Marxist Theory and the Formal Party

In the introduction to his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx states that “the weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.”The entire Marxist theory of knowledge is contained in this single sentence.Lenin demonstrates a perfect understanding of this in What Is To Be Done?:“Indeed, no one, we think, has until now doubted that the strength of the present day movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative of the revolutionary leaders.”For Marxists, it’s not ideas that make history.We have our own way of looking at society.There’s a given way of managing the production and reproduction of daily life, dividing individuals into classes.The concept of class is already an abstraction, which Marx fully defined in Capital (Vol. 3), and which we have further clarified with our texts Party and Class and Party and Class Action.These classes, however, don’t decide to do particular things; they don’t have to be collectively conscious; they don’t have to “wake up.”In reality, even during a revolution, the majority of revolutionary workers won’t be theoretically conscious but will instead follow the party by instinct.In the Marxist conception, theory, historically, follows action, and action is motivated by necessity.Every class has certain economic interests, the realization of which is incompatible and irreconcilable with those of other classes. Not only that, a class can have many competing interests within itself, and often the immediate and long-term interests of the class are in conflict.Furthermore, a class may not be aware of its objective situation or what its economic interest truly is; and it might not conceive of a more adequate way to achieve the goal it has set for itself.As time passes, the difference in interests and objectives between classes will inevitably lead to conflicts. This succession of conflicts does not occur individually between people, but is understood within the broader conflict between two or more classes, some more organized than others.In these cases, classes are forced to enter into conflict with each other.At these moments, when conflict reaches its peak, “we see consciousness in embryonic form” (What Is To Be Done?). Here, the will of a class must be exercised, and decisions must be made.Insist or retreat? Play it safe and compromise, or risk it all and go for broke? Should one proceed with immediate interests or have the foresight to see what would be best in the long term? Does the class have the capacity to make this choice?As Engels said in The Peasant War in Germany:“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over the government at a time when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the realization of the measures which that domination would imply.”Then, and only then, can theory be a factor in the struggle; thus the existence of the party appears in its decisive importance. Real empirical evidence has shown what results stem from specific decisions and actions. This is our laboratory—real life. Here, real results can be derived from the world.“All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”(Theses on Feuerbach)At the same time, it is only practical experience that guides us toward what we need to study. A real need drives us to seek a solution. An unexpected fact tells us that we need to thoroughly investigate a system. This applies to industry, mathematics, art, and above all, politics.This theory can then be crystallized into a class party. By transmitting these lessons, the class party is able to recall events and lessons from previous centuries. But it’s not just a collection of facts, because the class party isn’t a neutral observer. The Communist Party has also crystallized the interests of its class—the ultimate interest that will end class society; it therefore represents the interests of all humanity. It develops a theory not because it’s capable of being objective, but because it’s motivated not only to identify the ultimate goal, but to realize it.The class party is therefore able to use this theoretical knowledge to make decisions. Then, it can decide on certain actions based on the realization of these decisions. In this case, theory becomes a material force.“We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers.It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.”(Lenin, What Is To Be Done?)Here Lenin simultaneously makes two considerations: one historical, the other practical. Historically, the proletariat could not have obtained theory from its struggle. The working class alone is not capable of discovering or elaborating communist theory. Because the very formation of the workers’ party already foreshadows a communist theory. From where could this communist theory come if not from the communist party?Apparently from Marx and Engels. But in reality, the doctrine of the emancipation of the working class arose from a mass of historical, philosophical, and economic data, which were only waiting to be logically assembled. This was the fundamental work of Marx and Engels, a work of historical value. But Engels reminds us that others had approached modern communism, like Dietzgen, and that it was therefore a product that could not but emerge in the period when the capitalist system of production was expanding worldwide. Marx added something to the doctrine thus born, but this is not the place to discuss it.The doctrine had to emerge from the bourgeois philosophical tradition and from intellectuals, those who possessed science—the only one, the bourgeois one. But once this theory was formed, there was no longer any need to go back and start from scratch. We didn’t need to reinvent the wheel, because we had inherited it. And from that moment on, it was simply a matter of exporting the political party to workers in other countries.From that moment on, and subsequently, once the foundations have been laid, workers have the opportunity to acquire class consciousness, and the working class can simply experience the living doctrine of Marxism. We would never say that a proletarian lacks the tools to be a Marxist, nor do we think Lenin ever intended for the working class to remain outside its party. Anyone who dares to call us (and, by extension, Lenin) “educationists” is not worthy of being a disciple of Marxism.But this is not just a comment on how Marxism develops in a particular place, although this was certainly a very practical matter for Lenin. It’s a statement that also applies to us in practice today. The working class can achieve trade union consciousness on its own. The proletariat can learn to fight for its immediate interests, and experience tells them they need to be united. But the working class as a whole will never develop a theoretical doctrine. Without the political party, trade union consciousness will never allow workers to achieve their ultimate goal, communism.At the same time, the bourgeoisie develops its own ideology. They twist with half-truths. They push for compromise, deceive workers, lie, cheat, steal, slander. Even when they give crumbs (however grudgingly), they lead workers to draw the wrong lesson.So, in this case, trade union consciousness can simply lead to better workers, but within a better capitalism. In our text, The Tactical Question in the Texts and Teachings of the Left, published in 1975-1976, we stated, concerning the American workers’ movement:“What this means is that we cannot even speak of laborism or trade unionism in the historical sense of the term, but of trade unions that are more like ‘employment risk insurance agencies’ than real workers’ associations, at a very low level of trade union maturity.”In this case, therefore, trade union consciousness lacks much of its bite without a strong communist party. Workers only follow their immediate interests, but in a more attenuated way. Strikes are not an organized resistance demanding more. Rather, they are demanding the same wage, adjusted for inflation. The same regularly anticipated increase that the bourgeoisie, in its blind pursuit of immediate profits, neglected to give them. They are simply asking for their fair share. Workers are happy to see bourgeois politicians participate in their strike.Because for us, the struggle for immediate interests is based on two objectives: higher wages and more leisure time, which are simply better ways of living, even if we’re not entirely satisfied with them.But most importantly, the struggle for immediate interests is a preparation for the struggle for final interests. We don’t think every strike is a mini-revolution, but a strike is a training ground for worker solidarity and for practical experience, not only against the boss, but also for overcoming racial, gender, and political divides; not to mention the testing and unmasking of collaborationist leaders. Therefore, not struggles in court with stamped papers, but genuine class activity that demonstrates what needs to be done. In practice, it will be demonstrated to workers what the best way is to achieve their goals, and that the pursuit of immediate interests is not enough.But this can only happen through close contact with the class communist party, which applies a rigorous communist doctrine.In The Mass Strike, Chapter VIII, Rosa Luxemburg writes:“As a matter-of-fact the separation of the political, and the economic struggle and the independence of each, is nothing but an artificial product of the parliamentarian period, even if historically determined. On the one hand in the peaceful, ‘normal’ course of bourgeois society, the economic struggle is split into a multitude of individual struggles in every undertaking and dissolved in every branch of production. On the other hand the political struggle is not directed by the masses themselves in a direct action, but in correspondence with the form of the bourgeois state, in a representative fashion, by the presence of legislative representation. As soon as a period of revolutionary struggle commences, that is, as soon as the masses appear on the scene of conflict, the breaking up the economic struggle into many parts, as well as the indirect parliamentary form of the political struggle ceases; in a revolutionary mass action the political struggle ceases; in a revolutionary mass action the political and economic struggle are one, and the artificial boundary between trade union and social democracy as two separate, wholly independent forms of the labour movement, is simply swept away. But what finds concrete expression in the revolutionary mass movement finds expression also in the parliamentary period as an actual state of affairs. There are not two different class struggles of the working class, an economic and a political one, but only one class struggle, which aims at one and the same time at the limitation of capitalist exploitation within bourgeois society, and at the abolition of exploitation together with bourgeois society itself.[…]Second, the German trade-unions are a product of social democracy also in the sense that social democratic teaching in the soul of trade-union practice, as the trade-unions owe their superiority over all bourgeois and denominational trade-unions to the idea of the class struggle; their practical success, their power, is a result of the circumstance that their practice is illuminated by the theory of scientific socialism and they are thereby raised above the level of a narrow-minded socialism. The strength of the “practical policy” of the German trade-unions lies in their insight into the deeper social and economic connections of the capitalist system; but they owe this insight entirely to the theory of scientific socialism upon which their practice is based. Viewed in this way, any attempt to emancipate the trade-unions from the social democratic theory in favour of some other ‘trade-union theory’ opposed to social democracy, is, from the standpoint of the trade-unions themselves and of their future, nothing but an attempt to commit suicide. The separation of trade-union practice from the theory of scientific socialism would mean to the German trade-unions the immediate loss of all their superiority over all kinds of bourgeois trade-unions, and their fall from their present height to the level of unsteady groping and mere dull empiricism.Thirdly and finally, the trade-unions are, although their leaders have gradually lost sight of the fact, even as regards their numerical strength, a direct product of the social democratic movement and the social democratic agitation.[…]The immediate interests of his economic struggle which are conditioned by the nature of the struggle itself cannot be advanced in any other way than by membership of a trade-union organisation. The contribution which he pays, often amidst considerable sacrifice of his standard of living, bring him immediate, visible results. His social democratic inclinations, however, enable him to participate in various kinds of work without belonging to a special party organisation; by voting at parliamentary elections, by attendance at social democratic public meetings, by following the reports of social democratic speeches in representatives bodies, and by reading the party press.”