|
Class Struggles and the Revolutionary
Party
1964
First Chapter
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
FORMATION AND THE
REVOLUTIONARY PARTY
Without a
Revolutionary Theory,
There Can Be no
Revolutionary
Movement
Capital’s Scientific
Methodology
The Skeleton and
Body of Marxist
Analysis
From Capital to the
Leninist Party
The Party, the
Science's Point of
Arrival
The Political
Description of
Social Relations
The Materialist
Formation of
Political
Consciousness
Poetical
Consciousness
Brought From the
Outside
The Science
Circulated and
Recognized Through
Action
The Revolutionary
Strategy in the
Economic Process
Political Analysis
as Social Analysis
The Science of die
Revolution
Without a
Revolutionary Theory,
There Can Be no
Revolutionary
Movement
Lenin affirmed that
without a
revolutionary theory,
there can be no
revolutionary
movement. His
statement seems
simple, but, in
reality, it is
anything but that
since the
revolutionary theory
is more complex than
it may seem to a
formal reading of
Lenin's political
texts. Leninist
theory is, precisely,
the outcome of a
profound scientific
analysis of social
reality. And, at the
same time, it is a
class instrument for
acting in a
historically
determined society's
economic structures
and political
superstructures. If
we study the
Leninist concept of
the party, we
immediately find
ourselves faced with
revolutionary theory
as Marxist science.
That is, we are
faced with the issue
of the scientific
foundations of
political action. In
other words, it is
not possible to
understand the
Leninist concept of
the party unless one
understands the
entire scientific
analysis of the
economic structure
that constitutes -
in Marx and Lenin -
its base. Removed
from its scientific
platform, the
Leninist concept of
the party would
appear to be a
monument - perhaps
even a gigantic one
- to political will.
It would be a
monument to the
theory of power, to
the theory of
organization, but it
would be a monument
without a pedestal.
This explains why
formal acceptance of
some Leninist theses
still does not
represent the
assimilation of the
revolutionary theory.
That is, it does not
represent
assimilation of the
general scientific
concept that is
Leninism's
foundation.
Consequently, the
Leninist concept of
the party is the
result of a Marxist
economic analysis
and without applying
this latter, we
cannot reach - even
on an organizational
level - the former.
Even Lenin's life
story as a Marxist
illustrates this
dialectical path.
Hence, the problem
to face the entire
issue of how to
assimilate the
revolutionary theory.
On the other hand,
facing this problem
means being fully
aware of the unique
ways in which,
throughout its
history, the Italian
working class has
related to Marxist
theory.
There is an
important point that
can provide an index
for the level of
Marxist theory's
assimilation and -
consequently, if the
science-strategy-party
equation is correct
- for the level of
the revolutionary
party's maturity.
This point is the
fact that there are
no studies on the
history and
development of
Italian capitalism
as scientific
applications of
Capital to the
Italian economy that
can rival Lenin's
Development of
Capitalism in Russia.
Top
Capital’s Scientific
Methodology
It is extremely
important to note
how Italian Marxism
lacks theoretical
research that
corresponds to the
investigation
already begun by
Lenin in 1894 with
What the Friends of
the People Are. The
aim of this study
was to show that
materialism is "the
only scientific
method to explain
history".
We may say that
there has been no
shortage of attempts
to vulgarize
Capital. In many
ways, these attempts
are used but they
have always lacked
an effort to define
"the basic idea of
Capital" (Lenin).
That is: "In what,
exactly, does the
concept of socio-economic
formation consist?
And how can and must
the development of
this formation be
regarded as a
natural historical
process?" (Lenin).
Having raised these
issues with Lenin
represented a
formidable advantage
for Russian Marxism
in building the
revolutionary party.
To simplify, we may
say that the
solution to these
problems would bring
Lenin to define the
concept of "socio-economic
formation" as the
definition of the
general concept of
science.
Starting with this,
it was finally
possible to soave
the issue of the
party as a problem
of the relationship
between economic
analysis and
political action by
using the only
Marxist "scientific
method". Perhaps our
interpretation may
seem stretched, but
it will seem less so
if we follow Lenin's
own foundations.
For Lenin, "Marx's
basic idea" was that
"the development of
the socio-economic
formations is a
natural historical
process". How did
Marx arrive at this
crucial idea?
In the first place:
"He did this by
singling out the
economic sphere from
the various spheres
of social life, by
singling out
production relations
from all social
relations as being
basic, primary,
determining all
other relations."
In the second place:
"Materialism
provided an
absolutely objective
criterion by
singling out
production relations
as society's
structure and by
making it possible
to apply the general
scientific criterion
of recurrence to
these relations. The
subjectivists,
indeed, denied this
principle's
applicability to
sociology... The
analysis of material
social relations
(i.e. the relations
that take shape
without passing
through man's
consciousness: when
exchanging products
men enter into
production relations
without even
realizing that these
are social
production relations)
- the analysis of
material social
relations at once
made it possible to
observe recurrence
and regularity and
to generalize the
systems of the
various countries in
the single
fundamental concept:
social formation.
This generalization
alone made it
possible to proceed
from the description
of social phenomena
(and from their
evaluation in terms
of an ideal) to
their strictly
scientific analysis,
which isolates, let
us say by way of
example, that which
distinguishes one
capitalist country
from another and
investigates that
which is common to
all of them."
Lastly, in the third
place: "This
hypothesis, for the
first time, made a
scientific sociology
possible. Only the
reduction of social
relations to
production relations
and of the latter to
the level of the
productive forces,
provided a firm
basis for the
conception that the
development of
social formations is
a natural historical
process. And,
obviously, without
such a view there
can be no social
science."
In this masterful
exposition, Lenin
identified all of
Marx's scientific
methodology. Instead
of attempting one of
the many
vulgarizations of
Capital, faithful in
form but incapable
of capturing its
essence, he
extracted the
scientific
principles of
determinate
abstraction and of
recurrence.
It was this
scientific
methodology that
enabled Lenin to
undertake his study
of The Development
of Capitalism in
Russia. In this work,
he extensively
developed the
concept of socio-economic
formation by fully
confirming the
affirmation that it
is possible to
identify what all
capitalist countries
have in common ("to
observe recurrence
and regularity and
to generate the
systems of the
various countries in
the single
fundamental concept:
social formation").
This concept was
confirmed because
the author "clothed
the skeleton of
Capital in flesh and
blood " from the
Russian reality.
Top
The Skeleton and
Body of Marxist
Analysis
In What the Friends
of the People Are
Lenin wrote:
"Such is the
skeleton of Capital.
The whole point,
however, is that
Marx did not content
himself with this
skeleton, that he
did not confine
himself to "economic
theory" in the
ordinary sense of
the term, that,
while explaining the
structure and
development of the
given formation of
society exclusively
through production
relations, he
nevertheless
everywhere and
incessantly
scrutinized the
superstructure
corresponding to
these production
relations and
clothed the skeleton
in flesh and blood.
The reason Capital
has enjoyed such
tremendous success
is that this book by
a "German economist"
showed the whole
capitalist social
formation to the
reader as a living
thing, with its
everyday aspects,
with the actual
social manifestation
of the class
antagonism inherent
in production
relations; with the
bourgeois political
superstructure that
protects the rule of
the capitalist class;
with the bourgeois
ideas of liberty,
equality, and so
forth; with the
bourgeois family
relationships.
It will now be clear
that the comparison
with Darwin is
perfectly accurate:
Capital is nothing
but "certain closely
interconnected
generalizing ideas
crowning a veritable
Mont Blanc of
factual material"."
Is it necessary to
add that Lenin also
did not limit
himself to
explaining the
structure of Russian
capitalism using
only the production
relations? That he
constantly
investigated the
superstructures that
corresponded to
these relations?
That he Ali studied
and described all
aspects of Russian
capitalist society
and all of its
actual social
manifestations of
the classes'
antagonism? That he
was able to add
other mountains of
factual material to
Marxism's Mont Blanc?
Lenin says it
himself by citing
Plekhanov who wrote:
"1 repeat that the
most consistent
Marxists may
disagree in the
appraisal of the
present Russian
situation. Our
doctrine is the
first attempt to
apply this
scientific theory to
the analysis of very
complicated and
entangled social
relations. " And
Lenin commented: "It
seems difficult to
speak more clearly:
the Marxists
unreservedly borrow
from Marx's theory
only its invaluable
methods, without
which an elucidation
of social relations
is impossible, and,
consequently, they
see the criterion of
their judgement of
these relations not
in abstract schemes
and suchlike
nonsense at all, but
in its fidelity and
conformity to
reality."
As far as we are
concerned, it seems
hard to more clearly
define scientific
faithfulness to
Marxism, that is,
not faithfulness to
an abstract scheme
but to methods that
are theoretically
correct because they
make it possible to
become aware of
realty in its "very
complicated and
entangled" social
relations.
Lenin explains that
in the end, the
abstraction of "production
relations" (singled
out from all social
relations) makes it
possible to become
aware of all the
actual social
manifestations of
the classes'
antagonism inherent
in the production
relations themselves;
it makes it possible
to reconstruct
capitalist society
"as a living thing".
That is, this
abstraction makes it
possible to
reconstruct all
social relations in
all of their forms
and movement. Facing
the Mont Blanc of
social relations'
everyday factual
material in another
way means being
buried by it. And
facing it means
facing it in action,
in the classes'
action, in the
working class and
party s action.
In fact, what
scientific meaning
would "the
invaluable methods"
have, if, beside
elucidation,
analysis, and
sociological
reconstruction, they
did not also make
action possible?
Indeed, these
methods provide the
opportunity for the
first time in
history, to "elucidate
social relations".
Consequently, what
meaning would they
have if they were
not themselves, the
tool for intervening
in social life as a
whole? We will say
more: the
"invaluable methods",
as a tool for
analyzing social
relations, are
action. They are the
party. The party is
the only historical
form of being for
Capita’s science.
And this is not so
much the case
because the party is
the propagandist of
Capital’s "generalizing
ideas" as it is
because the party
clothes its "skeleton"
in the "flesh and
blood" of factual
material from the
reality in which it
operates. Through
the abstraction of
What the Friends of
the People Are, we
reach the
concreteness of What
Is to Be Done? From
the concept of
"socio-economic
formation " that
identifies the
scientific method
for elucidating
social relations and
that describes the
law of motion that
regulates the
general connection
between production
relations and social
relations, we reach
this concept's
application to the
life of all social
relations, and,
consequently, also
to the political
forms of these
relations.
Top
From Capital to the
Leninist Party
The Leninist concept
of the party, in the
light of Lenin’s
foregoing
development, finally
appears to us, on
the one hand, as the
solution to the
basic problems
raised by Capital,
and, on the other,
as the most
consistent
expression of
Capital’s science.
It would be
extremely important
to see to what
extent the study and
relevant solution of
typical and specific
problems (the market
issue, etc., etc.)
of The Development
of Capitalism in
Russia allowed Lenin
to reconstruct "the
whole capitalist
social formation" in
What Is to Be Done?
within the "actual
social manifestation
of the class
antagonism" and the
"political
superstructure".
However, what one
may note immediately
is that Lenin's
conclusion is the
perfect
demonstration that
as far as Marxism,
the science, is
concerned, economy
and politics can't
be separated either
as a subject of
analysis or as a
reconstruction as
scientific knowledge
and therefore action
- of the actual
social reality. For
this reason, Lenin
reached, on the one
hand, the same
conclusion that Marx
had reached with his
study of the class
struggles in France
and Germany, and, on
the other, made a
fundamental
contribution to this
study that takes all
into consideration
of the material
accumulated over the
course of the class
struggles during the
development of
capitalism in new
areas (Russia).
Lenin provided us
with an analysis on
all economic and
political levels
that is both
confirmation and
development of
Marx's conclusions.
It confirms them
because he
demonstrates that
only by assimilating
and using Marx's
scientific method (the
abstraction of
production relations)
is it possible to
produce a strictly
scientific analysis
of social phenomena.
And it develops them
because by applying
this method ' Lenin
validates the "theory's
correctness and
conformity to [Russian]
reality". Lenin
follows Capital’s
entire logical
pathway to reach the
party; that is. he
reaches the
conclusion that
seems voluntaristic
to many and which,
instead, is the most
determinate element
in all of Marxist
science.
If we cannot
understand Marxism's
entire process of
elaboration and
action, we cannot
see that the party
is already in Marx,
that it is somehow "typical"
of Marxism. That is,
the party is what we
may define as an "abstraction",
considering the
whole socio-economic
formation's level of
development through
its structures and
superstructures in a
given historical
period. While the
Leninist concept of
the party is the
confirmation, the
recognition of its "recurrence"
on the testing
ground of class
struggles, and the
scientific
continuity.
A similar erroneous
view, however, is
held by those who
only see the
continuity and
typical character of
the Marxist concept
of the party. These
people only see a
formal " invariance
" and don't
recognize, on the
contrary. that
continuity,
invariance, and the
typical character of
the Marxist concept
of the party subsist
in Lenin because
they are criteria to
evaluate the
theory's correctness
and conformity to
reality.
Within this
scientific
continuity - which
has nothing of the
empirical and
essentially
metaphysical
practice of
tradition-innovation
- the Leninist
concept of the party
takes on all of its
"particular"
features. This
occurs precisely
because it contains
all of the "typical"
traits of the
Marxist concept of
the party, and it
has them not because
they are proclaimed
as an act of faith
in an unchanged
tradition, but
rather because they
were taken as a
method or "scientific
hypothesis". indeed,
Lenin used this term
properly. For him,
this is a tool to be
used to understand
reality and to do so
by "isolating that
which distinguishes
one capitalist
country from another
and investigating
that which is common
to all of them".
In their analysis of
Russian reality the
Populists used a
subjective and
idealistic method
through which they
only noticed the
social phenomena
that distinguished
it from other
countries. As a
result, they were
unable to identify
the determining
factors (the
production relations)
that the Russian
reality had in
common with all
other countries. By
reversing this
method, Lenin re-established
the validity of a
method that would
make it possible -
even in Russia - to
objectively
recognize what
social relations and
phenomena inherent
in the predominant
production relations
were and would
become. This would
also make it
possible to achieve
an objective, and no
longer just
subjective,
understanding of all
the political
phenomena that
constitute the
superstructural
mechanism of
movement behind all
social relations.
Lenin not only
contributed this.
but he also re-established
the validity of a
method that makes it
possible to study
through a given
social reality's
typical trait - and
through this alone -
all of its
particular features,
of its particularity.
And thus, "particularity",
"particular forms",
and "national
variations", that is,
all of those aspects
that only the
foolish superficial
metaphysical
opportunist can call
"new", lose their
arbitrary nature as
subjective notions.
They become
scientific ideas
that only Marxism
can substantiate,
develop, and
concretely define in
a general analysis.
Top
The Party, the
Science's Point of
Arrival
Hence, the Leninist
concept of the party
develops not as a
simplistic
application of
Marxism, not as a
simple political
translation of
Marxist "economic
theory", but rather
as an essential
point of arrival of
a science that is
Marxist because
Marxism expanded its
object from nature
to society. Thus,
the party as the
science's point of
arrival. Why? One
could answer that
the party, in its
Leninist conception,
is the highest point
of the theoretical
consciousness of
society's natural
historical process.
One could reply that
it is the conscious
part of the entire
process and that, as
such, it is
historically the
first "organized
consciousness" of
the human race.
But this would still
be vague. We must
better illustrate
the demonstration by
referring to an
issue that Marx
raised in Capital
and that allows us
to see how Lenin
deals with it in the
"political" field.
"The scientific
analysis of the
capitalist mode of
production," Marx
says, "demonstrates
that the
distribution
relations are
essentially
coincident with the
production relations.
They are their
opposite side, so
that both share the
same historically
transitory character...
Wages suppose wage
labor, profit
supposes capital.
These forms of
distribution
therefore suppose
production
conditions with
determinate social
characters, and
determinate social
relations between
the agents of
production. A given
distribution
relation, then, is
only the expression
of a historically
determined
production relation...
"
According to Marx,
this is an objective
law that regulates
all the social
relations in the
capitalist society
so that distribution
relations correspond
to production
relations.
invalidating this
law means not
comprehending the
capitalist
production process
itself, extended
reproduction,
accumulation.
This law is clearly
at the basis of all
of Lenin's Marxist
development, and it
is this law that
allows him to
reconstruct the
process of extended
reproduction and
capitalist
accumulation in the
Russian economy. It
allows him to
understand how "determinate
forms of
distribution" within
that economy were
the expression of a
"historically
determined
production relation"
in that phase of
Russian history.
Obviously, in Marx's
presentation, the
law pronounced at
that level of
abstraction
concerned a
coincidence of the
production relation
(wage labor-capital)
with the
distribution
relation (wage-profit).
But, as Lenin
explained, Marx
showed all the
"actual social
manifestations of
the classes'
antagonism inherent
in production
relations". That is,
he showed all the
social
manifestations of
distribution
relations.
Marx, and Lenin by
following his main
road, show us all
the social
manifestations of
capitalist
accumulation, of the
appropriation of
value, of production
of surplus-value,
and of the surplus-value's
subdivision into
industrial profit,
commercial profit,
interest, and rent.
The relations of
production-relations
of distribution
coincidence shows us
the lifecycle of the
capitalist social
formation in its
class struggles, in
the political and
ideological aspects
that these struggles
take on as a
reflection of the
historically
determined
production relations
and the distribution
relations inherent
in them. It shows us
all these relations
in a single, complex
process of movement
that combines "economy"
and "politics" in a
contradictory
reality. Scientific
knowledge of this
reality is the
objective premise
for the Marxist-Leninist
concept of the
party.
Top
The Political
Description of
Social Relations
In What Is to Be
Done?, Lenin
addresses the issue
of the production
relations-distribution
relations
coincidence. He
faces it as a "political"
and "social"
description of this
coincidence. In
Capital’s
abstraction, the
production relations
only seemed to
explain the economy.
Likewise the
abstraction of
social and political
relations in What Is
to Be Done? only
seems to explain
politics. In reality,
it should now be
clear that the
former also
explained politics
while the latter
included an
explanation of the
economy. This,
because both explain
and reconstruct the
entire movement of
social reality.
We can see how Lenin
translates Marx's "economic"
thesis into "political"
language not only to
demonstrate that
Marxist scientific
language can be
translated, but,
above all, to soave
some problems that
Marx's science had
raised. Lenin writes
against the
spontaneists:
"The consciousness
of the masses of the
workers cannot be
genuine class
consciousness unless
the workers learn to
observe every other
social class and all
the manifestations
of the intellectual,
ethical and
political fife of
these classes from
concrete, and above
all, from topical,
political facts and
events. It cannot be
genuine unless they
learn to apply
materialist analysis
and the materialist
estimate of all
aspects of all
classes, strata, and
population groups'
life and activity in
practice.
Those who focus the
working class'
attention,
observation, and
consciousness on
itself alone or even
primarily on itself
are not Social-Democrats
because, the working
class, to realize
itself, must not
only have a
theoretical - or
rather, it would be
more true to say -
not so much a
theoretical as a
practical
understanding, of
the relationships
between all of
modern society's
various classes. And
this understanding
must be acquired
through the
experience of
political life. That
is why the idea
preached by our
economists, that the
economic struggle is
the most widely
applicable means of
drawing the masses
into the political
movement, is so
extremely harmful
and reactionary in
practice.
To become a Social-Democrat
[revolutionary], a
worker must have a
clear image in mind
of the landlord's
economic nature and
social and political
features, as well as
of the priest, of
the high State
official, and of the
peasant, student,
and tramp. The
worker must know
their strong and
weak points; he must
understand all of
the catchwords and
sophisms by which
each class and
stratum camouflages
its selfish
strivings and its
true "nature". The
worker must
understand what
interests certain
institutions and
laws reflect and how
they reflect them.
This "clear image"
cannot come from
books. It comes from
living pictures and
exposures...
These political
exposures related to
all issues of social
life are the
necessary and basic
condition for
training the masses
in revolutionary
activity."
In this debate with
the "economists", we
find an important
example of how the
scientific principle
of abstraction is
fully expressed in
the Leninist
conception of
political activity
while, at the same
time, it contains a
political
application of "action"
that is just as
important and that
corresponds
perfectly to the
concept of socio-economic
formation. With the,
experience of
political fife, by
applying in practice
the materialist
analysis and
estimate to all
classes' activities
and life, the
working class must
obtain a "clear
image" of the entire
society. No book can
provide such an
image because it is
activity itself (the
matter), and not the
book (the
abstraction of the
matter, the concept),
that comprises the
"living picture".
Top
The Materialist
Formation of
political
Consciousness
The working class
can become aware of
itself in particular
through practical-political
awareness of the
interrelations
between all of
society’s classes.
it must have a clear
image of the
economic
characteristics and
of the political and
social figures that
make up these
classes and social
strata. Only through
this clear awareness
can the working
class recognize its
own economic,
political, and
social character in
its relationship
with the other
classes and social
strata. Through this
recognition, it can
distinctly and
scientifically
reconstruct the
"living picture" of
the entire society
in all of its
economic, social and
political
manifestations. That
is. the working
class can act as the
conscious-scientific
factor in a real
movement within a
natural historical
process.
Consciousness is
awareness of action,
of the reality in
which one acts, of
the way of acting
itself. The whole of
this consciousness-action
is the party and its
strategy. Having
reached awareness of
all the classes'
interrelations with
all Of their traits
and manifestations;
having reached
awareness of the
objective
possibility to
distinguish and
demystify the "ideological
form" in these
manifestations from
the "economic
substance", the
working class can
scientifically
establish its own
conduct, its own
strategy. And this
is, in actuality,
nothing other than
the establishment of
a "conscious
relation" within the
whole of unconscious,
determinate "interrelations"
that exist between
all classes and
between any single
class and the
working class itself.
It can establish
this, considering
all the relations in
their movement and
with ail of the
foreseeable changes
that will modify
them.
It is only too
apparent that the
working class cannot
know itself, much
less its strategy or
the coordinated
movement of all of
its actions and
struggles, if it
only sees its
relationship with
industrial capital.
Lenin tells us that
the working class
cannot even be aware
of this "immediate"
relationship. That
is, since the wage
labor-capital
production relation
is the abstraction
that makes awareness
of all social
relations possible
and, consequently,
also of the
relationship between
industrial
capitalists and
workers, the working
class does not even
become truly aware
of this specific
social relationship
of its own. The
working class halts
at the simply
personalized
spontaneity of
labor-power
commodity without
even reaching
awareness of being a
commodity; this
occurs because it is
unaware of the
entire process of
formation of the
labor-power
commodity's market -
which would enable
awareness of the
social relations
between the classes
that contribute to
form that market -
and, consequently,
it cannot even
exactly know this
market in either its
"abstract" (market,
labor-power
commodity, etc.)
form or in its
"living picture".
Through the problem
of class "consciousness",
therefore, we reach
one of the "abstractions"
in Capital and The
Development of
Capitalism in Russia.
More importantly, in
this way, we reach
this through "politics".
Lenin explains that
the working class
cannot find "a clear
image" of the entire
social and political
process represented
in any book. It may
only find this in
its conscious
political activity,
that is, in its
experience. This
would seem to
contradict the
central thesis of
his concept of the
party, yet it does
not because the
working class
becomes conscious
through its social
and political
experience, but it
only gains precise
awareness of this
through the science
that the party can
give it.
The party is the
scientific "skeleton"
that the class, by
taking it on, can
cloth in the " flesh
and blood " of the
experience-awareness
of its political
activity. Indeed, in
What Is to Be Done?
we find again all of
the scientific logic
Lenin had identified
in Capital. What use
would the "skeleton"
have if not to be
clothed in the
factual material
from social life? If
the working class
were to operate
within the factual
material of social
life without the
scientific
possibility of
reconstructing all
of its connections,
it would not even be
able to specifically
place its own
experience. On the
other hand, if the
science did not
contain the
possibility of
verifying its
hypotheses, the
possibility of
finding recurrence,
regularity, and the
possibility of
generalizing facts
and phenomena, it (the
science, the party,
the "consciousness
brought from the
outside") would no
longer be a science
but rather a pseudo
science, a
metaphysic.
Top
Political
Consciousness
Brought from the
Outside
In Lenin's view, the
outside
consciousness-awareness-experience
relationship, the
party-class
relationship, is a
fundamental aspect
of that scientific
principle.
For example, it is
an unquestionable
and well-known fact
that Marx was able,
within the mountain
of factual material
(particularly in the
English experience),
to recognize the
recurrence of
phenomena that
derived from the
scientific
hypothesis of
capital's extended
reproduction and to
confirm the
regularity of a
group of facts, so
that it was possible
for him to develop a
series of scientific
generalizations and
objective laws that
we may categorize
under the term "accumulation".
Within this entire
process of
capitalist
accumulation, the
classes and social
strata lived
economically,
socially,
politically, and had
a series of
interrelations; they
developed struggles
that changed these
relations; they had
a practical
experience, and the
awareness of this
was expressed in a
variety of "ideologies"
that, one way or
another, mystified
reality and real
experience.
This certainly did
not prevent
capitalist
accumulation just as
it did not prevent
its great critic
from analyzing it,
investigating it,
demonstrating it.
The class's lack of
consciousness did
indeed prevent the
party's development,
but Marx did not
need the class's
conscious experience
to verify the
recurrence of the
social phenomena
that he described.
However, if an
objective process
can be recognized
and described
scientifically - and
this holds the key
to the Marxist
concept of the party
- the spread of
scientific awareness
to part of this
process, to the
working class, lies
within the
development of the
science itself, it
lies within the
development of the
party - and this is
the essence of the
Leninist development
of the Marxist
conception. But, if
the development
itself of the
science lies within
its circulation, the
kind of circulation
will typify its
essence.
Consequently, it
must be a "materialist"
kind of circulation
and not "Enlightenment-like"
or "idealistic". It
is precisely this "materialist"
character that
distinguishes the
science that Marxism
applies to society.
This gives rise to
the circulation of
the science to
recognize - within a
class's activities -
the recurrence of
the objective laws
that the science
describes. In a
letter to Sorge,
Engels clearly
establishes how the
development of
consciousness in the
working class is a "materialist"
kind of process when
he writes that the
party (the science,
the "materialist"
and not "Enlightenment-like"
spreader) must move
"within every
general movement of
the real working
class, accept its
starting points as
such, and gradually
lead it to the
theoretical level,
while pointing out
how every mistake
made, every defeat
suffered, is a
necessary
consequence of
theoretical mistakes
in the original
program".
Circulation of the
science, bringing "consciousness
from the outside" to
the working class
cannot, therefore,
be reduced to "ideological
preaching". Nor can
it be reduced to the
"preaching of
scientific
abstractions"
because they only
have cognitive value
in as far as they
reproduce the whole
reality.
In a remarkable way,
Lenin details this
material process of
consciousness
development in the
historical stage in
which the
development of
consciousness itself
becomes a typical
offshoot of its
spread. Thus, it is
able to become
materially active,
or, as we would say
more conventionally,
politically active:
"Class political
consciousness can be
brought to the
workers only from
without, that is,
only outside of the
economic struggle,
outside of the
sphere of relations
between workers and
employers. The only
sphere that can
provide this
consciousness is the
sphere of
relationships
between all the
various classes and
strata, and the
State and the
government - the
sphere of the
interrelations
between all the
various classes."
Lenin's formula is
crucial because it
implicitly excludes
both the idealist
conception of the
practice as well as
the empirical one.
Class consciousness
is not something
superimposed, but
neither is it a self-creation
as, in essence, the
empirical
conceptions maintain.
In reality, these
are nothing more
than voluntaristic
and opportunistic
rejections of the
science; they are
demonstrations of
the belief - both
conscious and
unconscious - that
it is not possible
to be aware of the
object, of reality;
they are
demonstrations of an
implicit admission
that knowledge is
impossible because
it can only be
attained by acting.
In contrasting the
process in which
class consciousness
develops reproduces,
on a political level,
the abstraction-concreteness
process that we
observed in theory,
in Capital. Where
can the class attain
its consciousness?
Only in the sphere
of the
interrelations
between all the
various classes and
the State, in
political relations.
It is only in its
political
consciousness, then,
that the class can
attain its
theoretical
consciousness. the
scientific
consciousness that
will allow it to
attain knowledge of
the "production
relations"
abstraction. Only
within their complex
life does the simple
form of these
relations exist.
There is no other
way for class
consciousness to
come about because
within the economic
struggle, the
working class is
only aware of the "workers
and employers"
social relationship.
It is only aware of
one aspect of the
whole economic
picture, and this
aspect has been
distorted and
mystified. We quoted
one of Lenin's
passages that is
important because it
says that the worker
must clearly
represent for
himself the economic
nature and the
political and social
features of the
landlord, the priest,
the high State
official, the
peasant, student,
and tramp. Yet, he
does not mention the
capitalist. But what
can clearly
represent for the
worker the economic
nature and the
political and social
features of the
capitalist if not
the knowledge -
which is ultimately
political of all the
other social actors
and their
relationships?
Top
The Science
Circulated and
Recognized Through
Action
The scientific
principles, the "generalizing
ideas", must be
materialistically
brought to the class
(and herein lies the
party's first
propagandizing
function), but they
cannot be known
except through
action, in the "flesh
and blood" of the
class within the
entire social body.
Abstraction explains
the formation of
surplus-value and
capitalist
accumulation.
Nonetheless, it is
the process of
subdividing the
surplus-value that
explains how this
accumulation occurs
historically. This
takes place
throughout society "with
the priest and the
State official", "with
the landlord and the
peasant".
This process of
capitalist
development involves
all the classes and
all of their
relationships "economically,
socially,
politically".
Therefore, from
among many examples,
the peasant
disintegration is
both a result of and
a factor in the
development of the
capitalist market
and the labor-power
market. The degree
of its extension and
intensity will give
the market and
capitalist
accumulation a
certain level while
the political
struggle that
accompanies this
process will have an
impact on the
various degrees and
levels.
The working class
itself is the
outcome of this
whole process; it is
a result of all the
class struggles that
accompany the
process, it is
involved in it, and
it comprises all of
that political
experience which can
be transformed into
consciousness when
it has learned from
the party "to apply
in practice the
materialist analysis
and estimate to all
classes' activities
and life". That is,
all the political
forms - and there is
no alternative - in
which the process of
capitalist
accumulation is
present and manifest
in practical life.
Consequently, the
working class'
political
consciousness
becomes the form of
spread of the
science's
development. Within
its struggle and
that of all the
classes, the working
class attains
knowledge of the
objective laws, of
the production
relations and the
inherent
distribution
relations, that
regulate all
struggles, including
its own.
The working class'
conscious struggle,
however, obviously
does not change the
laws' objectiveness.
Rather, it
constitutes a factor
for intervention in
the historical
process in which
these laws act. As
Lenin pointed out in
practice, the
substance and forms
of this intervention
constitute the class'
strategy, and its
elaboration,
application, and
development require
the appropriate
organizational tools.
Top
The Revolutionary
Strategy in the
Economic Process
At this point, an
extremely important
matter arises that
is shared by the
problems brought up
by capitalist
economic development
and by the strategy
and political
struggle's
development. Can
awareness of
economic development,
political
consciousness, as a
factor for political
intervention in
social relations "quantitatively"
interfere with
distribution
relations? Can it
interfere in the
determination of
capitalist
accumulation from a
quantitative point
of view? Doesn't the
party become a
factor in this
determination?
We could answer in
general that all
social relations,
all class struggles
historically
determine the
quantitative aspect
of the production
relations.
The mechanism of the
laws that regulate
capitalist
production is a
complex of objective
interdependencies
that are determined
and that determine
it.
For many reasons, we
can't analyze this
mechanism here. Let
it suffice to repeat
that class struggles
are the social
demonstration of
these objective laws;
they are an
essential factor in
these laws; they are
the movement itself
of the structure
since there are no
production relations
that are not social
relations. Therefore,
the production
relations won't be,
in this perspective,
anything other than
the abstraction of
the class struggles,
and their
quantitative aspects
will be determined
by these struggles.
Marxism does not
introduce class
struggle to the
capitalist process
for the simple
reason that they
already exist within
it. Marxism
introduces political
consciousness to
this process, it
introduces the
awareness that this
process can't be "modified"
but rather "destroyed"
with the violence of
a class, that is,
with an organized
political will.
Top
Political Analysis
as Social Analysis
By now it is clear
that the political
analysis of social
relations, the
materialist analysis
of these relations,
is, in practice, the
analysis of
production relations,
that is, the
political analysis
of these relations;
or, more precisely,
the science of a
violent intervention
strategy within the
production relations
themselves. In other
words, with the
Leninist concept of
the party as a
strategy, we have
now historically
reached the solution
to the infinite
economic problems
that capitalist
socio-economic
formation raises,
leaves unsolved, and
worsens. Politics is
the only solution to
this problem
precisely because,
as Marxism showed,
the economy has no "economic"
solutions. The party
resolves these
unsolved economic
problems "politically",
and it only solves
them not when it
wants to, but when
their solution
historically appears
as politically
feasible, just as
the spread of
awareness of this
solution, that is
the party, appears
politically feasible.
If there is a
correspondence
between the problems
raised "economically"
by capitalism and
the ones raised "
politically" by the
classes' struggle,
if there is a
correspondence of
degree, extension,
vastness, and
acuteness,
nonetheless there is
an ever -increasing
need "to apply in
practice the
materialist analysis
and estimate to all
classes' activities
and life" and to
unmask the economic
"substance" of the "ideological
sophism". That is,
there is a growing
need for specific
knowledge of the "correspondence"
between the economy
and politics.
Without the party,
this correspondence
cannot be
specifically and
politically known,
and the course of
the classes'
struggles is solved
"politically" by
capitalism.
Top
The Science of the
Revolution
Discovering all the
forms and degrees of
this correspondence
by analyzing the
largest quantity of
factual material
from social and
political life -
constant and regular
phenomena that can
be generalized as "typical"
- is a scientific
task.
Marx has already
provided the general
principle of
correspondence.
Lenin develops it,
applies the science
to politics,
describes the
general laws in the
forms in which they
operate at a certain
stage in the
development of
capitalist socio-economic
formation and on the
political level of
the classes'
struggles. In this
elaboration Marx is
again confirmed and
developed. With
Lenin we reach what
we may define, with
Lenin himself, as an
objective or
scientific sociology
of politics.
What bourgeois
ideology defined as
a "political science",
was nothing more
than a positivist
and subjective
sociology that
generalized
political phenomena
and subjectively
built some laws of
politics without
having
scientifically
determined - using
materialist analysis
- their relationship
with the economic
structure's
objective laws.
Leninist "political"
science, which has
its " generalizing
ideas " in Marx's
Capital, The
Eighteenth Brumaire,
The Civil War in
France, etc., is a "form"
of Marxist science.
Once again we repeat
here that, in this
case as well, we
only use the terms "politics"
and "economy" as
illustrations, since
there is no Marxist
economic science
that is an end in
itself. Rather,
there is a
scientific principle
of abstraction of
production relations
that determine the
superstructure, such
as politics.
The Leninist concept
of the party is,
indeed, the science
that analyzes,
describes, and
defines in what
forms. with what
traits, with what
manifestations "what
is determined"
behaves, moves, acts,
reacts, survives, or
explodes during the
imperialist stage of
the capitalist
socio-economic
formation. And, as a
science, the party
analyzes, describes,
and defines its own
behavior and action,
its strategy. It can
do this because from
Marxism's "generalizing
ideas" it has drawn
its scientific
platform and the
object of the
circulation of
Marxism within the
working class. It
has drawn them as a
scientific principle
to be verified in
the "materialist"
development of the
proletarian
political
consciousness.
Having become
objectively a true "collective
consciousness", the
party can accumulate
knowledge of a "Mont
Blanc of concrete
and political facts"
that capitalism's
contradictions, the
classes' ever more
acute struggles, the
ever expanding
manifestations of
social antagonisms,
and increasingly
apparent
demonstration of the
State's complete
subordination to
capitalism raise
before the working
class' political
experience. Within
this heap of
concrete political
facts, the party
constitutes the
scientific
laboratory in which
the principles of
abstraction and
recurrence of social
phenomena, as well
as of social and
political struggles
can be verified. The
tremendous amount of
precious experience
is accumulated on
both domestic and
international levels
which makes it
possible to
specifically
identify constant
and regular
phenomena that
appear in every kind
of connection
between the
production and
social relations, in
all class and
political struggles.
The outcome is the
precise definition
of a few "laws" that
we could can "objective
laws of the
superstructure".
Lenin's work abounds
with his
contribution to a
more detailed
description of the "objective
laws", to a more
minute analysis of
the "internal
articulation", to a
more concrete
awareness of the "determination".
His whole work is an
inexhaustible mine
of descriptions,
analyses, knowledge,
experience, and
definition of the
classes' struggles,
of political
struggles, of the "objective
laws" of the
political
superstructure. It
is a mine that
already has its own
organization within
it, something that
has yet to be
discovered in many
of its veins.
With his concept of
the party, Lenin
applied the
scientific method to
define all the forms
that regulate the
structure,
superstructure
relationship; all of
the "typical"
aspects, and all of
the "particular"
ones that
characterize this
relationship in its
historical movement,
in its ascending
stage as well as in
its stage of
convulsion and
disintegration.
The party's strategy,
the working class'
strategy had
politically matured
into a science of
action resulting
from the possibility
of the socialist
revolution. At that
point, the science
had become in
practice what it had
always been
theoretically: the
science of the
revolution.
Top |
Dossier Haití
