Some Thoughts on the
Re-organization of the Revolutionary Left
About 58 years ago the French writer Georges Sorel stated that
"the historiographers and the actors in the historical drama are
unable to see what is much later understood as the essence of what
happened." (1) If this is true in general it is particularly true of
the (revolutionary) left. Like those who in the middle ages marched
with the "Bundschuh" (2) to bring the Kingdom of God on earth,
although indeed they were the political opposition against feudal
society, many revolutionary leftists of the 19th and 20th centuries
have had false ideas about the real meaning of their own purpose and
acts. Absolutely convinced that they were the champions of a
proletarian revolution, the revolution for which they strove has
achieved nothing more than the transformation of private capitalism
into state capitalism.
Recently it has been stated that "with the collapse of the real
socialism... the left has been fundamentally shocked." (3) Nobody
will deny the reality of this shock. However, one has to add
immediately that what has collapsed cannot be defined as real
socialism. As far as the shock is concerned, it has at last forced
the traditional left to give up its illusions.
However, the end of illusions has not yet brought a
reorganization; at the most it can only be seen as one of its
preconditions. This is so because the traditional left can also be
characterized not only by its socio-political illusions but also by
its forms of organization and its pretensions. Perhaps, for special
historical reasons, this left enters the public scene as a party or a
political group which presents itself as the "vanguard of the working
class" and in one way or another considers its task to be stimulating
as what it defines as "class consciousness" of the workers. This task
is considered urgent because the left regards the working class as
"the agent of the revolution that it envisions."
In fact it is, of course, the other way around: the proletarian
revolution is the definitive result of the daily struggle of the
workers. To the traditional left the starting point is not the class
struggle but the revolution. Its principle is the Leninist thesis
that "without a revolutionary theory, there doesn't exist a
revolutionary practice" - that is to say, revolutionary practice as
it is understood by the left.
Whether the traditional left will believe it or not, it is
characterized by its mistaken belief that if one replaces false ideas
by correct ones, the existing reality will collapse. Admittedly it is
a wrong idea that can be explained by the fact that, although the
left knows precisely that not an interpretation is important but a
transformation, it regards this transformation not as an act of the
working class but as the act of a vanguard. That is to say resulting
from its own action.
However, as Marx knew: "It is not a matter of what this or that
proletarian or even the proletariat as a whole present as its goal.
It is a matter of what the proletariat is in actuality and what in
accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do."
(4) Completely contrary Marx the traditional left thinks that the
working class has to learn that workers have to struggle to overcome
capitalist society, and that the vanguard is teaching them! In this
way, it separates itself as an intellectual stratum superior to this
class. And this has been so right from the beginning.
At first sight the pretension of the traditional left seems to
have a certain basis in reality, it is only at first sight! As soon
as this left is explaining its point of view and its position in
relation with the so-called "idleness of the workers left to
themselves" it becomes clear that the practice of the working class
is far from being the practice that this left believes it should be,
that is to say this practice is not as it should be according to it.
Reality then doesn't accord with what the traditional left has in
mind. In other words, this left has it upside down.
It is not true that without revolutionary theory there is no
revolutionary practice. It is not true that certain opinions and
ideas, that a certain quantity of consciousness are the absolute
precondition to struggle. It is the other way round! Many times, it
has been stated that the "theory becomes a material force as soon as
it takes possession of the masses." However, a theory is never more
than a recapitulation of the experiences of the past and of its
consequences. Not because of a certain theory does one have new
experiences of the struggle, but new experiences that arise from the
struggle give birth to new theory. This is a continuous process. It
is not a process in the heads of the workers. They don't draw
theoretical but practical consequences. They don't struggle to
realize any form of a theory, they struggle for their interests.
Their practice isn't the result of a certain theory, instead their
practice has consequences for theory. When the circumstances which
lead to struggle don't exist, the voice of the left, which thinks
theory is the precondition of the struggle, remains the voice of a
preacher in the desert. The fact remains this reality now - and not
since the latest few years - is clearer than ever before is the
essence of the crisis.
What are the possibilities for the so-called "revolutionary left"
to overcome this crisis? The discussion of its reorganization
involves saying clearly to the workers that the transformation of
private capitalism into state capitalism doesn't change their class
position. However, this also is no contribution to overcoming the
crisis. It is all the same when "leftists" say that the liberation of
the working class is by no means a political act, but a social one.
And when they say that a change in productive relations - that is to
say the abolition of wage labour - can't be realized by a party or
vanguard. This demands autonomous struggle, so that workers have to
create their own organizations completely different from the
traditional ones. All this has nothing to do with overcoming the
struggle.
The downfall of what is falsely called "real socialism" seems to
be the cause of a deepening crisis, but certainly it is not so.
Instead it has to do with the fact that the old traditional labour
movement with those leaders saying that they are acting on behalf of
the workers and taking decisions in their name, has become an
anachronism. Our time is one in which one can see an ever widening
gap between those who call themselves the leaders on one side and the
workers on the other side, who are prevented by the leaders from
acting for themselves and making their own destiny.
If the so-called "revolutionary left" believes that its
reorganization means that it has to present other slogans and that
with other slogans and principles and other perspectives - even with
a different form of organization - yet still acting as a vanguard,
still believing that it has to teach the workers something - they
will be trying to sell new wine in old bottles. However in doing so,
they are just acting according to the law that is dominating their
own form of organization.
Reality dictates that revolutionaries learn from workers rather
than teach them, not trying to realize their own ideas but concluding
the meaning of what the workers are doing from what is going on
before their eyes. If the left are doing this, it wouldn't be a
vanguard any longer and this would interfere with the intentions of
the reorganization.
Cajo Brendel
The author defines himself as Marxist. Still? What is meant by
this "still?" If, somewhere other theories or ideologies have
collapsed, Marxism has not. The author wants to stress that what he
is understanding here by "the revolutionary left" is the traditional
left, existing from the beginning of the labour movement and what has
experienced a crisis today by the fact that new forms of class
struggle arise not corresponding with the old traditions.[note by
author]
1 Georges Sorel, "Reflexions sur la violence."
2 The "bundschuh" was painted on the banners of the revolting
farmer. It was a shoe very different from the beautiful shoes of the
knights. So, there couldn't be any mistake about what sort of people
were behind those banners.
3 The German magazine "Spezial" July- August 93, p. 24)
4 Marx/ Engles "The Holy Family."
Back to History/Theory
Back to Home Page