ngayon na PINATUNAYAN sa kasaysayan at karanasan na tama. 

1. Proletaryado TANGING rebolusyonaryo at komunistang uri sa lipunang kapitalismo.

Lahat ng mga marxista ay naninindigan na ang uring manggagawa ay isang rebolusyonaryong uri dahil ito lamang ang nagdadala ng bago at mas maunlad na moda ng produksyon — komunismo. Ito ay hindi nakabatay sa “kagustuhan” ng mga komunista na gawin ang uring ito na rebolusyonaryo kundi ang obhetibong kalagayan at katangian mismo ng uring ito sa lipunang kapitalista ang nagpakita na ito ay isang rebolusyonaryo at komunistang uri. 

Ang mga komunistang organisasyon/partido ay produkto lamang ng uring manggagawa. Mayroong rebolusyonaryong partido dahil mayroong rebolusyonaryong uri at hindi ang kabaliktaran nito. 

Sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon sa kasaysayan ng lipunan: ang rebolusyonaryong uri ay isang PINAGSAMANTALAHANG uri.

Sa panahon ng lipunang alipin, pinagsamantalahang uri ang mga alipin pero hindi sila isang rebolusyonaryong uri kundi ang uring pyudal na nagdadala ng bago at mas maunlad na moda ng produksyon. Sa panahon ng lipunang pyudal, pinagsamantalahang uri ang mga magsasaka pero hindi sila rebolusyonaryo kundi ang uring burgesya. Sa panahon ng kapitalismo, maraming mga uri ang pinagsamantalahan ng kapitalismo tulad ng magsasaka at peti-burgesya pero hindi sila mga rebolusyonaryong uri. Sa nagdaang mga lipunan, ang rebolusyonaryong uri ay isa ring MAPAGSAMANTALANG uri.

Kaya hindi lalaya ang uring manggagawa kung hindi niya mapalaya ang sangkatauhan mula sa lahat ng tipo ng pagsasamantala:

“in the following formation of the class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, a class which is the disoolution of classes, a sphere which has a universal character because of its universal suffering and which lays claim to no particular right because the wrong it suffers is not a particular wrong but wrong in general; a sphere of society which can no longer lay any claim to a historical title, but merely to a human one…….and finally, a sphere which cannot emancipate itself without emanciapting itself from – and therefore emancipating – all the other spheres of society, which is, in a word, the total loss of humanity and which can redeem itself only through the total redemption of humanity. This dissolution of society as a particular class is the proletariat.” (Marx, ‘Critique of Hegels’ Philosophy of Law’, Collected Works, Vol. 3)

Ito ang tahasang inabandona ng mga maoista ng dineklara nilang “wala ng proletaryado” sa Unang Daigdig.

Samakatuwid, hindi dahil pinagsamantalahan ang isang uri ay awtomatik na agad na ito ay rebolusyonaryo at hindi dahil nagsasamantala ang isang uri ay awtomatik na agad na reaksyonaryo. Kailangang gamitin ang materyalismong istoriko para maunawaan bakit sa isang takdang panahon ng kasaysayan ng lipunan ay rebolusyonaryo ang papel ng mga depinidong uring mapagsamantala at bakit sa kasalukuyang panahon ng kapitalismo ay imposible na itong mangyari; na sa panahon ngayon, ang rebolusyonaryong uri ay isa ng PINAGSAMANTALAHANG uri. 

Ang buod ng sagot dito ay: sa nakaraan, nagsalitan lamang ang mga lipunang mapagsamantala na nakabatay sa pribadong pag-aari at mga uri. Ang lipunan sa kasalukuyan ang kahuli-hulihang makauring lipunan at nakabatay sa pagsasamantala dahil ang lipunan sa hinaharap ay isang lipunan na wala ng mga uri at wala ng pagsasamantala.

Ang subject ng rebolusyon ay ang uring manggagawa. Ibig sabihin, ang sentralidad sa pagpapalakas ng kilusang manggagawa ang laging pinanindigan ng mga komunista saang panig man sila ng mundo mula noong panahon nila Marx hanggang ngayon. 

Lahat ng ibang uri na pinagsamantalahan ng kapitalismo ay mga uri sa nakaraan. Ang hinaharap ng mga uring ito ay ang pagiging manggagawa. Ang magsasaka bilang uri ay mabilis na winawasak ng kapitalismo. Sa Pilipinas, mahigit 100 taon ng winawasak ng kapital ang magsasaka bilang uri. Wala ng istrata sa kanayunan ngayon na hindi nagapos sa kapitalistang mga relasyon. 

2. Proletaryado isang internasyunal na uri at ang rebolusyon nito ay isang internasyunal na rebolusyon.

Ang sistemang kinasasadlakan ng proletaryado ay isang pandaigdigang sistema. Ang kapitalismo ang tanging sistema na hindi mabubuhay kung hindi ito lalawak sa lahat ng sulok ng mundo at isanib sa kanyang mga relasyon ng produksyon ang lahat ng bahagi ng mundo. Ang pamilihan ng kapitalismo ay isang pandaigdigan kung saan lahat ng pambasang pamilihan ay nakatali dito.

Dahil dito, ang sosyalisadong paggawa ng produkto ng uring manggagawa ay umunlad mula sa antas pabrika noong mga unang siglo ng kapitalismo hanggang sa antas pandaigdigan noong 19 siglo (laluna sa huling mga dekada nito). Samakatuwid, ang sosyalisasyon ng produksyon ay naging pandaigdigan na noon pa mang huling bahagi ng 19 siglo dahil nasakop na ng kapitalistang sistema ang buong mundo.

Sa ngayon sa panahon ng kapitalistang imperyalismo, lalupang napatunayan ang pagiging ganap ng integrado ng lahat ng mga pambansang ekonomiya sa pandaigdigang ekonomiya; ng mga manggagawa sa lahat ng mga bansa.

Kaya mula pa sa panahon nila Marx, ang mga marxista ay laging nanindigan sa pandaigdigang proletaryong rebolusyon dahil ang kaaway nito ay pandaigdigang kapitalismo at lahat ng mga pambansang ekspresyon nito:

“Working men have no country. You cannot take from them what they do not have”; “Workers of all countries unite”; “united action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat”. (Communist Manifesto).

“Question: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

Answer: No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to others. Further, it has coordinated the social development of the civilised countries to such an extent that in all of them bourgeois and proletariat have become the decisive classes and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simulataneously in all civilised countries, that is to say, at least in England, America, France and Germany……It is a universal revolution and will accordingly have a universal range.” (Principles of Communism)

Gayong nagkamali sila Marx at Engels sa prediksyon na magsimula ang rebolusyon sa abanteng kapitalistang mga bansa, nanatiling tama ang kanilang pagsusuri sa internasyunal na katangian ng rebolusyon: Ang rebolusyong Ruso sa 1917 ay bahagi at nakapailalim sa internasyunal na rebolusyonaryong alon ng maraming mga bansa sa Europe laluna sa Germany mula 1917-23. Katunayan, ang insureksyon ng mga manggagawa sa Shanghai, China noong 1927 ay ang huling singhap ng internasyunal na pag-aalsang ito. Natalo man ang unang internasyunal na alon, hindi maaring burahin ng kabiguan ang pagiging tama sa praktika ng mga sinabi ni Marx at Engels.

Ang mga pagsusuri at pananaw nila Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg at iba pang komunista ay laging pandaigdigan at hindi pangunahing nakabatay sa pambansang saklaw.

3. Lahat ng lipunan ay may simula at may kataposan; may pasulong na yugto at may dekadenteng yugto. Ang kapitalismo ay may pasulong na yugto at may dekadenteng yugto.  

Hindi eternal ang pag-iral ng mga moda ng produksyon laluna ang mga moda na nakabatay sa pagsasamantala. Hindi abswelto dito ang kapitalismo.

Ganun pa man, ang galaw ng bawat lipunan ay nahahati sa pangkalahatan sa kanyang pasulong at dekadenteng yugto (permanenteng krisis). Tanging ang hindi mga marxista ang hindi nakaintindi nito. 

Sa panahon na ang mga relasyon at pwersa sa produksyon ay relatibong magkatugma pa, ang sistema ay nasa pasulong na yugto. Sa yugtong ito naranasan ng lipunan ang kaunlaran sa halos lahat ng aspeto. At ang mga makauring tunggalian ay hindi pa umabot sa rurok. Ang naghaharing uri sa pangkalahatan ay isang progresibo/rebolusyonaryo pa. Ganito ang nangyari sa unang bahagi ng lipunang alipin, pyudal at kapitalista. Sa obhetibo, ang usapin ng rebolusyonaryong pagbabago sa lipunan ay hindi pa agenda sa panahon ng pasulong na yugto.

Nang umabot na sa yugto na naging hadlang na ang mga relasyon sa produksyon sa pag-unlad ng mga pwersa sa produksyon, pumasok na ang lipunan sa kanyang dekadenteng yugto; sa kanyang permanenteng krisis. Ang naghaharing uri (at lahat ng mga paksyon nito) ay ganap ng naging reaksyonaryo at kontra-rebolusyonaryo. Nasa agenda na ang rebolusyonaryong pagbabago sa lipunan. Sa nakaraang mga lipunan, lumitaw bilang uri ang mga uring nagdadala ng bagong moda ng produksyon sa panahon ng dekadenteng yugto ng lipunan. Lumitaw ang uring pyudal sa panahon ng dekadenteng yugto ng sistemang alipin. Lumitaw ang burgesya bilang uri sa panahon ng dekadenteng pyudalismo.

Tanging sa kapitalistang lipunan lamang kasabay na lumitaw ang rebolusyonaryong uring proletaryado sa paglitaw ng mapagsamantalahang uring burgesya.

Sa panahon ng 19 siglo, ang kapitalismo ay isa pang progresibong sistema sa pangkalahatan. Sa panahong ito ay lumalawak pa ang sistema. Subalit tahasang ideyalismo kung sabihin na dahil progresibo pa ang isang mapagsamantalahang sistema ay walang tunggalian ng uri. Laging kakambal ng isang mapagsamantalang sistema ang makauring pakikibaka. Ang punto dito ay: sa panahon na sumusulong pa ang lipunan, hindi pa obhetibo na ilagay sa mesa ang agenda ng rebolusyonaryong pagbabago. Kaya, ang pagkatalo ng Komuna sa Paris noong 1871 ay hindi simpleng kamalian sa estratehiya at taktika na para bang kahit sa anong panahon ay hinog ang sitwasyon na agawin ang kapangyarihang pampulitika.

Kaya sa panahon ng 19 siglo ay may materyal na batayan pa ang pakikibaka sa reporma sa loob ng kapitalistang sistema dahil obhetibong may kapasidad pa itong magbigay. Syempre, hindi naman boluntrayong nagbibigay ang naghaharing uri kundi dumaan sa isang militante at kadalasan marahas na pakikibaka ng proletaryado.

Sa pagpasok ng 20 siglo ay umabot na sa rurok ang pag-unlad ng kapitalismo dahil ganap ng sakop ng kapitalistang pamilihan nito ang buong daigdig. Ganap ng nahati ang mundo ng mga kapitalistang kapangyarihan. Ito ang panahon ng imperyalismo; ang panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo; ang pagpasok ng sistema sa kanyang permanenteng krisis.

Sa panahon ng imperyalismo kung saan ganap ng nahati ang mundo sa mga imperyalistang kapangyarihan, ang krisis sa sobrang produksyon at pagkasaid ng pamilihan ay hindi na maaring solusyonan ng ibayo pang paglawak dahil wala ng ilalawak pa ang sistema. Ang pagputok ng unang pandaigdigang imperyalistang digmaan sa 1914 ang hudyat na pumasok na ang sistema sa kanyang permanenteng krisis kung saan magkaroon lamang ng temporaryong solusyon kung aagawin ng isang kapangyarihan ang teritoryo ng kanyang karibal sa pamamagitan ng digmaan. Kaya kasabay ng permanenteng krisis ng kapitalismo ay ang permanenteng paghahanda at aktwal na paglulunsad ng mga digmaan para mang-agaw ng pamilihan at teritoryo.

Ang sinasabing pakikibaka para sa “pambansang kalayaan” sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo ay bahagi na ng imperyalistang digmaan. Kaiba ito noong 19 siglo kung saan ang mga digmaan para sa pagtatayo ng isang bansa ay bahagi ng pag-unlad ng sistema. Ngayon, ang mga digmaang ito ay direkta at indirektang kontrolado ng makapangyarihang mga imperyalista laban sa kani-kanilang mga karibal. Ang pinakamalinaw na halimbawa nito ay ang “Cold War” matapos ang WW 2 sa pagitang ng imperyalistang bloke ng USSR at USA.

Ang tatlong puntong nasa itaas ay kabilang sa marxistang prinsipyo hindi lamang dahil “sinasabi” nila Marx, Engels at Lenin kundi higit sa lahat ito ay repleksyon sa buhay na pakikibaka ng uri at sa galaw ng lipunan. At ang mga ito laluna ang pagpasok ng pandaigdigang kapitalismo sa kanyang dekadenteng yugto ang ating gabay sa pagtingin sa magsasaka at usaping agraryo.

Ang usaping magsasaka sa panahon nila Marx at Engels

Medyo ditalyado ang presentasyon ni Alex sa kanyang pagbaybay sa kasaysayan sa usapin ng magsasaka. At saludo kami sa kanyang kaseryosohan.

Saan ang batayang pagkakamali nila Marx at Engels?

Sa kalagitnaan ng 1800s ay natanaw nila Marx na nalalapit ng puputok ang proletaryong rebolusyon sa Europe bagamat mulat sila na karamihan sa mga bansa dito ay nasa iba’t-ibang antas pa ng istorikal na pag-unlad at ang sentral na isyu ay burges na demokrasya, pambansang kalayaan at unipikasyon ng bansa laban sa pyudal na absolutismo at mga labi nito. Ang ganitong pananaw at kamulatan ay mababasa natin sa Communist Manifesto. Dito nagkamali sila na mananalo ang rebolusyon ng manggagawa sa panahon na sumusulong ang kapitalismo sa pangkalahatan. Makikita din ito sa taktikang inilatag niya sa Germany:

“The communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilasation, and a musch more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth century, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution”. (Marx-Engels, Collected Works, Vol 6.)

Kaya ang taktika ay suportahan ang burgesya hanggat inilunsad nito ang anti-pyudal na rebolusyon pero laging ipagtanggol ang awtonomiya ng proletaryado dahil inaasahan nito na mangyari kaagad pagkatapos ang proletaryong rebolusyon.

Ganun pa man, tinuwid kaagad ito nila Marx at Engels matapos hindi naganap ang agarang proletaryo-komunistang rebolusyon pagkatapos ng mga burges na rebolusyon sa 1848 at mas malinaw na nakita nila na nasa pasulong na yugto ang pandaigdigang kapitalismo:

“In view of this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society are flourishing as exuberantly as they possibly can under bourgeois conditions, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a revolution is only possible at periods, when the two factors, modern forces of production and bourgeois forms of production, come into conflict. The incessant squabbles in which the representatives of the continental Party of Order are now indulging and compromising one another are remote from providing any opportunity for a new revolution. On the contrary, they are only possible because conditions for the time being are so secure and – what the reaction does not know – so bourgeois. All attempts of the reaction to put a stop to bourgeois development will recoil upon themselves as certainly as all the moral indignation and enthusiastic proclamations of the democrats. A new revolution is only possible as the result of a new crisis. But it will come, just as surely as the crisis itself”. (Marx, Class Struggle in France)

Sang-ayon kami sa pahayag ni Alex na walang kapasidad ang magsasaka para sa komunismo dahil hindi naman talaga sila ang komunistang uri. Ang magsasaka ay uri sa nakaraan. Sa kasalukuyan ang magsasaka bilang uri ay mabilis na nawawasak kundiman ganap ng nawasak. Ang hinaharap na uri ng magsasaka ay ang pagiging manggagawa. Malinaw sa Communist Manifesto na ang magsasaka at peti-burgesya ay bilang uri ay reaksyonaryo at tutol sa komunismo. Tanging ang maoismo lamang ang nagsasabing rebolusyonaryo o di kaya ay progresibo ang mga uring ito sa kasalukuyan. 

Subalit dapat nating palalimin ang panahong nabanggit ni Alex, ang panahong nag-atubili ang burgesya sa kanyang sariling rebolusyon. Bakit?

Sa 1840s, ang pangunahing agenda ay kompletuhin ang burgis na rebolusyon – wasakin ng lubusan ang mga labi ng pyudalismo, itayo ang unipikadong mga bansa-estado, itayo ang pampulitikang rehimen ng burges demokrasya. Ang lahat ng layuning ito ay pabor sa mga magsasaka. Pero hindi para ganap silang lumaya mula sa pagsasamantala kundi para mailipat lamang sila mula sa pyudal na pagsasamantala tungo sa kapitalistang pagsasamantala. Sa ganitong punto mapalahok ang uring magsasaka laban sa pyudalismo para sa burges na rebolusyon.

Ganun pa man, nagsimula ng lumakas ang independyenteng kilusan ng manggagawa. Makikita ito sa pagputok ng rebolusyon sa 1848 sa maraming bansa sa Europe.

Katunayan ang burges na rebolusyon sa 1848 ay pundamental na kaiba sa ‘klasikal’ na burgis na rebolusyon sa 1789. Ang pag-aalsa sa 1848 ay hindi tulak ng ‘pyudal na krisis’ kundi ng krisis ng batang-batang kapitalismo. Ang mga pag-aalsa sa Paris, Berlin, Vienna, at iba pang syudad ay pinangunahan ng mga manggagawa at mala-manggagawa.

Dahil isang mapagsamantalang uri at mulat ang burgesya kung anong uri ang kanyang pangunahing kaaway, nag-aatubili itong isulong ng lubusan ang burges na rebolusyon para ganap na durugin ang mga labi ng pyudalismo dahil alam niyang ang kanyang kaaway sa hinaharap ay lalupang lalakas. Kaya, maliban sa takot ng kakabuo pa lang na uring kapitalista sa absolutismo ay mas natakot siya sa ibayong paglakas ng proletaryado. Kaya, sa halip na gawin ang ginawa nito noong 1789 na determinadong nanawagan sa malawak na masa na durugin ang kapangyarihang pyudal, sa 1848 ay minabuti ng burgesya na makipagkompromiso sa reaksyon para makontrol ang banta “mula sa ibaba” (sa proletaryado). Subalit ang proletaryado mismo ay hindi pa sapat ang lakas at kamulatan para labanan ng tuloy-tuloy ang burgesya dahil nasa pasulong na yugto pa ang sistema.

Mas malinaw ito sa ating panahon, nakahanda ang burgesya (laluna ang makabayang istrata nito) na makipag-alyansa anumang oras sa mga nalalabing pwersang pyudal laban sa uring manggagawa.

Ang panawagan ni Marx ng “ikalawang edisyon” ng rebolusyong magsasaka ay nakabatay sa pangkalahatang katangian ng kapitalismo noon – nasa pasulong na yugto.

Ang usapin ng magsasaka sa panahon ni Lenin

Hindi sapat na konsentrahan lamang sa pagsusuri ang Rusya at hindi ito mahigpit na ikawing sa pandaigdigang pagbabago ng ebolusyon ng kapitalismo. Subalit, kahit ang mga internasyunalistang-komunista gaya ni Lenin ay hindi rin nakaiwas sa malakas na impluwensya ng 19 siglo, sa panahon na sumusulong ang kapitalismo.

Sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo, nangyari ang sinasabi ni Alex na “de-peasantization” ng uring magsasaka batay sa nangyari sa Rusya. Pero hindi lang sa Rusya ito nangyari kundi sa lahat ng bahagi ng mundo na unang napasok ng kapitalismo ng mga panahong yun. At hindi lang simpleng “de-peasantization” kundi unang hakbang ng “proletarianization” ang ginawa ng kapitalismo. Pero kaiba sa 19 siglo na malaking bahagi ng magsasaka ay napasok sa aktwal na kapitalistang produksyon (sa mga industriya), sa dekadenteng kapitalismo, hanggang unang hakbang lamang ang nangyari sa magsasaka – napatalsik at napalayas lamang sila sa lupang kanilang sinasaka dahil sa pagpasok ng kapitalistang relasyon sa kanayunan na nagdulot ng ibayong kahirapan subalit hindi na dumiretso sa ikalawang hakbang – ang pumasok sila sa industriya sa kalungsuran man at kanayunan. Ang nagyari, dumami ang mga maralita sa kalungsuran at kanayunan na walang trabaho at naging “informal sector”. Samakatuwid, wala ng kapasidad ang dekadenteng kapitalismo, gugustuhin man ito ng uring kapitalista na isanib sa kapitalistang produksyon ang paparaming bilang ng populasyon (gawing mga sahurang alipin).

At lalo natin itong nakikita sa ating panahon, ng pumasok na ang dekadenteng sistema sa kanyang naaagnas na yugto (demomposition stage) magmula 1980s.

Huwag din nating ihiwalay ang pagbubuo ng Partido sa Rusya sa pangkalahatang kalagayan na naitayo ang 2nd International kung saan membro ang partidong Ruso. Ang punto ay: ang programa ng partidong Ruso ay impluwensyado sa isang antas ng programa ng 2nd International kung saan ito ay hinati sa dalawa: minimum at maksimum na programa. Ang una ay pumapatungkol sa pakikibaka sa reporma sa loob ng kapitalistang sistema batay sa karanasan sa 19 siglo (burges-demokratikong programa) at ang ikalawa ay ang komunistang programa ng uri mismo. Organikong humiwalay lamang ang partidong Bolshevik sa 2nd International ng nagtraydor na ang huli sa internasyunalismo at proletaryong rebolusyon sa WW I.

Ang programa sa kilusang magsasaka – libreng pamamahagi ng lupa at pagdurog sa mga labi ng pyudal na relasyon sa kanayunan – ay bahagi ng minimum na programa, isang burges-demokratikong programa. Dagdag pa, ito ay isang taktikal na hakbangin para makuha ng proletaryado ang suporta ng magsasaka sa isang sitwasyon na atrasado ang kapitalismo sa Rusya kung saan mayorya sa populasyon ay nagbubungkal ng lupa sa kanayunan.

Nang ganap ng pumasok sa yugto ng pagbulusok-pababa ang kapitalismo sa pagputok ng WW I, ang programang pamamahagi ng maliitang parsela ng lupa sa magsasaka ay umabot na rin sa kanyang limitasyon.  

Nagpahayag ng puna si Rosa Luxemburg (isa sa mga lider at martir ng Rebolusyong Aleman sa 1919 at kung saan napakataas ang respeto ni Lenin) sa kanyang sinulat na The Russian Revolution sa agraryong programa ng mga Bolshevik. 

Sa puna ni Luxemburg, habang sinabi niya na ang programang agraryo sa Rusya ay “an excellent tactical move”pinakita niya na may negatibong epekto ito: “Unfortunately it had two sides to it; and the reverse side consisted in the fact that the direct seizure of the land by the peasants has in general nothing at all in common with socialist economy…Not only is it not a socialist measure, it even cuts off the way to such measures; it piles up insurmountable obstacles to the socialist transformation of agrarian relations”. Dahil sa polisiyang pamimigay ng maliit na parsela ng lupa sa indibidwal na magsasaka, lalupang bumigat ang problema ng mga Bolshevik sa kalaunan dahil lumikha ito ng panibagong istrata ng maliliit na pribadong may-ari ng lupa na natural na tutol sa sosyalisasyon sa ekonomiya. Tama din ang paalala ni Luxemburg na ang pamamahagi ng lupa ay pabor sa mayayamang magsasaka sa kapinsalaan ng mahihirap na magsasaka.

Sa usaping agraryo, mas angkop ang kolektibisasyon sa lupa kaysa maliitang pamamahagi nito sa indibidwal na magsasaka. Ganun pa man, kahit ang kolektibisasyon ay hindi garantiya sa pagsulong tungong sosyalismo. Tanging ang tagumpay ng pandaigdigang rebolusyon ang garantiya sa sosyalistang solusyon sa problemang agraryo sa kanayunan. Samakatuwid, habang naghari pa ang kapitalismo sa pandaigdigang saklaw, anumang programang agraryo ang ipatutupad ng isang bansa (kontrolado man ang estado ng Kaliwa) ay para sa kapitalismo at hindi para sa sosyalismo.

Napatunayan ito hindi lang sa mismong karanasan ng Rusya kung saan lumakas ang Kulaks (mayamang magsasaka) at naging kontra-rebolusyonaryo kundi maging sa lahat ng programang agraryo sa kasalukuyan, ito man ay ipinatupad ng Kanan (Taiwan, South Korea, atbp) o ng Kaliwa (China, Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela ni Chavez, atbp).

Pangalawa, ang usapin ng programa ng proletaryado para sa mga pinagsamantalahan pero hindi proletaryong uri (non-proletarian exploited strata) ay isa sa mayor na problema ng diktadura ng proletaryado sa panahon ng transisyon tungong komunismo. Atrasado o abante man ang isang kapitalistang bansa, kailangang magkaroon ng kongkreto at epektibong programa ang manggagawa paano maisanib sa sosyalisadong produksyon ang mga uri at istratang ito. Bakit? Dahil ang layunin ng proletaryado ay pawiin ang mga uri, at magaganap lamang ito kung magiging “manggagawa” (direktang lumahok sa sosyalisadong produksyon) ang mga uri at istrata na labi ng nakaraan.

Dapat ding tandaan na ang lahat ng ito ay nakapailalim sa marxistang prinsipyo ng partidong Bolshevik sa sentralidad ng kilusang manggagawa sa pagsusulong ng rebolusyon at hindi ang kilusang magsasaka. Pinatunayan ito ng kasaysayan sa rebolusyong 1905 at 1917 kung saan ang PANGUNAHIN at NAMUNONG pwersa sa rebolusyon ay ang uring manggagawa. Ang pagiging pangunahin at namunong pwersa ng proletaryado sa rebolusyon ang tunay na pagpapatuloy ng marxismo. 

May isa pang distorsyon ang mga maoista sa usapin ng pamumuno ng uring manggagawa: simplistikong sinasabi nila na “basta nasa ilalim ng pamumuno at kontrol ng Partido, ito ay nasa pamumuno na rin ng mga manggagawa”. Ito ay substitutionism! Hindi magkatulad ang Partido at uri bagama’t mahigpit ang kanilang ugnayan dahil produkto ng uri ang partido at higit sa lahat, hindi mananalo ang rebolusyon kung walang INTERNASYUNAL na partido ang uri. Ang sinasabing pamumuno ng manggagawa ay ang PAMUMUNO NG KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA (sa pamamagitan ng mga asembliya at konseho nito) at hindi ang pamumuno ng Partido sa pakikibaka ng ibang uri. Dahil sa rebisyunismong ito ng mga maoista, napaniwala nila ang mga magsasaka na “pinamunuan” sila ng mga manggagawa sa pamamagitan ng Partido.  

Ang mga datos na inihapag ni Alex sa kasaysayan ng Rusya ay nagpatotoo sa paninindigan ni Lenin at ng partidong Bolshevik sa pagiging pangunahin at namunong pwersa ng proletaryado sa rebolusyon (maging sa “demokratikong” rebolusyon). Tanging ang partidong Socialist-Revolutionaries (SR) na tagagpamana ng mga Narodniks ang nanindigan (pero hindi hayagan dahil napakalakas ng kilusang manggagawa) sa “sentralidad” ng kilusang magsasaka.

Ayaw man aminin ng mga maoista pero mas malapit ang continuity ng maoismo sa Narodismo kaysa marxismo. Kung ang mga kabataang impluwensyado ng Narodniks sa Rusya noon ay pumupunta sa kanayunan upang ipraktika ang “go to the people”, mayroon namang “serve the people” ang maoismo para pumunta ang kabataan sa kanayunan at lumahok sa gerilyang pakikidigma.  

Sa katotohanan pa lang na ito ay sablay na ang kasinungalingan na “pagpapatuloy” ng marxismo ang maoismo. Binaliktad ng maoismo ang marxismo at ito ang pinauunlad ng iba’t-ibang grupong maoista sa buong mundo hanggang rumurok ngayon sa kabaliwan na maoism-thirdwordism (teoryang hinugot mula kay Lin Biao). 

Ang “dalawang-yugtong” rebolusyon

Ang “dalawang-yugtong” rebolusyon (demokratiko muna, sosyalista ang susunod) ang bukambibig hindi lamang ng mga maoista kundi pati ng mga “leninista” at trotskyista. Ang ibang pangalan ng “teoryang” ito ay “tuloy-tuloy” na rebolusyon ng mga “leninista” at “permanenteng” rebolusyon ng mga trotskyista. Iba-iba ang pangalan pero iisa lamang ang kahulugan: dadaan muna sa burges-demokrasya bago ang sosyalismo.

Ang mga maoista ay mahigpit na inugnay ang usapin ng magsasaka at agraryo para tindigan na “tama” ang teoryang ito.

Saan ba ito nagmula?

Si Marx mismo ay nagsabi na kailanagang dumaan muna sa burges na rebolusyon bago ang proletaryong rebolusyon. Sinabi niya ito sa panahon ng 19 siglo. Tama si Marx sa mga panahong iyon. At ito na ang sinunod ng 2nd International na humantong sa repormismo at pagtraydor sa komunismo dahil dala-dala pa rin ito kahit pundamental ng nagbago ang katangian ng kapitalismo – pumasok na sa kanyang dekadenteng yugto.

Ang hindi naunawaan ng mga marxista noon na ng sinabi ito ni Marx ang kapitalismo ay nasa pasulong na yugto, ang obhetibong kondisyon ay makapagpalawak pa ang kapitalismo at isa pang progresibong uri ang burgesya sa pangkalahatan vis-a-vis sa pagpapaunlad ng lipunan.

Nang pumasok na sa dekadenteng yugto ang kapitalismo ay ganap ng naging reaksyonaryo ang lahat ng paksyon ng burgesya at permanente ng naging hadlang ang kapitalistang mga relasyon sa ibayong pag-unlad ng produktong pwersa. Naganap ito dahil naabot na ng kapitalismo ang rurok ng kanyang paglawak sa buong mundo. Nasakop na nito ang pandaigdigang pamilihan. Naging permanente na ang krisis ng sistema at ang kahirapan ng sangkatauhan. Kaya isang malaking kasinungalingan na “alyado” ng rebolusyon ang pambansang burgesya.

Subalit sadyang sa pangkalahatan ay laging nahuhuli ang kamulatan kaysa realidad. Kaya nagkaroon ng pagkakamali ang kahit pinakadeterminado at pinaka-mulat na mga komunista gaya nila ni Marx, Engels at Lenin. Pero dapat nating tandaan na sa sandaling nakita ng mga lider na ito ang kanilang pagkakamali ay agad nila itong tinutuwid at hindi sila nahihiyang aminin ang kanilang pagkakamali. 

Ganun pa man, kailangan nating pag-ibahin ang pagkakamali ng isang rebolusyonaryo sa pagtraydor ng mga disipulo nito sa marxismo. Ang ginagawa ng mga maoista, stalinista at trotskyista ngayon ay ginawang dogma ang mga pagkakamali ng mga lider komunista. Ginawang banal na salita ang lahat ng kanilang mga sinasabi, pinauunlad ang kanilang mga pagkakamali.

Ano ang rebolusyon sa praktika?

Laging sinasabi ng mga marxista na ang tanging magpatunay na tama ang teorya ay kung napatunayan ito sa praktika. 

Lahat ng mga komunista kabilang na ang mga peke ay laging tumitingala sa Rusya bilang “modelo” ng rebolusyon (syempre ang mga maoista ay hindi lang Rusya kundi pati na rin China sa panahon ni Mao).

Bukambibig ng mga maoista at ng mga “leninista” ang ‘Two-Tactics of Social Democracy in Democratic Revolution’ na sinulat ni Lenin noong July 1905 bilang isa sa “teoretikal” na batayan sa kanilang “rebolusyong dalawang yugto”. 

Hindi nagkatotoo ang rebolusyong dalawang yugto sa Rusya gaya ng pinaniniwalaan ng iba. Ang “rebolusyon” naman sa China noong 1949 ay hindi bahagi ng proletaryong rebolusyon kundi ng Stalinistang kontra-rebolusyon. Ang resulta mismo ng kasaysayan ang patunay nito.

Ang rebolusyong 1905 at 1917 ay isang proletaryo-sosyalistang rebolusyon

Ang pangunahing sukatan kung anong makauring rebolusyon ang nangyari ay ay kung anong uri ang nangunguna at namuno sa naturang rebolusyon. Anong uri ang naluklok sa kapangyarihan. Huwag na nating isama dito ang sinasabing “rebolusyong bayan” o “gobyernong bayan” para sabihing ang mga ito ay bahagi ng proletaryong rebolusyon o kaya ay papunta na doon. Kahit sa panahon pa man nila Marx ay binatikos na ng mga komunista ang mistipikasyon ng abstarktong katergorya ng “bayan” o “sambayanan” at inilinaw na ito ay isang burges na mistipikasyon para itago ang katotohanan ng diktadura ng burgesya.

Ayon sa ilang maoistang teoritisyan ang rebolusyon ng 1905 ay isang “demokratikong rebolusyon” pero natalo lang. Ang “nanalong” Pebrero 1917 ay isang demokratikong rebolusyon at ang Oktubre 1917 ay isang sosyalistang rebolusyon. Ergo, “rebolusyong dalawang yugto” nga!

Totoo ba ito sa aktwal na nangyari? 

Hinggil sa rebolusyong 1905 ayon kay Lenin (sa kanyang lectures hinngil sa 1905 noong Enero 1917 bago ang rebolusyong Pebrero):

“The peculiarity of the Russian Revolution (1905) is that it was a bourgeois democratic revolution in its social content, but a proletarian revolution in its method of struggle. It was bourgeois democratic revolution since its immediate aim, which it could achieve directly and with its own forces, was a democratic republic, the eight-hour day and confiscation of the immense estates of the nobility—all the measures the French bourgeois revolution in 1792-93 had almost completely achieved.

At the same time, the Russian revolution was also a proletarian revolution, not only in the sense that the proletariat was the leading force, the vanguard of the movement, but also in the sense that a specifically proletarian weapon of struggle – the mass strike was the principle means of bringing the masses into motion and the most characteristic phenomenon in the wave like rise of decisive events.” (SW, Lenin Volume 1 Page: 781 (Moscow edn.))

Unang-una, dapat mailinaw na hindi ang kilusang magsasaka ang naging pangunahing pwersa sa rebolusyong 1905 kundi ang uring manggagawa. Ang nag-alsang manggagawa ay organisado sa kanilang awtonomiyang organo ng pakikibaka – ang mga sobyet – at hindi sa mga unyon.

Pangalawa, pangmasang welga (mass strike) ang porma ng kanilang pakikibaka. Kaiba ito sa simpleng welga o pangkalahatang welga. Para maunawaan ng lubusan kung ano ang mass strike, dapat pag-aaralan ang pampleto ni Rosa Luxemburg hinggil dito. Katunayan, ginawa na ng uri ang mass strike bago pa ang 1905 (1896 sa Rusya at 1902 sa Belgium).

Pangatlo, mapapansin natin ang kalituhan ni Lenin dahil sa impluwensya ng iskemang rebolusyon ng 2nd International (pero nagkaroon ng rektipikasyon si Lenin noong Abril 1917). Ayon kay Lenin sa panahong ito, ang rebolusyong 1905 ay burges sa laman pero proletaryo sa porma. Isang kontradiksyon bunga ng iskematikong pananaw sa rebolusyon. Ang kalituhang ito ni Lenin ay bunga ng hindi pa hayagang nalantad na mga salik ng pundamental na pagbabago mula sa pasulong na yugto ng kapitalismo tungo sa kanyang dekadenteng yugto.

Sa pagpasok ng pandaigdigang kapitalismo sa kanyang permanenteng krisis; ng ganap ng lumantad ang pagiging hadlang ng mga relasyon ng produksyon sa pag-unlad ng mga pwersa ng produksyon, lumantad na rin sa unahan ng lahat ng mga kontradiksyon ng lipunang kapitalista ang kontradiksyon sa pagitan ng BURGESYA at PROLETARYADO.

Kung mayroon pa mang mga labi ng pyudal na kaayusan sa atrasadong mga bansa gaya ng Rusya noon at Pilipinas ngayon ito ay hindi dahil sa simpleng kagustuhan lamang ng isang makapangyarihang bansa gaya ng nais ipahiwatig ng Kaliwa kundi ito ay malinaw na manipestasyon na: HINDI NA KAYA NG SISTEMA MISMO NA MOLDEHIN SA KANYANG SARILING IMAHE ANG LAHAT NG MGA BANSANG NASAKOP NA NITO. Umabot na sa rurok ng pag-unlad at paglawak ang kapitalismo bilang sistema magmula ng pumutok ang WW I.

Gaya ng sabi ng 3rd International sa 1919:

“A new epoch is born. The epoch of the disintegration of capitalism, of its inner collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat”.

Nang bumagsak ang Tsar noong Pebrero 1917 at naitayo ang Provisional Revolutionary Government, mayorya sa mga Bolshevik ang naghahanda ng pumasok sa PRG dahil ito ay nasa Two-Tactics ni Lenin na sinulat niya noong 1905. Ibig sabihin, maari ng simulan ang mga “burges-demokratikong” hakbangin. Subalit nagulat ang lahat ng bumalik si Lenin noong Abril at nanawagan ng walang suporta sa PRG, bagkus kailangan itong ibagsak at hawakan ng proletaryado sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga sobyet ang kapangyarihan. Ibig sabihin, itayo ang diktadura ng proletaryado. 

Itinuwid ni Lenin ang kanyang pagkakamali sa Two-Tactics sa April Theses of 1917. Pero sa simula ay hindi siya naunawaan ng mga beteranong Bolsheviks at maging ng kalakhan ng mga membro ng Partido. Nalagay siya sa minorya at binansagan pang “anarkista” at “Jacobinista”. Ang April Theses ay isang syentipikong pagsusuri hindi lamang sa pagbabago ng kalagayan sa Rusya kundi sa pagbabago mismo sa katangian ng pandaigdigang kapitalismo:

“For the present, it is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity. "Theory, my friend is grey, but green is the eternal tree of life"” (Lenin, Letters on Tactics, April 8-13, 1917 - the quotation is from Mephistopheles in Goethe’s Faust).

At sa Letters of Tactics pa rin:

“those "old Bolsheviks who more than once already have played a regrettable role in the history of our Party by reiterating formulas senselessly learned by rote instead of studying the specific features of the new and living reality”. 

Ang mga maoista ay nahumaling lamang sa dogma at sa “tagumpay” ng China noong 1949 hanggang sa panahon ng “Cultural Revolution” noong 1960s. Hindi nila nakikita at naunawaan ang pagbabago ng realidad sa mundo.

Pagsusuma

1. Walang marxistang partido ang hindi niya isama sa kanyang programa kung ano ang gagawin sa mga pinagsamantalahan pero hindi proletaryong uri kabilang na dito ang magsasaka sa panahon ng transisyon tungong komunismo. Pero anumang programa para sa mga istratang ito ay matutupad lamang sa ilalim ng diktadura ng proletaryado at sa sosyalistang balangkas ng ekonomiya. Ibig sabihin, ang usaping agraryo ay kailangang nakapailalim sa usapin ng pagdurog sa pandaigdigang kapitalismo at komunistang rebolusyon.

Para sa maoismo, ang usaping agraryo ay nakapailalim sa pagpapaunlad ng pambansang kapitalismo sa ilalim ng kontrol ng kapitalismo ng estado.

Ang rebolusyong dalawang yugto ay napatunayang hindi nangyari sa praktika ng proletaryong pakikibaka dahil malinaw na diktadura ng proletaryado ang naitayo sa Rusya noong Oktubre 1917 kung saan naging alyado nito ang kilusan ng mga maralitang magsasaka. Natalo man ang rebolusyon sa Rusya at naagaw ng Stalinismo ito ay dahil natalo ang pandaigdigang rebolusyon noong 1917-23.

Hindi kami umaasa na maliwanagan ang mga maoista sa aming teksto dahil alam namin na sarado na ang kanilang mga isip sa paniniwala sa “teorya ng dalawang yugtong rebolusyon” kung saan nakapailalim ang kanilang programang agraryo. Hahayaan na lang natin na ang proletaryo-komunistang rebolusyon mismo sa hinaharap ang dudurog sa kanilang bangkarotang teorya. Ang mga maoista at iba pang grupo/partido ng Kaliwa ang siyang tinamaan sa sinabi ni Marx:

“The tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living. And, just when they appear to be engaged in the revolutionary transformation of themselves and their material surroundings, in the creation of something which does not yet exist, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they timidly conjure up the spirits of the past to help them; they borrow their names, slogans and costumes.” (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852)

Pero para sa mga mambabasa na naghahanap ng teoretikal na kalinawan ay malaking tulong ang tekstong ito upang mahikayat silang magpursige sa KRITIKAL na pag-aaral sa teorya at sa karanasan ng internasyunal na proletaryong kilusan.

INTERNASYONALISMO

The ‘labour aristocracy’: a sociological theory to divide the working class

There is a class antagonism within the working class itself, an antagonism between the “most exploited” strata and the privileged layers. There is a “labour aristocracy” enjoying higher wages and better working conditions; a section of the working class which receives a share of the super-profits extracted by “its imperialism” from colonial exploitation. Thus there is a layer of the working class which does not in fact belong to the working class, but to the bourgeoisie, a layer of “bourgeois-workers”.

These are the main points common to all theories of the “labour aristocracy”. This is a theoretical tool whose principal value lies in the fact that it allows one, to whatever extent one feels to be necessary, to blur the line which divides the working class from global capitalism.

This theory allows one to condemn whole sections of the working class (workers in advanced industrialized countries, for example) as “bourgeois”, and to define bourgeois organizations (the left-wing parties and the unions, for example) as “working class”.

This theory originated in the analysis developed by Lenin during World War I, and taken up by the Third International. Some proletarian political currents, who give themselves the strange title of “Leninist”, still cling to this theoretical oddity, which they do not always know what to do with, apart from using it to cloud over questions of primary importance to the class struggle. For decades, the Stalinists have also made use of this theory, invoking the prestigious name Lenin to legitimize their counter-revolutionary politics.

But this theory has also been taken up, in various different forms, by groups coming out of Stalinism – via Maoism – which have come to reject many of the worst lies of official Stalinism (in particular the myth of the existence of socialist states, whether in Russia, China or elsewhere.)

These groups, such as Operai e Teoria in Italy, Le Bolshevik (now Groupe Ouvriere Internationaliste, publishing Revolution Mondiale) in France, and the Marxist Workers’ Committee in the USA, take up very       radical positions against the unions and the left-wing parties. In this way they have gained a degree of influence among some groups of militant workers. But for these currents, ex-“Third Worldists”, the critique of the unions and the left-wing parties is based on their enthusiastic support for the division of the working class, between the “lowest layers” — which they call the true proletariat — and the “labour aristocracy”.
This is how Operai e Teoria formulates this theory of the division of the working class:

“Not to recognize the internal divisions among productive workers, the importance of the struggle against the labour aris­tocracy, and the necessity for revolutionaries to work towards achieving a split, a clean break between the interests of the lower strata and those of the labour aristocracy, not only signifies the failure to understand the history of the workers’ movement, but — and this is more serious — also allows the proletar­iat to be lined up behind the bourgeoisie.” (Operai e Teoria, no.7, Oct-Nov 1980, our emphasis.)[i]
In this article, we will not attempt to chart the theoretical contradictions of the “Leninist” groups. Our aim is to demonstrate the theoretical inconsistency and the political dangers of the theory of the labour aristocracy as it is defended by various Maoist and ex-Maoist groups, often working within the most combative sections of the working class. We aim to show:

– that this theory is based on a socio‑logical analysis which ignores the historical nature of the proletariat as a class;
— that the definition, or rather defin­itions of the “labour aristocracy” become even more flawed and contradictory in the light of all the different divi­sions which capitalism has sown within the working class;
— that the practical result of concep­tions of this kind can only be to divide workers from each other in their struggles, and to isolate the “most ex­ploited” workers from the rest of their class;
— that these conceptions lead to con­fusions about the nature of the unions and the left-wing parties — specifically to the confusion that these are “bour­geois-workers” organisations (this am­biguity was already present in the conceptions of the Communist Inter­national);
— that it is wrong to look to Marx, Engels or Lenin to support this theory, since even when they talked, more or less precisely about the existence of a “labour aristocracy” or about the “bourgeoisification of the working class in England in the nineteenth century”, they never supported any theory about the necessity to divide the working class. Just the opposite.

I. A sociological theory

One can look at the working class in two ways. One can look as it is most of the time, that is, downtrodden, divided and atomized into millions of solitary individuals, with no relation to each other.

Or one can look at the working class from an historical standpoint. One can see it as a social class with a history of more than two centuries of struggle, and a future as the instigator of the most far-reaching revolution in the history of humanity.

The first vision is an immediatist vision of a defeated class, while the second is a vision of class struggle. The second is the Marxist vision which understands that the working class is more than what it is now; that it is above all what it will be forced to become. Marxism is not a sociological study of a defeated working class. Its aim is to understand proletarian class struggle which is something completely different.

The theory that fundamental antagonisms exist within the working class is based on a conception which takes account only of the immediate reality of a defeated, atomized working class. Anyone who knows the history of workers’ revolutions knows that the highest moments of proletarian struggle have only been achieved through the widest possible generalization of working class unity.
To say that unity between the most exploited and less exploited sections of the working class is impossible, is to ignore the entire history of the workers’ movement. History shows that at every important stage in its struggle, the working class confronts the problem of how to achieve the greatest possible degree of unity.

There is a fundamental tendency in the dev­elopment of the workers’ movement from the first associations of artisan workers, through the trade unions, to the formation of workers’ councils. This tendency is the search for ever-greater unity. The workers’ councils, spontaneously created for the first time by workers in Russia in 1905, are the most unified form of organization con­ceivable. Since they are based on mass assemblies, they allow the greatest possible number of workers to participate in the struggle.

This development is not only a reflection of the development of class consciousness, of an understanding of the necessity for class unity. The development of this understanding is itself a reflection of the development of the material conditions in which the working class lives and struggles.
The development of manufacturing industry destroyed the specializations inherited from the feudal artisan of the past. It brought about the uniformity of the proletariat, and transformed the working class into a commodity which is able to produce shoes, or, just as easily, cannons, without the services of cobbler or blacksmith.

Moreover the development of capitalism involves the development of gigantic urban industrial centres in which millions of workers are crowded together. In these centres, struggle takes on an explosive character, because of the rapidity with which these millions of workers can organise and co-ordinate themselves for united action.

“But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the prol­etariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level.” (Marx and Engels, The Communist Mani­festo, ‘Bourgeois and Proletarians’)
In the recent struggles in Poland where workers have demonstrated their ability to unite and organize themselves in a way which has astonished the world, there has been no sign of a struggle between qual­ified and unqualified workers. Instead we have seen the unification of all sectors in the mass assemblies, in the struggle and for the struggle.

But to understand “miracles” of this kind, our eyes must not be fixed, like those of the sociologists, on the immediate reality of the working class when it is not struggling. When the proletariat is not struggling, when the bourgeoisie succeeds in reducing wages to the absolute minimum required for their subsistence, then the working class is indeed completely divided.

Since its origins, the working class, which is subjected to the last, but also the most absolute form of exploitation known in his­tory, has lived in one way when it is passive and submissive to the bourgeoisie, and in a totally different way when it rises up against its oppressors.

This separation between two forms of exi­stence (united and in struggle, or divided and passive) has become more and more marked as capitalism has developed. Apart from the period at the end of the nineteenth century, when the proletariat was able for a while to compel the bourgeoisie to accept the existence of genuine unions and mass parties, the level of unity achieved by the working class during periods of struggle has tended to increase, but so has the division and atomization of the working class during periods of “social peace”.

The same conditions of life and work of the working class which lead it to struggle in a more and more unified way, lead, outside periods of struggle, to the division and atomization of the working class into the mass of solitary individuals which we can see today.

Competition between workers outside periods of struggle has been a characteristic of the proletariat since its origins. But this was less strongly expressed in early capitalism, when workers “had a trade”, when education was not widespread, and when the knowledge of each proletarian was a vital “tool of the trade”. The cobbler does not compete with the blacksmith. But to the extent that, increasingly, “anyone can produce anything”, due to the advance of industry and educa­tion, this is reflected in capitalism by a situation where “anyone can take anyone else’s job.”

Faced with the problem of finding work, the worker in industrial capitalism knows that this depends on how many applicants there are for the same job. The development of industry thus increasingly tends to set workers against each other as individuals, when they are not involved in struggle. Marx described this process in the follow­ing way:

“The growth of productive capital implies the accumulation and concentration of capital. This centralization implies a greater division of labour and a greater use of machinery. The greater division of labour destroys the especial skill of the labourer; and by putting in the place of this skilled work labour which anyone can perform it increases competition among the workers.” (Marx, Speech on the Question of Free Trade – generally published with The Poverty of Philosophy)
The development of industry thus creates the material conditions for the existence of a united and conscious humanity, but at the same time, within the framework of the law of capitalism where the survival of the worker depends on his ability to sell his labour power, it engenders a greater comp­etition than ever before.
To attempt to base a theory of the class struggle of the proletariat on an immediatist study of a divided and defeated proletariat, while ignoring the historical experience of struggles in the past, in­evitably leads to the conception that wor­king class unity will never be possible. And the more one resorts to an ahistorical, immediatist vision — under the pretexts that “we must be concrete”, or “we must have an immediate effect” — the more any real understanding of the proletariat is turned on its head.

A conception which denies the possibility of working class unity is in the last analysis a theorization of the defeat of the proletariat, of the times when it is not struggling. It is the bourgeois vision of the proletariat as ignorant, divided, atomized and defeated individuals. It is a variety of sociology.

An “ouvrierist” conception

Since it does not see the working class as an historical force, this conception con­ceives of the working class as a sum of revolutionary individuals. Ouvrierism is not based on the assertion of the revolut­ionary nature of the working class, but is a sociological cult of individual workers. Imbued with this kind of vision, political currents with Maoist origins attach great importance to the social origins of members of political organizations, to the extent that a large number of their members from bourgeois or petty-bourgeois origins abandon their studies — particularly in the period since 1968 — to take jobs in factories (which only serves to reinforce the cult of the individual worker.)

Thus, the Marxist Workers’ Committee, a group which has evolved to the point where it thinks that there are no longer any workers’ states and that Russia has been capitalist since 1924 (the death of Lenin) wrote an article in the first issue of its publication Marxist Worker (Summer 1979), titled ‘25 Years of Struggle - Our History’:

“Our experience in the old revisionist party, the Communist Party of the USA, and in the American Workers’ Communist Party (Maoist), leads us to conclude that the founders of scientific socialism were right to affirm that a real workers’ party must develop an organization of theoretically advanced workers, since not only the whole of the membership, but also the leadership, should come in the first place from the working class.”

What conception of the working class can be “learned well” in a bourgeois, Stalinist organisation? Here we should recall two examples from the history of the workers’ movement, which demonstrate the consequences of the ouvrierist principle.

We should recall the struggle by the “worker” Tolain, French delegate to the first congress of the International Workingmens’ Associat­ion, against accepting Marx as a delegate. Tolain argued against the acceptance of Marx on the basis of the principle that “the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the workers themselves,” since Marx was not a worker but an intellectual. After a debate, Tolain’s motion was reject­ed. Tolain, the worker, was later to be found fighting alongside the “Versaillais” against the workers’ insurrection which set up the Paris Commune.

We should also recall how German Social Democracy succeeded in November 1918 in preventing Rosa Luxemburg from speaking at the Congress of Workers’ Councils, because she also was not a worker, and how she was assassinated a few weeks later by the Freikorps, under orders from the worker Noske, who bloodily crushed the Berlin insurrection in January 1919. It is not each individual worker, but the working class which is revolutionary.

Ouvrierism does not understand this differ­ence and thus understands neither the worker as an individual, nor the working class as a class.

II. The labour aristocracy: an impossible definition

It is obvious that different workers have different wages, and different living and working conditions. It is also a banality to say that, in general, the more comfortable the situation of an individual in society, the more he wants to preserve it. But to deduce from this the existence of a stable stratum within the proletariat whose interests are opposed to those of the rest of their class, and aligned to those of the bourgeoisie, or to try to establish a mecha­nical link between levels of exploitation and consciousness and combativity, is to make a theoretical leap fraught with danger.

In the early years of capitalism, when large numbers of workers were still more or less artisans, with individual skills and corpor­ate concerns, it was possible at given moments, ie during periods of economic prosperity, to more clearly identify sections of the working class with particular privileges.

Thus, in passing, in his personal correspondence, Engels noted the existence of a “labour aristocracy” of “mechanics, carpenters and joiners, and building workers” who in the nineteenth century were organized to the extent, and enjoyed certain privileges derived from the importance of their qualifications, and the monopoly they held in these qualifications.

But the development of capitalism, with the de-skilling of work on the one hand, and on other the multiplication of artificial divisions within the working class, to attempt to define a “labour aristocracy” in the sense of precise stratum having priv­ileges which distinguish it qualitatively from the rest of the working class, is a completely arbitrary exercise. Capitalism has systematically divided the working class with the aim of creating situations where the interests of some workers are opposed to the interests of others.

We have already insisted on how the devel­opment of industry has led, in periods when the working class is not struggling, to the development of competition between workers, through the destruction of specialist skills. However capitalism is not content with divisions which can be engendered in the labour process itself. Like other ex­ploiting classes in the past, the bourgeoi­sie knows and applies the old principle: divide and rule. And it does so cynically and methodically, in a way that is unprec­edented in history.

Capitalism makes use of the “natural” div­isions of sex and age, taken over from past societies. Although the privileged pos­ition of adult males due to their physical strength progressively disappears with the development of industry, capitalism con­sciously maintains divisions of this kind with the aim of dividing the labour force and justifying the lower wages of women, the young and the old.
Capitalism also takes over from the past divisions based on race and geographical origin. At its origins, capital, still essentially in the form of commercial cap­ital, grew rich from — among other things — the slave trade. In its fully developed form, capital continues to make use of diff­erences of race and nationality to exert a permanent downward pressure on wages. From the treatment of Irish workers in eight­teenth and nineteenth century England, to that of Turkish and Yugoslav workers in Germany in 1980, capitalism has pursued the same policy of dividing the working class. Capitalism knows exactly how it can profit from tribal divisions in Africa, religious differences in Ulster, caste differences in India, or racial differences in America and in the principal European powers, which were reconstructed after the war with the aid of a massive importation of workers from Asia, Africa and the less developed European countries (Turkey, Greece, Ireland, Port­ugal, Spain, Italy, etc.)

But capitalism is not content to maintain and foster the so-called “natural” divisions within the working class. Through the generalization of wage labour and the “scientific” organisation of exploitation (Taylorism, bonus schemes, etc), the task of dividing the working class has acquired the status of a profession: sociologists, psy­chiatrists and union officers work hand in hand with personnel managers to divise “viable” methods of organizing production and of ensuring that the law of “every man for himself” reigns in the factories and the offices, so that everyone feels that his are opposed to those of everyone else. It is in capitalism that the famous epigram “man is a wolf to man” corfresponds most nearly to reality. By making wages dependent on the productivity of others, by creating all kinds of artificial wage differentials for the same work (which is now taken to the limit through the use of computers in management), capitalisms sows more divisions within the exploited class than ever.

In these conditions, it is almost impossible to not to for each category of workers, another category which is either more or less “privileged”.
If one takes account of the privileges which a worker be given on account of his or her age, sex, race, or experience, the nature of his or her work (manual or non-manual), his or her position in the process of production, bonuses earned, etc, etc, one can find an infinite number of definitions of a “labour aristocracy”. In doing so, one will not be one step closer to an understanding of the revolutionary nature of the working class.

Following the logic of their “anti-labour aristocracy” stance, the gems of Maoist wisdom on the subject of the labour aristocracy include the need to organize the “true proletariat”, “the most exploited strata.” These groups are thus forced not only to try to find an adequate definition of a “labour aristocracy”, but also a corresponding definition of the “pure” strata of the proletariat. A large part of their “theoretical” work is dedicated to this task, and the results vary according to different groups or tendencies, and the country or period with which they are concerned.

Thus, for example, in countries like England, France, or Germany, the immigrant workers are the true proletariat, and white workers are the aristocracy. In America, according to this logic, the whole working class can be considered to be “bourgeoisified” (the living standard of a black worker in America being perhaps a hundred times greater than a worker in India); but one could also, foll­owing the same logic, deduce that only the white workers belong to the aristocracy. Looked at in one way, black American workers are “aristocrats”, but from another point of view they are the “most exploited”. For Operai e Teoria the “real working class” is made up of workers who work on production lines. For some groups however, industrial workers in the underdeveloped countries are classed as “aristocrats”, since their living standards are much higher than the unemployed masses in the shanty towns around the cities.

The definition of this famous “aristocracy” thus varies from one group to another, encompassing anything from 100% to 50% or 20% of the working class, according to the whim of the resident theoreticians.

III. A theory to divide the working class

Alongside their attempts to work out or clarify their various sociological definitions of strata within the proletariat, the intervention of these organizations towards the working class aims, to a greater or lesser extent, to divide workers — as they admit themselves.

This is based on the creation of organizations which regroup only those workers which they can be sure are not part of the “labouraristocracy”: black or immigrant workers’ organizations, organizations of workers who work on the production line, etc …

This for example is the origin of the particular form of racism which has developed in certain groups within the immigrant communities in the most industrialized European countries, which has transformed the traditional “anti-white” racism into a “Marxist-Leninist” anti-white labour aristocracy racism. In the less developed countries, which are exporters of labour, the advocates of this theory set out to stir up hostility among less qualified workers towards the qualified workers.
Within these organizations, a hostility is cultivated towards the “labour aristocracy”, which soon comes to be used as the scapegoat for all the misfortunes which befall the “most exploited strata”.

In the best of cases, it is claimed that the separate unity of the most exploited sectors serves as an example and is a stimulus towards the wider unification of the working class. But this completely ignores how working class unity is actually brought about.

The living example of Poland in 1980 makes this question perfectly clear. Working class unity is not the culmination of a series of partial unifications, one following the other, sector by sector, after years of systematic work. In real life this unification takes place in an explosive manner, in a few days or weeks. The outbreak of class struggle and its generalization are the product of many different, unforseen factors.

But Poland has only confirmed once again what has been shown by all explosions of class struggle since the 1905 struggles in Russia. For 75 years there has never been working class unity except in struggle and for struggle. But when the working class unites, it does so all at once, and on the largest possible scale. For 75 years, when workers have struggled on their own class terrain, what one has seen is not a fight between different sections of the working class, but on the contrary a tendency to­wards ever-greater unity. The proletariat is the first class in history which is not divided within itself by real economic antagonisms. Contrary to peasants and ar­tisans, the working class does not possess its own means of production. It possesses only its labour power, and its labour power is collective.
The only weapon which the proletariat has against the bourgeoisie is its numbers. But numbers, without unity, is nothing. The achievement of this unity is the fun­damental struggle of the proletariat to affirm its power. It is no accident that the bourgeoisie expends so much effort to prevent this from happening.

It is turning the world on its head to claim, as does Operai e Teoria, that the idea of the necessity of working class unity is bourgeois:

“… There is not one voice among the bourgeoisie to support this division (between the lowest strata and the “aristocracy”). On the contrary there is a chorus of bourgeois propaganda which argues for the necessity of sacrifices because ‘we are all in the same boat’.” (Operai e Teoria, no.7, p.10)

The bourgeoisie does not talk about working class unity, but about national unity. What it says is not “all workers are in the same boat” but “the workers are in the same boat as the bourgeoisie.” Which is not at all the same thing. But this is difficult to understand for those who have “learned” their Marxism from nationalists like Mao, Stalin and Ho Chi Minh. Against all these Stalinist distortions, communists can only affirm the lessons of the historical practice of the proletariat. As the Communist Manifesto already advocated in 1848, they must “point out and bring to the fore the common interests of the entire proletariat” (our emphasis)

IV. An ambiguous conception of Left parties and unions

How could such a theory find the least echo among the working class?
Probably the principal reason why this con­ception is listened to by some workers with­out laughter or anger is because it appears to give an explanation of why and how the so-called “workers” unions carry out their despicable sabotage of the class struggle.

According to this theory, the unions, as well as the left-wing parties, are the expression of the material interests of certain layers of the working class, ie the most privilege layers. In times of “social peace”, for certain workers, victims of the racism of white workers or the contempt of more qualified workers, or disgusted by the way the left parties and unions are involved in the management of capitalism, this theory seems on the one hand to offer a coherent explanation of these phenomena, and on the other hand offer an immediate perspective for action: to organize separately from the “aristocrats”. Unfortunately this conception is theoretically false and politically dangerous.

Here for example is how Le Bolshevik in France formulates this idea:
“The Communist Party (of France) is not a workers’ party. By its composition, largely intellectual and petty-bourg­eois, and above all by its reformist, ultra-chauvinist political line, the CP of Marchais and Seguy is a bourgeois party.
It is not the political and ideological representative of the working class. It represents the higher layers of the petty-bourgeoisie and the labour aris­tocracy.” (Le Bolshevik, no 112, Feb 80)

In other words, the interests of a section of the working class, the “aristocracy”, are the same as those of the bourgeoisie, because the party which represents their interests is “bourgeois”. This identity between the political line of parties of the “labour aristocracy” and those of the bour­geoisie has an economic basis: the “aris­tocracy” receives crumbs from the super-profits extracted by their national capital from the colonies and the semi-colonies.

Lenin formulated an analogous theory to try to explain the betrayal of social democracy during World War I.

“For decades the source of opportunism (this is the name Lenin gave to the re­formist tendencies which dominated the workers’ organisations and which participated in World War I) lay in the peculiar­ities of such a period in the development of capitalism when the comparatively peaceful and civilised existence of a layer of privileged workers turned them ‘bourgeois’, gave them crumbs from the profits of their own national capital, removed them from the sufferings, mis­eries, and revolutionary sentiments of the ruined and impoverished masses … The economic foundation of chauvinism and opportunism in the labour movement is the same: it is an alliance between the none too numerous upper strata of the proletariat and the petty-bourgeois strata, enjoying crumbs out of the priv­ileges of ‘their’ national capital as opposed to the masses of tale proletar­ians, the masses of the workers and the oppressed in general.”(Lenin, The War and the Second Inter­national)

A critique of Lenin’s explanation of the betrayal of the Second International

Before dealing with the theories of his epigones, we want to pause for a while to look at the conception developed by Lenin to explain the new class nature of the Social Democratic workers’ parties, following their betrayal of the proletarian camp.

History posed the following question to revolutionaries: for decades European social democracy, founded by Marx, Engels and others, which was born out of bitter and prolonged workers’ struggles, has constituted a real instrument for the defence of working class interests. But now virtually the whole of the social democratic movement, including both the mass parties and the unions, was aligned with the national bour­geoisie of their respective countries against the workers of other countries. How could one define the class nature of this monstrous product of history?

To give an idea of the shock that this be­trayal caused among the tiny minority which still clung to revolutionary internation­alist positions, we can recall for example Lenin’s astonishment when he saw the edition of Vorwarts (publication of the German Social Democratic Party) announcing the vote by socialist parliamentary delegates in favour of war credits. He thought that it was a fake put out to support the propaganda in favour of the war. We can also recall the difficulties of the Germans Spartacists, led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, in finally breaking the umbilical cord which linked them organically to their “parent or­ganisation”.

When the war exploded, Social Democratic policy was overtly bourgeois, but the major­ity of members of the parties and unions were still workers. How was such a contra­diction to be explained?

The Social Democrats, now patriots, said “this proves that internationalism is not a truly working class concept.” Rejecting such an analysis Lenin replied, following the same logic, that not all workers had re­jected internationalism, but only a “privi­leged minority” which was “removed from the sufferings, miseries, and revolutionary sentiments of the ruined and impoverished masses.” Lenin’s concern was perfectly correct: to show that the fact that the European proletariat had allowed itself to be drawn into the imperialist war did not mean that wars of this kind corresponded to the interests of the working class in the different countries concerned. But the arguments he used were false, and disproved by reality itself. Lenin said that the “patriotic” workers were those who had int­erests in common with “their” national cap­ital, which corrupted a “labour aristocracy” by throwing it “a few crumbs of profit.”

How large is this corrupted section of the working class? “An infinitesimal part,” replies Lenin in The War and the Second International; “the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy,” he says in the preface to Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

But reality demonstrates:

1. that it was not an “infinitesimal” minority of the proletariat which benefitted from the expansion of capitalism at the end of the nineteenth and start of the twent­ieth centuries, but all industrial workers. The abolition of child labour, the restric­tion of female labour, the reduction of the working day to ten hours, the creation of state schools and public hospitals, etc — all these measures, which workers’ struggles had extracted from capitalism during a period of rapid expansion, had benefitted above all the “lowest”, most exploited strata of the working class;
2. that Lenin’s vision of an infinitesimal minority of corrupted workers, isolated in the middle of a gigantic mass of suffering workers who were possessed by “revolutionary sentiments”, was, on the eve of World War I, pure invention. Almost all workers in the principal powers — poor or rich, qualified or unqualified, unionised or non-unionised, answered the call to arms and wanted to de­feat the “enemy” and massacre them in the defence of “their” national masters;
3. that the “economic explanation” about the “crumbs of profit” shared out by the imper­ialist power among their qualified workers does not make any sense. First of all be­cause, as we have seen, it was not a tiny minority of workers whose conditions had improved during the period of capitalist ex­pansion, but all workers in the industrial­ised countries. Secondly because, by defin­ition, the capitalists do not share out their profits, nor their super-profits with those whom they exploit.
The increased wages and greatly improved living standards of workers in the indust­rialised countries was not the result of the generosity of capitalists who were prepared to share out their profits, but of the successful pressure that workers in this period were able to apply to their national capitalisms. The economic prosperity of capitalism at the end of the nineteenth century led everywhere to a reduction in the number of unemployed workers in capitalism’s “reserve army”. On the labour market, labour power as a commodity became scarcer and thus more expensive, as more factories were set up and existing factories worked at full capac­ity. This was the state of affairs during this period. Workers were able, by organ­ising themselves even in a limited way (in trade unions and mass parties), to sell their labour power at a higher price and obtain real improvements in their conditions of ex­istence.

The opening up of the world market to certain industrialised centres, more or less confined to Europe and North America, allowed capital­ism to develop with tremendous force. The periodic crises of over-production were over­come with an apparently ever increasing speed and energy. The industrialised centres ex­panded by absorbing an ever growing number of peasants and artisans who were thus transformed into workers, into proletarians. The labour power of qualified workers, who had acquired their skills over many years, became a precious commodity to the capital­ists.

So there is certainly a link between the global expansion of capitalism and the in­creased standard of living of industrial workers, but is not the link described by Lenin. The improvement of the proletarian condition did not affect an “infinitesimal” minority, but the whole working class. It was not the result of the “corruption” of workers by their capitalist masters but of the workers’ struggles in a period of cap­italist prosperity.

If the European and American workers, en masse, identified their interests with those of their national capital, following the lead of their political and trade union organizations, it was because, over a period of decades, they had been living in the period of the greatest material prosperity known to mankind. If the idea of the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism made such great inroads into the workers’ movement, it was because social prosperity often appeared as the result of conscious forces in society. The barbarism or World War I drowned these illusions in the mud of the trenches at Verdun. But nonetheless it was these illusions which had allowed the capitalist generals to send more than twenty million men to their deaths in the inter-imperialist butchery.

The world war marked a definite end to any possibility of the cohabitation between the “reformists” and the revolutionaries within the workers’ movement. By transforming themselves into recruiting sergeants for the imperialist armies, the majority reformist tendencies within the Second International passed body and soul into the camp of cap­italism.

From this point they were no longer working class tendencies strongly influenced by the ideology of the dominant class, but cogs in the political apparatus of the bourgeoisie.

The Social Democratic parties are no longer “bourgeoisified workers’ organizations” but bourgeois organizations working within the working class. They no longer represent the working class, or even a section of it. They are an incarnation of the interests of the national capital as a whole.

Social Democracy is no more “working class” because it contains workers, than the bars of a cage are “animal” because they contain animals. The massacre of German workers after the war by the Social Democratic government was a bloody proof of which side of the barricade Social Democracy was henceforth to belong to.[ii]

The theory that the left-wing parties and their unions defend the interests of the “labour aristocracy” always entails, in one way or another, the idea that they are workers’ organizations all the same.

The practical importance of this theoretical question emerges when the working class is confronted with an attack by a section of the bourgeoisie against these organizations. It was in the name of the defence of these “workers’ organizations” that “Western dem­ocracy” led workers into the struggle “against fascism” — from 1936 in Spain to Hiroshima.

It is this ambiguity which is useful to Lenin’s epigones today. The Maoist current came out of the Communist Parties. The Maoists are chips off the Stalinist bloc, who split off under the pressure of the development of inter-imperialist conflicts (particularly between China and Russia) and the intensification of the class struggle.

Many groups of Maoist origin assert that the CPs are “bourgeois” organizations, but they are always quick to make it clear that the CPs are based on the “labour aristocracy”, and for this reason are partly “bourgeoisified workers’ organizations”…..One can see the importance that this “nuance” can have for groups which, like the Marxist Workers’ Committee, fiercely defend their “25 years of struggle”[iii], more than three-quarters of which were spent inside the Stalinist party. According to their theory these years were not spent working for the bourgeoisie….but for the “labour aristocracy”.

Any ambiguity about which side of the barricade the left-wing parties stand, can have deadly consequences for the working class. Over the past 60 years, almost every important working class movement has been crushed by the left, or with its complicity. The theory of the “labour aristocracy”, by cultivation this ambiguity, disarms the class by blurring the one issue which needs to be as clear-cut as possible before engaging in any battle: who is the enemy.  

V. A gross deformation of Marxism

We have shown how the theory of the labour aristocracy, as it is defended by Maoist and ex-Maoist groups, betrays a sociological un­derstanding of the working class, a vision acquired by these currents through their experience with Stalinism.
The understanding of this experience is replaced by a quasi-religious study of certain texts of the proletarian “evangelists”, from which extracts are quoted as the absolute proof of what they say. (The evolution of Maoist groups can be measured by the number of evangelists’ heads they have removed from their icons: to start with there is Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Mao is the first to go, and then, at a more advanced stage, when some groups begin to open their eyes towards the Stalin­ist counter-revolution, Stalin is eliminated as well. But at the same time, the other three remain, with their religious status further enhanced.)

To find out whether this or that idea or political position is true or false, these organizations do not ask themselves the question: has this been confirmed or not by the real living practice of workers’ struggles in the past? … but: can this be justified by a quotation from Marx, Engels or Lenin, or not?

Thus, to “scientifically” demonstrate the proof of the theory of the labour aris­tocracy, these groups bombard their readers with knowingly selected quotations from Marx, Engels or Lenin.

These ultra-Leninist groups base themselves on Lenin’s mistakes on the question of the “labour aristocracy”, but they forget that Lenin never drew the aberrant conclusions arrived at by Operai e Teoria, according to which revolutionaries must no longer “point out and bring to the fore the common inter­ests of the entire proletariat,” as the Manifesto says, but work to achieve “a split, a clean break between the interests of the lower strata and those of the labour aris­tocracy.” (Operai e Teoria)

Lenin never called for workers to organize independently of and against the rest of their class. On the contrary, Lenin’s attack against the Social Democratic patriots as a political current was matched by his defence of the necessity for the unity of all workers in their unitary organizations. The slogan “all power to the soviets,” that is to say, all power to the broadest and most unitary organizations the working class was able to create, a slogan of which he was one of the staunchest defenders, was not a call for the division of the working class but on the contrary for the strongest possible unity for the purpose of seizing power.

As for the references by these currents to certain quotations from Engels, they are simply an attempt to make isolated phrases by Engels say something he never said. Engels spoke in many places of a “labour aristocracy” within the working class. But what was he talking about?

In some cases he is referring to the English working class, which as whole enjoyed living standards and working conditions which were much superior to those of workers in other countries. On other cases, he refers to more specialized workers within the British working class itself, who still retained artisan skills (mechanics, carpen­ters and joiners, and building workers). But in doing so, his aim is to dispel any illusions which might exist within the British working class about the possibility of being a real “aristocracy”. He empha­sizes the fact that the evolution of cap­italism takes place above all through econ­omic crises, which force it to reduce the conditions of all workers to the lowest common level, and which destroy the material basis of the “privileges” of minority groups of workers, even among the working class in Britain. Thus in a debate in the Inter­national Workingmens’ Association (First International) he said;

“As it happens, this (the adoption of the motion from Halos on the Irish section of the IWA) would only serve to strengthen the opinion, which has already been current for too long among the English workers, according to which, in relation to the Irish, they are superior beings and form a kind of aristocracy, in the same way as the whites in the slave states think of themselves as being sup­erior in relation to the blacks.”

And Engels explains how the economic crisis tends to undermine this opinion which has already been current for too long:

“With the ending of (English) industrial supremacy, the working class in England will lose its privileged condition. As a whole — including the privileged min­ority of leaders — it will find itself once more at the level of workers abroad.”
And, referring to the old unions which jealously defend their position as organ­izations regrouping only the most special­ised workers:

“Finally, it (the acute crisis of capital­ism) must break out, and it is to be hoped that this will put an end to the old unions.”[iv]

The practical experience of workers’ struggles in the twentieth century, which have given rise to “new” forms of organ­ization based on general assembles with delegates elected to committees or councils, has effectively put an end not only to the old unions of specialized workers, but also to trade unions of all kinds, which are inevitably based entirely on professional categories.

Engels spoke of a kind of “labour aristo­cracy” with the aim of strengthening the movement towards the indispensable unity of the working class.

To finish with these “Marxist” references, let us briefly consider the research of Operai e Teoria which claims to have found an explanation by Marx for the antagonisms which supposedly set workers against each other.

“All (the workers) as an organic whole produce surplus value, but not all pro­duce the same quantity since they are not all subjected to the massive extortion of relative surplus value.”

From all the evidence, these people have not even gone to the trouble of finding out what “relative surplus value” is. Marx used this term to define the phenomenon of the growing proportion of labour time stolen by capital from the working class by means of increased productivity.

Contrary to the extraction of “absolute surplus value” which essentially depends on the duration of labour time, “relative surplus value” depends in the first place on the social productivity of the working class as a whole.

Increased productivity is expressed by the fact that less hours of labour are needed to produce the same quantity of goods. In­creased social productivity is expressed by the fact that less social labour time is needed to produce the goods necessary for subsistence.

[i] This is taken from an article where Operai e Teoria attempt to answer the criticisms of Battaglia Communista (Partito Communista Internationalista) which, despite being “Leninist”, reproaches O e T

– for “supporting the capitalist process of division of the working class;”

– for basing their theory on the “objective incorrect idea of privileges” within the working class;

– for not understanding “the tendency of capitalism in crisis to progressively erode the conditions of existence of the entire proletariat, and thus to bring about its economic unifications.”

These criticisms of Battaglia are certainly correct, but it does not take them to their logical conclusion, for fear of casting doubt on the words of their “master”, Lenin.

[ii]The compromises the Third international was forced to make with the Social Democratic parties after 1920, at the expense of the working class tendencies accused of being “ultra-left”, found its theoretical justification in the ambiguity of the term “bourgeois-workers’ parties” that was used to describe the patriotic Social Democrats. This is how Lenin’s International came to demand that the British communists should join the "Labour" Party!

[iii] Marxist Worker, no 1, 1979, ’25 years of Struggle: Our History’.

[iv]Part of an intervention at the meeting of the General Council of the IWA in May 1872.

[v]The predominance of relative surplus value over absolute value was one of the essential characteristics of what Marx called “the real domination of capital.”

MAOISMO: IDEOLOHIYA NG DESPERADONG PETI-BURGES

Ilang beses na naming sinagot batay sa marxistang paraan at laman ang mga pang-iinsulto at walang laman na pang-aatake ng mga maoista sa aming blog. Malinaw ito sa mga marxistang mambabasa at maging sa mga nag-aaral ng marxismo.

Sa kabila ng katotohanan na ang maoismo (at Maoism-thirdworldism) ay napatunayan na sa kasaysayan (sa teorya at praktika) na hindi kabilang sa kampo ng marxismo kundi nasa kampo ng Kaliwa ng kapital, marami pa rin sa mga kabataan laluna ang galing sa peti-burges na uri ang naniniwala dito dahil sa kanyang nakabibighaning “nasyunalismo”, “pagmamahal sa bayan” at sa kanyang sagad-saring pagkamuhi sa bansang Estados Unidos.

Sa anong kondisyon lumitaw ang maoismo?

Dahil sa panibagong pandaigdigang krisis na sinagot ng pandaigdigang malawakang kilusang welga ng mga manggagawa sa buong mundo sa sinimulan sa Pransya noong 1968, nagkukumahog ang bawat kapitalistang mga bansa na maghanap ng solusyon sa krisis – patindihin ang mga digmaan sa ngalan ng nasyunalismo at kompetisyon sa mas kumikipot na pandaigdigang pamilihan.

Dahil ang imperyalistang USSR ay kailangang patindihin ang kontrol at pagsasamantala sa kanyang mga tutang rehimen sa Eastern Europe at sa China, pumalag ang China at maging ang Yugoslavia sa ilalim ni Tito. Pero mas determinado ang China sa ilalim ni Mao dahil sa mas matindi ang kahayukan nito na maging imperyalistang bansa din.

Ito ang katangian ngayon ng lahat ng mga bansa sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo magmula 1914: lahat ng mga bansa (maliit o malaki, mahina o malakas, atrsado o abante) ay may tendensya at katangiang imperyalista. Lahat sila ay nagnanais na makontrol o maungusan ang ibang mga bansa para isalba ang kani-kanilang pambansang kapital sa rumaragasang permanenteng krisis ng sistema. Ang imperyalismo ay hindi lamang polisiya ng isa o ilang mga bansa; ito ay polisiya ng lahat ng mga kapitalistang bansa.

At nakahanap nga ang China ng paraan: gawing “unibersal” na teorya ang digmaang bayan kung saan ang linyang militar na ginamit ni Mao sa panahon ng digmaang Tsino-Hapon sa WW 2 ay ginawang “prinsipyo” at “pandaigdigang estratehiya” ng “marxismo-leninismo sa panahon ng imperyalismo”.

Kaya mula sa isang simpleng estratehiyang militar, ang estratehiyang “sakupin ang kalungsuran mula sa kanayunan” ay naging “teorya ng ikatlong daigdig” na pinangunahan ni Lin Biao, ang isa sa mga ultra-kaliwa na disipulo ni Mao. Ang linya ng “teorya ng ikatlong daigdig” ay: durugin ang unang daigdig mula sa ikatlong daigdig. Ibig sabihin, paalon-alon na mag-alsa ang mga “mamamayan ng ikatlong daigdig laban sa imperyalismo” sa pamamagitan ng mga “digmaan ng pambansang pagpapalaya”.

Nasyunalismo ang “shabu” ng mga maoista na binibigay sa uring manggagawa at mahihirap na mamamayan sa ikatlong daigdig. Ganito ka desperado ang mga peti-burges na naiipit sa krisis ng kapitalismo.

Maoism-Thirdwordism: rurok ng desperasyon ng mga maoista

Ng bumagsak ang imperyalistang USSR at pumasok sa yugto ng pagkaagnas ang pandaigdigang dekadenteng kapitalismo, ganap ng bumagsak ang ideolohiyang nasyunalismo at ang akit ng digmaan sa pambansang pagpapalaya.

Ang desperadong mga elementong maoista ay naghahanap na naman ng “bagong” teorya ng maoismo para muling moldehin ang kanilang bangkarotang ideolohiya. At eureka! nakita nga nila: wala ng uring manggagawa sa 1st world maliban sa mga immigrants galing sa 3rd world. Ang mga manggagawa diumano sa malalaking imperyalistang mga bansa ay naging burgesya na at kaaway na ng mga manggagawa sa 3rd world!

Ito ang rurok na naabot ng kahibangan (na pinagmayabang nilang “syensa”) ng mga maoista na kumakapit ngayon sa ideolohiyang Maoism-thirdworldism. Sa totoo lang, di naman sila ang orihinal ng pananaw na ito ng thirdworldism kundi si Professor Marcuse, isang burges na guro noong 1960s na nagsasabing nasanib na ang uring manggagawa sa burgesya kaya ang pag-asa ng rebolusyon ay nasa mga mamamayan na ng 3rd world.  

Ni katiting na hibo, ang maoismo ay hindi nakabatay sa makauring tunggalian at sa marxismo kundi sa burges na nasyunalismo. Ang nasyunalismo ng malalaking imperyalistang mga bansa ay tinumbasan lamang ng nasyunalismo ng malilit na mga bansa.

Paano ba ito isinakongkreto ng mga maoista?

Una, kinilala nilang alyado o kaibigan ang lahat ng mga bansa at grupo na lumalaban sa USA. Hindi nakabatay sa makauring paninindigan, alyado at kaibigan ng mga maoista ang mga pambansang burgesya at “maliliit” na imperyalista na anti-US. Kaya nga dapat hamunin ang mga maoista sa Pilipinas kung ano ang paninindigan nila sa imperyalistang Iran at Jordan, sa mga tuta nitong Iraqi resistance, Hizbollah at Hamas; ano ang paninindigan ng maoismo sa anti-US na si Saddam Hussien (na binitay na ng US); ano ang paninindigan nila sa grupong Al-Qaeda ni Osama Bin Laden at maging sa ginagawa ngayon ng North Korea. 

Hindi usapin ng uri at makauring paninindigan, kahit sino at kahit anong grupo basta laban sa Amerika, para sa maoismo sila ay alyado at kaibigan ng “rebolusyon”.

Pangalawa, kaaway ng mga maoista ang mga manggagawa sa 1st world dahil hindi nila ito kinikilala na kabilang sa uri. Kaya hinihikayat nila ang mga manggagawa sa 3rd world kabilang na ang immigrant workers na hindi kilalaning kapatid sa uri ang mga manggagawa sa 1st world kundi kaaway! Ang marxistang paninindigan na “Manggagawa sa buong mundo, Magkaisa!” ay pinalitan nila ng isang kontra-rebolusyonaryo at mapanghating panawagan: manggagawa sa ikatlong daigdig, labanan ang mga manggagawa sa unang daigdig!

Ito ang malinaw na halimbawa kung paanong ang maoismo ay anti-marxismo at kontra-rebolusyonaryo. Itutulak lamang ng maoismo sa pagkatalo ang komunistang rebolusyon ng mga manggagawa sa buong daigdig!

Ang maoismo at ang Ultra-kanan na mga peti-burges sa Kanluran at Gitnang Silangan

Dahil hindi nakabatay sa marxismo at makauring tunggalian, walang kaibahan ang maoismo sa mga ultra-kanan na organisasyon sa Kanluran at Gitnang Silangan.

May pagkakaiba ba ito sa praktika ng mga maoista? WALA. Habang nanggalaiti sila sa galit sa mga manggagawa sa Kanluran, abalang-abala naman sila sa pakikipag-alyado sa burges na oposisyon sa 3rd world. Habang kaaway ang turing nila sa mga kapatid na manggagawa sa 1st world kaibigan naman nila ang isang paksyon ng burgesya na malinaw na nagsasamantala sa mga manggagawa sa kani-kanilang mga bansa! Ito ang mukha ng maoismo!

Ano ba ang kaibahan ng pananaw ng mga maoista sa ultra-kanan sa Kanluran. WALA at magkatulad pa nga ang layunin – hatiin at pag-awayin ang mga manggagawa sa 3rd at 1st worlds — subalit nasa magkabilang dulo lamang. Habang ang mga maoista ay nagtatanim ng galit sa mga manggagawa sa 3rd world laban sa kanilang mga kapatid sa 1st world, ang mga ultra-kanan naman sa Kanluran ay nagtatanim ng galit sa mga manggagawa sa 1st world laban sa mga kapatid nito sa 3rd world.

Kung ang linya ng mga maoista ay kakutsaba ang mga manggagawa sa 1st world sa kani-kanilang mga imperyalistang bansa sa pagsasamantala sa 3rd world, ang linya naman ng ultra-kanan sa Kanluran ay ang mga immigrant workers mula sa 3rd world ang dahilan kung bakit walang trabaho at naghihirap ang mga manggagawa sa 1st world. 

Ang hindi alam ng mga peti-burges na ito ay ang uring manggagawa sa buong mundo ay mga immigrants. Ang uring manggagawa ayon sa kanilang kasaysayan ay galing sa uring magsasaka na pinahirapan ng pyudalismo at pumunta sa kalungsuran upang alipinin ng mga kapitalista. Malaking mayorya ng mga manggagawa sa 1st world kung baybayin ang kanilang kasaysayan mula 1600s ay galing sa iba’t-ibang mga bansa na kontrolado ng bumabagsak na pyudal na sistema. Ang mga ninuno ng mga manggagawa ngayon sa 1st world ay mga immigrants!

Subalit bulag na ang mga maoista sa pag-aaral ng kasaysayan at pagkawing nito sa kasalukuyan. Ganun din ang ultra-kanan sa Kanluran. Ayaw man direktang tanggapin ng mga maoist-thirdworldist, katulad sila ng ultra-kanan: naghahasik ng racism at panghahati sa uring manggagawa.

Dahil sa baluktot at kontra-rebolusyonaryong katangian ng maoismo, standing ovation ang palakpak nito sa bawat Amerikanong namamatay sa suicide bombings ng mga panatikong islamista habang hindi man lang natin nababasa sa kanilang mga pahayag ang pagpuri sa mga welga ng mga manggagawa sa Kanluran para ipagtanggol ang kanilang kabuhayan.

All wage labour is exploitation

After a six-year campaign the TUC and the CBI, with government prompting, have recently agreed that 1.4 million temporary and agency workers should, after 12 weeks, have equal rights with full-time and permanent workers. Dave Prentis, the TUC President, said that "This is good news for agency workers, particularly those in workplaces where low pay, long hours and exploitation are the norm" and that "The abuse of temporary agency workers is a shameful relic of another age".

In a report for the TUC on ‘vulnerable workers’ there was shock that "employment practices attacked as exploitative in the 19th century are still common today". It highlighted "extreme abuse of the rights of migrant workers, including levels of exploitation and control that meet the international legal definition of forced labour." It gave the examples of "employers illegally retaining workers’ passports, threats or actual physical violence to workers and debt bondage - where a worker is forced to pay off debts accrued by inflated accommodation and food costs and is not therefore paid for their work."

Speaking of an earlier study, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said "Too many unscrupulous bosses are getting rich by exploiting migrant workers", but "Unions are working hard to recruit migrant workers to protect them from rogue employers who seek to deny their workers a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay." After all, "exploitation is not necessary for the operation of the British economy".

We work in order to live

The "good news" for agency and temporary workers is something that the TUC hope to bring to other ‘vulnerable workers’ (migrant workers, home workers, informal workers, younger workers, unpaid family workers etc). By acquiring the rights of permanent workers it is implied that they will no longer be so shamefully exploited.

With the growth of part-time, temporary, illegal and other precarious forms of employment there are an increasing number of people who find themselves in insecure, hyper-pressurised or otherwise dodgy working situations. ‘Exploited’ is a word commonly used to describe workers who work in the worst conditions. From a marxist understanding of the relationship of the working class to its capitalist employers, all wage labour - no matter what conditions it takes place in, whether it’s don