We wish to start with some reflections with respect to the current situation of the productive forces in order to align the role of the vanguard of the working class in confrontation with the bourgeois, revisionist and opportunist postulates trying to undermine the historical universal role of the proletariat in distracting this production system.
Some time ago, a Maoist activist said: “Let us hurry up with organising the proletariat before we shall have to do so with the robots!” It is obvious that the bourgeois influence on that comrade made itself felt although he preserves his preoccupation with revolutionary activity. However, we cannot really afford to forget the matter and to formally ascribe it to simple bourgeois influence. Hidden behind it is a real symptom intelligently used by the enemy camp. It is not a simple propagandist swindle but a fact distorted by the bourgeois interest. We might call it a mystification of the current development of the productive forces, and of course, we cannot content ourselves with simply understanding the matter and with then considering it closed. It is evident that with respect to it, already enough has been written. We have to understand it in view of the execution of a programme (what is normal in every ideological position), of a practice in accordance with our conclusions adjusted to reality.
Marxism is to prove correct with respect to new symptoms of production. Thus, such symptoms usually are projected onto all facets of society and, in this manner, Marxism proves in confrontation with theories and conceptions emerging within the bourgeois camp with respect to the new symptoms. Declarations that Marxism-Leninism will overcome them do not suffice. It is necessary to demonstrate such superiority in conflict. In this way only, our theory will continue to develop.
We are far from any intellectualist pretension. For our party, this problem involves necessary and unavoidable conclusions for revolutionary activity. For this reason, we have really to scrape the barrel.
What is this new situation, and what role corresponds to the working class in it?
Without any doubt, we are referring ourselves to the scientific technical revolution which is executed in the present day and age, and which has changed the physiognomy of capitalism somewhat (certainly for aggravating its contradictions). We refer to the development of robotics, electronics, informatics, to the creation of intermediary disciplines in the sciences (cybernetics, biochemistry, biophysics etc.) and to the new advances of mechanisation and fuels which have changed the aspect of capitalism by profounding the division of labour, developing the productive forces and thus increasing the social product during the last 40 years, which resulted in the arise of new branches of productive activities and in proletarization not of thousands but of millions of human beings.
This phenomenon is contemplated with great ecstasy by the capitalists who took their own conclusions from it, even more due to the decline of the capitalist-revisionist bloc led by the ex-USSR. For the bourgeoisie, all is resumed more or less in the following:
“The human ideological fight is replaced by economic calculation, the interminable solution of technical problems, the environmental matters and the satisfaction of the consumers’ complex demands.” (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History?)
There is one aspect which always must fail to be noticed by the lovers of the capitalist system and by those enthused about the (nevertheless) limited scientific-technical revolution of capitalism - a revolution seen by them as something “out of control” and as “proper nature” of the system. This aspect is the fact that, within the vulgar dialectics of the bourgeois sciences, they have embedded the most clumsy metaphysics regarding the paralysation of thinking in the current orbit of bourgeois thinking, in the intellectual reproduction of the production relations as being eternal and immutable. The exploitation and suppression relations are for them something always given and immutable, not subject to changes. The only thing subject to change is the reinforcement of the enslaving chains between human beings, so that, in the item of ideas, such relations are not to be given up but have always to be governed by the patterns of the bourgeois interest for all the facets of life. In the item of ideas, the only thing being variable (according to them) is the degree of bourgeois degeneration and the number of tricks grabbed by the capitalists in order to exploit the employees. For thinking which follows this bourgeois conception, the really existing matters are: no qualitative changes for the production relations; no possibilities of alteration in any way which would not be bourgeois. As we see, these gentlemen are, with body and soul, obedient servants to the Lord who dashed all other Gods to the ground. And they recommend us that:
“Those who believe that future must inevitably be socialist have a tendency towards being very old or very marginal for the real political discourse (...); the end of history inaugurates the post-historical period where neither arts nor philosophy will be, except for the perpetual validity of the museum of human history.” (ibid.)
Sufficient rubbish is what the technocrats talk, isn’t it? Let us give them the cold shoulder, humanity will have enough time for making fun of their follies or for further not taking note of them unless with contempt.
Mr. Fukuyama is rather late or, in any case, he is not the first. The capitalists have always used the whole technical development for perpetuating their rule without further getting ready for thinking that they, behind such development, are preparing the ground for digging their own graves when recruiting enormous contingents of the huge crowd of the most radical class of the capitalist system. The capitalists fail to understand that they, just in modern production, are disciplining the class which is the less interested in preserving the current social relations, the productive class, the class without which they would not have been able to establish this giant rule, the class without which they cannot maintain their own rule for longer than just a minute. The capitalists seem to account to themselves neither for the enormous example they give the workers nor for the capability of the productive forces nor for the lack of necessity of their own presence as exploiting class for a really humane development. Because the capitalists have always accepted the idea that the scientific-technical development “is a self-sufficient process provoking a social revolution of the property relations in a totally independent manner.” (N.A. Tsagolov, Critique of the Reformist and Revisionist Economic Theories of the Contemporary Bourgeoisie). Thus, when arriving at this point, we cannot help examining in summary the reasons of the scientific-technical development which have already been identified by the classical authors of Marxism-Leninism.
The founders of the scientific theory of the class struggle said:
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist unless under the condition of incessantly revolutionising the production instruments and, in consequence, the production relations and, with this, all relations. (...) A continuous revolution in production, an incessant commotion of all social conditions, a restlessness and a constant movement distinguish the bourgeois era from all prior eras. (...) People will, in the event, be forced to clearly consider their own conditions of existence and their mutual relations.” (Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto)
The capitalists do not commit faux pas; they are not guided by any noble interest of improving the conditions of life and work for the masses unless redoubling the exploitation in order to extract an increased surplus value from them and to not run into the danger of being replaced by any competitors. Therefore, although not at every moment, they promote the development of the means of production and the qualification and maximum performance of the workforce and they avail themselves of the best qualities of their technical, scientific, administrative personnels and of the working class’ experience in work in order to increase the production in a constant shape (although limited by competition, market and control over the sciences by monopolies for every specific period of the cyclic life of capitalism).
Production is not controlled in accordance with the “general” aims integrating the human race but by particular aims of those who hold the means and instruments of production in their hands. Private property serves for increasing the private property only.
But what is it that has prepared the ground for starting the means and methods of production? Is it nothing but a question of intellect, experience and provisions for not losing?
“Firstly, we must not forget that a great market, an extensive capitalist base in production is prerequisite; secondly, a wide and complex effort of co-operation in working is prerequisite.” (Karl Marx, The Capital, vol.1)
And thirdly, such co-operation is not really possible unless on the base of high concentration and centralisation of capital. The most modern means and methods of production require, on a large scale, major capital expenditure starting out on the anticipation that profits will be gained and that it will be possible to maintain the production. The problem that the new means and methods of production might not get their way definitely and absolutely with the desired impact consists in the enormous quantity of resources implied by this fact, in the large extent of the precedent machinery and, logically, in the capitalists’ interest.
Robotization, automation, computerisation and innovation of other - accompanying or separate - processes and methods of production necessitate high concentration and centralisation of capital resources at an international level in order to prevail definitely after having secured their predominance and indispensable efficiency, after having “exhausted” the other forms of exploitation and after the steps into offensive, co-ordinated action having become indispensable.
The most important conditions for technical revolution, and from now on, are as follows:
“By destroying the general bases of the capitalist system, the accumulation process comes always to a point where the increment of the productivity of socially working is converted into the most powerful lever of accumulation (the only purpose of the way of capitalist production).
(...) The mass of means of production with which a worker is working will increase with the increase of the productivity of his work. The means of production here play a double role. The increment of the ones is effect, the increment of the others is the determining condition of the increasing productivity of work.
(...) By increasing the mass of richness which operates as capital, he increases its concentration in the hands of the individual capitalists and, by doing so, the base for production on large scale and for the specifically capitalist methods of production.” (Karl Marx, The Capital, vol.1)
The result consists in an advance in the degree and intensity of exploitation of the workers by the capital and in an increment of the mass of benefits in the hands of the lord of capital. Such scientific revolution we shall gear ourselves mentally for as our liberation within the frame of capitalism will become the contrary of liberation, will strengthen our fetters and demonstrate us the fact that, whilst we ignore their nature as class, whilst we forget the matter of private property of the means of production and thus the matter of power, the shaping of the class interests for the proletariat and for all exploited and suppressed masses will ever stay pending till kingdom come.
They say that Marx’ saying has a more certain value for our period than for the period in which it was said. This includes a very truth insofar as capitalism has exactly gone the way Marx exposed and anticipated capitalism would go. But we will not surrender to subjectivism believing that Marx had orientated himself by seeing things only which did not yet exist. Here we have to operate with care and to preserve the essence of Marx’ contributions, the study and application of dialectics which served him for discovering the general laws of capitalism and its future implications. It is the same laws we can find excellently described in The Capital, in the chapter about the original accumulation where Marx said:
“(...) In parallel to this centralisation or exploitation of a huge number of capitalists by some few ones, on a larger and larger scale, the co-operative formation of the work process is developing, as well as are developing: the conscient technological application of science, the methodical exploitation of the earth, the transformation of the means of working into means which can only be used jointly, and the economy of all means of production in order to be used as means of production of combined work, of socially working, the linking of all peoples by the net of world market and, as a consequence of this, the international character of the capitalist order.”
Okay, up to here, we may agree on the bases of modern capitalist production, on the fact that it has been the working class which maintains capitalist production. But “from now on in future”, all depends whether we will reach agreement on the protagonist role of proletariat in these new conditions of production.
For the capitalists and their henchmen, the scientific-technical revolution which has formed a further chain link in the production concerning the direction of the production process known as automation (although this is not the only link it has formed) fully brings the bourgeois conclusion to light that this chain link will be capable of eliminating the class antagonisms without eliminating the classes. That means: capable of attenuating the contradiction between capital and work, capable of changing the proletarian radicalism by “new” production relations where efficiency, effectivity and productivity are all and where the class interests of the proletariat are a throw-away article, in addition to erecting this revolution as if it has already announced its arrival in a self-regulated process beyond the laws of capitalism and beyond the activity of the working class, beyond the supposed loss of the proletariat’s protagonist role for a revolutionary transformation of society, this loss allegedly being caused by the said process and by the potentiality of the modern means of production.
Exactly the opposite is the case:
“(...) The scientific-technical revolution, which requires a much higher quality in working, objectively heightens the role of the working class in production, in the whole system of social relations. By the progress of science and technics, workers with new skills and qualifications as well as employees and other persons of intellectual work are counted among the proletariat.” (Statement of the USSR, “The Scientific-Technical Revolution and the Contradictions of Capitalism”)
The proletariat does not only continue being within the production process but continues being protagonist, too. The more modern the appliances employed in the production process are, the less they are worth unless actuated by their creators.
What is it that has changed by this scientific-technical revolution, and in what direction did it change?
There is no doubt that the increment of the human capacities for satisfying the man’s needs in controlling the natural force is changing, and the direction is shown by the daily demonstration that the more intolerable the current social relations of production are the more they result in becoming backward and barbaric.
In his book “Work and Monopolist Capital”, H. Braverman convincingly explains:
“The evolution of machinery from its primitive forms by which simple rigid marks replace the hand as guidance instruments for the movement of tools up to such modern complexes where the whole process is guided from start till result by forces which are not only mechanical but also electrical, chemical and of other physical type. This evolution may be described as an increase of human control over the action of tools. These tools are controlled in their activities as extensions of the sense organs, and this fact is reached by an increase of the human comprehension of the properties involved, in other words by the increase of scientific control over physical principles.”
Men give their machines a “programme” always corresponding to the reached degree of development. Such programme can only be surpassed by productive activity, by concentrated studies on the production process, studies which can be performed by men only, never by machines. A self-regulating process can exist to such extent only where those who participate in such process are human beings out of flesh and blood, with own ideas and desires and in a situation confronted with the relations of production; or rather robots are not at all able to solve the problem for us since they are also subject to human programmes with limits, surpassed by human beings only, and with “motoric levers” which are human, too. It is the working people who dominate the natural world, and the most modern machines will be a kind of synthesis of their progress in dominating the sciences and, consequently as it must be, the natural forces. The only beings created by men and capable of surpassing them are human beings, too. And the men’s productive activity cannot be performed unless subordinated not only to the achieved development but also to the variability of their needs and interests and to the variability of their desires. Therefore, every attempt of subjugating them to a productive order in which simple calculations or simple results of a programmed activity of a determined instrument of production govern might be nothing but the implantation of a system independent on human liberties. This is, in its core, one of the objectives of such ideas as described in “The Holy Family”:
“Where is then the positive possibility of emancipation residing?
Answer: in the formation of a class with radical chain, of a class of bourgeois society which is not a class of bourgeois society, of a state which is the disintegration of all states, of a sphere which has a universal character by its universal sufferings and which does not claim any special right for itself because no special offence is committed against it unless the pure and simple offence, which can not yet refer to a historical title unless, simply, to the human title, which is not formed by any kind of one-sided contrast with the consequences unless by the all-round contrast with the prerequisites for any state, of a sphere, at last, which cannot emancipate itself from all other spheres of society without, at the same time, emancipating all them, which is, with one word, the total loss of man and which, therefore, only can win itself by total recovery of man. Such disintegration of society as a special class is the proletariat.”
In the proletariat, there exist the material qualities of the class in complete dis-harmony with this capitalist harmony but, obviously, the problem is not summarised by describing the material conditions unless being linked up with the complex elements of social order or, more exactly, of subjective order.
The current stage of struggle is characterised by insistent efforts of reconsolidating the hegemony of the bourgeois dictatorship in our country without great difficulties. The capitalists succeeded in establishing a complex of economic-political elements (economic “recuperation”, domestication of the Zapatists, political reform, constitutional reforms, improvement of the relations between the power groups, control by the workers etc.) which make it possible for them to maintain their rule once more free from troublesome incidents and difficulties originated by the actions of the masses who, calling for an answer to their most sensible demands, churn their way through the streets. Even with this relative control, the regime was coerced into intensifying a process of fascistization in order to exterminate, legally or illegally, secretly or openly, every symptom of revolt or non-conformity (for instance by a swing to the extreme right in the official discourse, the reforms and their fascistic results, the restrictions of press, radio and television, the aggressiveness of the organisations of “patrons” (corporative employers) and “charros” (iridescent landowners) against a demobilised working class and the lack of actual political rights for the working class etc.).
For how long will the bourgeoisie preserve such situation? We do not know. It depends on various elements: namely, on the irruption of the proletariat into the scenarios of mass struggle as revolutionary vanguard, on the consolidation of a real national convergence of popular opposition against the regime with the aim of unity in struggle and unity in action, on the fortification of a revolutionary pole with determinations of strategic character backed up by an alliance between workers and peasants and leading the movement to actions of major range, on the radicalisation of demand platforms and of the discourses till now claimed by the social democracy and the revisionism, and, above all, on the efforts we communists make in order to comply with our task in constructing and consolidating the Communist Marxist-Leninist Party on national level and in bringing it to the top of a broad revolutionary movement of the masses of the workers, peasants and of the people.
Under these conditions, the party is confronted with the realisation of tasks of organisational, practical and theoretical kind in order to undermine the strength of capitalism.
It is sure that our party does not dispose of a great influence within the working class and especially within the industrial proletariat. Thus, it is necessary that the ensemble of our party masters this great difficulty. It is necessary that we fight in order to become stronger in the fundamental sectors of the working class, in its neuralgic centres, in order to raise the class struggle onto decisive battles for the communist revolution. That must be the central issue of our policy, and all efforts of our party must be dedicated to this central issue. We have to stop erecting monuments for revolution and must concentrate ourselves upon the fundamental objective of the movement. This is because every aspiration of consolidating the revolution will be in vain and alienate us more and more from victory unless we comply with the main task of connecting everyone of the networks for revolutionary activity.
Under what conditions must the party deal with the tasks in the face of the class?
There is no doubt that the party is the vanguard detachment of the proletariat by forming its programme, by claiming to revolution and communism, by claiming to Marxism-Leninism and defending it, and by realising a constant work in order to raise the proletariat to its level of vanguard class. But there will be a long and difficult period of revolutionary activity between today when we might count on support within the proletariat and the time when this proletariat will have melted with its party.
The proletariat in Mexico is strongly dominated by the official “charrism” and corporatism, by the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie, and captivated by the nationalist, reformist, petty bourgeois, social democrat, economist, populist and other conceptions. In summary, there does not yet exist any political independence of the proletariat as class.
The party has to fight against this totality of the range of impediments. But it must know how to fight, and how to win. Knowing, in advance, that we will be faced with the enormous resistance of the aforementioned conceptions which are favoured, to a large extent, by the dynamic force of the spontaneous movement itself.
Stalin said:
“The Party cannot be a true party if it limits itself to registering what the masses of the working class feel and think, if it sucks up to their spontaneous movement, if it does not know how to defeat inertia and indifference of the spontaneous movement, if it does not know how to place itself above the momentary interests of the proletariat, if it does not know how to raise the masses to comprehension of the interests of the class of the proletariat.” (Fundamentals of Leninism)
And today, there are people who might say: “Stop listing all the illnesses, let us fight them down.” Oh no ... we must know the illness, prescribe the cure, fix the deadlines of the cure, obtain the medications necessary and sufficient for the cure, and put the cure into practice. On top of that, we have to know how to put the effective elements into action. We are responsible for carrying the cure through, we have permanently to evaluate the obtained results and to reckon on unexpected changes.
We do not allege, it is true, to simulate, or to make out as given facts, any apparent equality of circumstances or moments in a mechanical manner between the period of construction of the party in Zarist Russia and our period of today. But it is necessary to record the experience how the Bolsheviks managed the matters to construct their party and to connect it with the masses in order to adjust, where it is necessary, our tactics to the international communist experience at the period of imperialist decline and the concatenation of all revolutionary forces which live today. This is because there exist fundamental features of similarity in some of our tasks in spite of the fact that we, already from the beginning, have disposed of the party and a rich experience of working inherited by the international communist movement. Therefore, we maintain Lenin’s idea with respect to the tasks for a party with incipient influence with the proletariat as he described in his article “What Beginning With?” where he said:
“(...) The immediate task of our party cannot be appealing all the forces it reckons on for an offensive at the present moment unless inviting them to form a revolutionary organisation capable of uniting all the forces and of leading the movement not only nominally but in reality, that is: capable of always being ready to support every protest and every explosion by employing them in order to multiply and to fortify the troops which will be needed in the decisive battle.”
Without distancing ourselves from the class struggle, without demobilising the masses, without neglecting the skirmishes in which today the struggle is circumscribed, without underestimating all revolutionary activity, but, on the other hand, without flirting with revolution, without flirting with insurrection, without deluding the movement into thinking the tasks which it cannot today achieve with respect to its weakness or which strategically will result in being counter productive for it, we must conscientiously work by constructing the party, by constructing its instruments of struggle, by anchoring the proletarian consciousness within the masses, by getting the proletariat out of the strong influence it has been subjugated by so many decades of opportunism, of bourgeois nationalism and dependence on all the fake. We must work by consolidating the alliances, by extending the organisational network of the party within a whole series of tasks with the aim of accumulating our forces and of connecting ourselves with the masses.
Solely a political party of the working class which will keep the perspective of conquesting the power in mind, which will look in the direction of the most adequate strategies and tactics, which will always obtain the maximum of favourable results arising from every period of struggle, solely such party which will cast its eyes on its class, which encourages the class, which will observe and foment the political development of the class, which will guide the class and know how to be its best organised weapon, its general staff in the battle, such party only will be the party for which the most committed revolutionaries will be willing to give their best efforts. Such party only, relentlessly fighting against opportunism, hard-line with its principles, permanently active, melted with the masses, will be capable of making a big step forward with the banner of revolution, A party, however, losing sight of the perspective will become immersed in the quagmire of betrayal or will become a victim of “eventualities”. A party which will bet on harmony between suppressers and suppressed will immediately convert itself into a mate of our bosses.
Let us touch upon some fundamental ideas of our present activities. Firstly, we have to point out that within the masses of the proletariat (even within the most advanced detachments of it) the idea of the party, the reality of capitalism, the problems of revolution and construction of communism did not put down roots. That is due to the native and international revisionists, to the social democrats and to the bourgeoisie -and to our irresponsibility, too, as we are without any systematic plan of shaking the masses out of their political backwardness, due to our present lack of reliability in doing the workers’ work and to our schematic methods, pottering about and not at all once in a blue moon clearly far away from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism, apart from our poor going up to the masses.
Let us look at a fundamental question. In what has, according to Lenin, the work of the communists to consist?
“(...) in making propaganda about the doctrines of scientific socialism, in broadcasting a correct image, among the workers, about the economic-social system of today, about its fundamentals and its development, about the different classes of Russian society, about their mutual relations, about the struggle of those classes against one another, about the role of the working class in that struggle, its attitude towards such classes which are in decay and towards such classes which are in development, its attitude towards the past and future of capitalism, about the historical task of international social democracy (read: international communism - note of the author) and of the Russian working class. Inextricably linked to propaganda is agitation among the workers. (...) Agitation among the workers consists in the fact that the social democrats (read: communists -note of the author) participate in all spontaneous manifestations of the struggle of the working class, in all conflicts between the workers and capitalists for reasons of the working day, of the salary, of the working conditions, etc.” (The Tasks of the Russian Social Democracy)
We dare not talk about the issue whether this presentation has really been understood or not, much less about the difficulties in its realisation.
For many years, the party was faced with enormous difficulties in putting its press in order, something which is vital for bringing its ideas to its class. No activist must be satisfied with the present state of our press. No matter how much it might go beyond other publications (we are incompatible with any type of philosophy of misery), that must be motive of preoccupation and definition of resolutions, and at the moment, we shall refrain from its analysis, leaving it that this is a party problem which concerns the whole party. We have to say only that without any doubt, severe organisational problems and problems of assimilation of our theory are hidden behind that problem. Problems which have not been resolved till now because we do not at all assume an activist, bolshevist commitment. Cutting us loose from the influence of other social strata is not easy for us, and we have many difficulties, at individual and collective levels, of resolving those problems. Moreover, till now we did not succeed in erecting a staff of communists who, in a concentrated manner, dedicate themselves to the workers’ work and the efforts of direction. Even we have no cadres who might be well-equipped with the ideological, political, organisational and practical weapons. Therefore, the party has to make resolutions aimed at getting such cadres. The party disposes of the mechanism but fails to dedicate efforts in order to start them up.
On general level, the party has, during its entire history, pointed out that we are in need of anchoring ourselves within the working class but, particularly or actually, such activity has always been limited because the party had neither the capacity nor the boldness nor the commitment required by activism. And this fact hides another problem: We excuse ourselves under the idea that the guidelines “are highly general” and “do not explain” the details of work. Maybe, we wait for the elaboration of a manual! Definitely, communists have to reckon on their own initiative but under the Marxist-Leninist prerequisites. Even those who succeed in working amongst workers are far away from carrying out communist work. They dedicate themselves to solely doing “formalities”, “democratic syndical” work, without any touch of the objectives of the party. The more the masses are told about the revolution, but not about the tasks of revolution, the less they are given tasks leading to the revolutionary objective. In summary, we make a lukewarm policy with the aim that “nobody will be put off” or that “no split will be provoked”. We lose ourselves in practicism, forgetting or trying to forget this:
“Our task consists of connecting our activity with the practical, everyday problems of workers’ lives, of helping the workers get their way in such problems, of calling the workers; attention to the most important types of abuse they are subject to, of helping them express their claims more exactly and practically, of developing the awareness of the workers’ solidarity among them, the awareness of the community of interests and of the community of matter of all Russian workers as one class of workers which constitutes a part of the world army of the proletariat.” (Lenin, The Tasks of the Russian Social Democrats)
Though our material limitations are
overwhelming, the problem was and is an organisational one. Accustomed to
extremely restricted surroundings, we have become incapable of seizing wide
contingencies. Accustomed to move in cramped conditions, we are not able, in
free consideration and evaluation, to actuate all the factors which will help us
lessen our work. We will only be able to free ourselves from it to the same
extent as individual and collective responsibilities are assumed, to the same
extent as we are not afraid of the difficulties and as we meet the constructive
efforts of the party in actual tasks which will bring a certain benefit winning
the party’s confidence in its own forces and in the certainty of its
objectives. To the same extent as we work on actual tasks and as sensible
results rise out of our work, the party will, with more security and knowledge
of matters, be capable of projecting a more arduous activity.
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)