The Masses &
The Vanguard
Economic and political changes proceed with bewildering rapidity
since the close of the world war. The old conceptions in the labour
movement have become faulty and inadequate and the working class
organizations present a scene of indecision and confusion.
In view of the changing economic and political situation it seems
that thorough reappraisement of the task of the working class becomes
necessary in order to find the forms of struggle and organization
most needful and effective.
The relation of "the party", "organization" or "vanguard" to the
masses plays a large part in contemporary working class discussion.
That the importance and indispensability of the vanguard or party is
overemphasized in working class circles is not surprising, since the
whole history and tradition of the movement tends in that
direction.
The labour movement today is the fruit of economic and political
developments that found first expression in the Chartist movement in
England (1838-1848), the subsequent development of trade unions from
the fifties onward, and in the Lasallean movement in Germany in the
sixties. Corresponding to the degree of capitalist development trade
unions and political parties developed in the other countries of
Europe and America.
The overthrow of feudalism and the needs of capitalist industry in
themselves necessitated the marshaling of the proletariat and the
granting of certain democratic privileges by the capitalists. The
latter had been reorganizing society in line with their needs. The
political structure of feudalism was replaced by capitalist
parliamentarianism. The capitalist state, the instrument for
administering the joint affairs of the capitalist class, was
established and adjusted to the needs of the new class.
The bothersome proletariat whose assistance against the feudal
forces had been necessary now had to be reckoned with. Once called
into action it could not be entirely eliminated as a political
factor. But it could be coordinated. And this was done - partly
consciously with cunning and partly by the very dynamics of
capitalist economy - as the working class adjusted itself and
submitted to the new order. It organized unions whose limited
objectives (better wages and conditions) could be realized in an
expanding capitalist economy. It played the game of capitalist
politics within the capitalist state (the practices and forms of
which were determined primarily by capitalist needs) and within these
limitations, achieved apparent successes.
But thereby the proletariat adopted capitalist forms of
organization and capitalist ideologies. The parties of the workers,
like those of the capitalists became limited corporations, the
elemental needs of the class were subordinated to political
expediency. Revolutionary objectives were displaced by horse-trading
and manipulations for political positions. The party became
all-important, its immediate objectives superseded those of the
class. Where revolutionary situations set into motion the class,
whose tendency is to fight for the realization of the revolutionary
objective, the parties of the workers "represented" the working class
and were themselves "represented" by parliamentarians whose very
position in parliament constituted resignation to their status as
bargainers within a capitalist order whose supremacy was no longer
challenged.
The general coordination of workers' organizations to capitalism
saw the adoption of the same specialization in union and party
activities that challenged the hierarchy of industries. Managers,
superintendent and foremen saw their counterparts in presidents,
organizers and secretaries of labour organizations. Boards of
directors, executive committees, etc. The mass of organized workers
like the mass of wage slaves in industry left the work of direction
and control to their betters.
This emasculation of worker's initiatives proceeded rapidly as
capitalism extended its sway. Until the world war put an end to
further peaceful and "orderly" capitalist expansion.
The risings in Russia, Hungary and Germany found a resurgence of
mass action and initiative. The social necessities compelled action
by the masses. But the traditions of the old labour movement in
western Europe and the economic backwardness of eastern Europe
frustrated fulfillment of labour's historic mission. Western Europe
saw the masses defeated and the rise of fascism a la Mussolini and
Hitler, while Russia's backward economy developed the "communism" in
which the differentiation between class and vanguard, the
specialization of functions and the regimentation of labour reached
its highest point.
The leadership principle, the idea of the vanguard that must
assume responsibility for the proletarian revolution is based on the
pre-war conception of the labour movement, is unsound. The tasks of
the revolutionary and the communist reorganization of society cannot
be realized without the widest and fullest action of the masses
themselves. Theirs is the task and the solution thereof.
The decline of capitalist economy, the progressive paralysis, the
instability, the mass unemployment, the wage cuts and intensive
pauperization of the workers - all of these compel action, in spite
of fascism a la Hitler or the disguised fascism of the AF of L.
The old organizations are either destroyed or voluntarily reduced
to impotence. Real action now is possible only outside the old
organizations. In Italy, Germany and Russia the White and Red
fascisms have already destroyed all old organizations and placed the
workers directly before the problem of finding the new forms of
struggle. In England, France and America the old organizations still
maintain a degree of illusion among workers, but their successive
surrender to the forces of reaction is undermining them rapidly.
The principles of independent struggle, solidarity and communism
are being forced upon them in the actual class struggle. With this
powerful trend toward mass consolidation and mass action the theory
of regrouping and realigning the militant organizations seems to be
outdated. True regroupment is essential, but it cannot be a mere
merger of the existing organizations. In the new conditions a
revision of fighting forms is necessary. "First clarity - then
unity." Even small groups recognizing and urging the principles of
independent mass movement are far more significant than large groups
that deprecate the power of the masses.
There are groups that perceive the defects and weaknesses of
parties. They often furnish sound criticism of the popular front
combination and the unions. But their criticism is limited. They lack
a comprehensive understanding of the new society. The tasks of the
proletariat are not completed with seizure of the means of production
and the abolition of private property. The questions of social
reorganization must be put and answered. Shall state socialism be
rejected? What shall be the basis of a society without wage slavery?
What shall determine the economic relations between factories? What
shall determine the relations between producers and their total
product?
These questions and their answers are essential for an
understanding of the forms of struggle and organization today. Here
the conflict between the leadership principle and the principle of
independent mass action becomes apparent. For, a thorough
understanding of these questions leads to the realization that the
widest, all-embracing, direct activity of the proletariat as a class
is necessary to realize communism.
Of first importance is the abolition of the wage system. The will
and good wishes of men are not potent enough to retain this system
after revolution (as in Russia) without eventually surrendering to
the dynamics engendered by it. It is not enough to seize the means of
production and abolish private property. It is necessary to abolish
the basic condition of modern exploitation, wage slavery, and that
act brings on the succeeding measures of reorganization that would
never be invoked without the first step. Groups that do not put these
questions, no matter how sound their criticism otherwise, lack the
most important elements in the formation of sound revolutionary
policy. The abolition of the wages system must be carefully
investigated in its relation to politics and economics. We will here
take up some of the political implications
First is the question of the seizure of power by the
workers. The principle of the masses (not party or vanguard)
retaining power must be emphasized. Communism cannot be introduced or
realized by a party. Only the proletariat as a whole can do that.
Communism means that the workers have taken their destiny into their
own hands; that they have abolished wages; that they have, with the
suppression of the bureaucratic apparatus, combined the legislative
and executive powers. The unity of the workers lies not in the
sacrosanct merger of parties or trade unions, but in the similarity
of their needs and in the expression of needs in mass action. All the
problems of the workers must therefore be viewed in relation to the
developing self-action of the masses.
To say that the non-combative spirit of the political parties is
due to the malice or reformism of the leaders is wrong. The political
parties are impotent. They will do nothing, because they can do
nothing. Because of its economic weakness, capitalism has organized
for suppression and terror and is at present politically very strong,
for it is forced to exert all its effort to maintain itself. The
accumulation of capital, enormous throughout the world, has shrunk
the yield of profit, - a fact which, in the external policies,
manifests itself through the contradictions between nations; and in
internal policies, through "devaluation" and the attendant partial
expropriation of the middle class and the lowering of the subsistence
level of the workers; and in general by the centralization of the
power of big capital units in the hands of the state. Against this
centralized power little movements can to nothing.
The masses alone can combat it, for only they can destroy the
power of the state and become a political force. For that reason the
fight based on the craft
organizations becomes objectively obsolete, and the large mass
movements, unrestricted by the limitations of such organizations,
must necessarily replace them.
Such is the new situation facing workers. But from it springs an
actual weakness. Since the old method of struggle by means of
elections and limited trade union activity has become quite futile, a
new method, it is true, has instinctively developed, but that method
has not yet been conscientiously, and therefore not effectively,
applied. Where their parties and unions are impotent, the masses
already begin to express their militancy through wildcat strikes. In
America, England, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Poland - wildcat
strikes develop, and through them the masses present ample proof that
their old organizations are no longer fit for struggle. The wildcat
strikes are not, however, disorganized, as the name implies. They are
denounced as such by union bureaucrats, because they are strikes
formed outside the official organizations. The strikers themselves
organize the strike, for it is an old truth that only as an organized
mass can workers struggle and conquer. They form picket lines,
provide for the repulsion of strike-breakers, organize strike relief,
create relations with other factories . . . In a word, they
themselves assume the leadership of their own strike, and they
organize it on a factory basis.
It is in these very movements that the strikers find their unity
of struggle. It is then that they take their destiny into their own
hands and unite "the legislative and executive power" by eliminating
unions and parties, as illustrated by several strikes in Belgium and
Holland.
But independent class action is still weak. That the strikers,
instead of continuing their independent action toward widening their
movement, call upon the unions to join them, is an indication that
under existing conditions their movement cannot grow larger, and for
that reason cannot yet become a political force capable of fighting
concentrated capital. But it is a beginning.
Occasionally though, the independent struggle takes a big leap
forward, as with the Asturian miners' strikes in 1934, the Belgium
miners in 1935, the strikes in France, Belgium and America in 1936,
and the Catalonian revolution in 1936. These outbreaks are evidence
that a new social force is surging among the workers, is finding
workers' leadership, is subjecting social institutions to the masses,
and is already on the march.
Strikes are no longer mere interruptions in profit-making or
simple economic disturbances. The independent strike derives its
significance from the action of workers as an organized class. With a
system of factory committees and workers' councils extending over
wide areas the proletariat creates the organs which regulate
production, distribution, and all the other functions of social life.
In other words, the civil administrative apparatus is deprived of all
power, and the proletarian dictatorship establishes itself. Thus,
class organization in the very struggle for power is at the same time
organization, control, and management of the productive forces of the
entire society. It is the basis of the association of free and equal
producers, and consumers. This, then, is the danger that the
independent class movement presents to the capitalist society.
Wildcat strikes, though apparently of little importance whether on a
small or large scale, are embryonic communism. A small wildcat
strike, directed as it is by workers and in the interest of workers,
illustrates on a small scale the character of the future proletarian
power.
A regrouping of militants must be actuated by the knowledge that
the conditions of struggle make it necessary to unite the
"legislative and executive powers" in the hands of the factory
workers. They must not compromise on this position: All power to the
committees of action and the workers' councils. This is the class
front. This is the road to communism. To render workers conscious of
the unity of organizational forms of struggle, of class dictatorship,
and of the economic frame of communism, with its abolition of wages -
is the task of the militants.
The militants who call themselves the "Vanguard" have today the
same weakness that characterizes the masses at present. They still
believe that the unions or the one or the other party must direct the
class struggle, though with revolutionary methods. But if it be true
that decisive struggles are nearing, it is not enough to state that
the labour leaders are traitors. It is necessary, especially for
today, to formulate a plan for the formation of the class front and
the forms of its organizations. To this end the control of parties
and unions must be unconditionally fought. This is the crucial point
in the struggle for power.
Paul Mattick
This article by originally appeared in Living Marxism
vol. 4, no. 4 August 1938. Although it appeared unsigned it was
written by Paul Mattick. Living Marxism was the
journal published by the US Groups of Council Communists. It was
reprinted in Red & Black Notes #6 and #7.
Back to History/Theory
Back to Home Page