The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom
The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom
The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
“<strong>The</strong> present critique of the old parties is not only a critique of their practical policies, or of the behaviour of<br />
their leaders, but a critique of the whole old conception of the party. It is a direct consequence of the changes in<br />
the structure and objectives of the mass movement, the task of the [revolutionary] party lies in its activity within<br />
the mass movement of the proletariat.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ses showed historically that the conception of a workers’ party acting on the model of the bourgeois<br />
parties of the French revolution, and not distinct from other social strata, had become outdated with the Paris<br />
Commune. <strong>The</strong> Party aims, not at the conquest of the state but at its destruction:<br />
“In this period of the development of mass action, the political party of the working class was to play a much<br />
greater role. Because the workers had not yet become the overwhelming majority of the population, the political<br />
party still appeared to be the necessary organisation, which had to work to draw the majority of the population in<br />
behind the action of the workers, just as the bourgeoisie’s party acted in the bourgeois revolution; because the<br />
proletarian party had to be at the head of the state, the proletariat had to conquer state power.”<br />
Showing capitalism’s evolution after 1900, “a period of growing prosperity for capitalism”, the <strong>The</strong>ses showed<br />
the development of reformism within the social democracy. <strong>The</strong>y tend to reject the parties of the 2 nd<br />
International after 1900, given their evolution towards parliamentary and trades union opportunism. And they<br />
ignore the reaction of the communist lefts (Lenin, Luxemburg, Pannekoek) within it. Showing the “pretence of<br />
full democracy” within the classic social democracy, and the “complete split between the mass of members and<br />
the party leadership”, the <strong>The</strong>ses conclude negatively, and do not show the organisation’s positive contribution<br />
to the workers’ movement of the day: “<strong>The</strong> political party ceases to be a formation of the power of the working<br />
class. It becomes the workers’ diplomatic representative within capitalist society. It takes part in Parliament, and<br />
in the organisation of capitalist society, as a loyal opposition”.<br />
World War I opened a new period: that of the proletarian revolution. <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ses considered that the origin of the<br />
revolution lay in the absolute pauperisation of the proletariat, not in the change in period. Consequently, it was<br />
hard to see how the revolutionary period of 1917-23 differed from 1848, a period of ‘absolute pauperisation’<br />
characteristic of youthful capitalism: “<strong>The</strong> outbreak of the World War meant that the period of relative<br />
pauperisation was being succeeded by that of absolute pauperisation. This new evolution must necessarily push<br />
the workers into a revolutionary opposition to capital. At the same time, the workers also entered into conflict<br />
with the social democracy”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ses did not forget to emphasise the positive contributions of the post-war revolutionary wave: the<br />
spontaneous birth of “enterprise organisations and workers’ councils as organs of workers’ democracy within the<br />
enterprise, and organs of local political democracy”. However, the <strong>The</strong>ses minimised the revolutionary<br />
significance of Russia 1917; they only seemed to remember what followed it: the counter-revolution and state<br />
capitalism. <strong>The</strong>y saw in the 1917 revolution, the origins of the stalinist counter-revolution. Any process of<br />
‘degeneration’ was denied, and the Russian workers thus made responsible for the defeat of the Russian<br />
Revolution. <strong>The</strong> development of “state socialism” (i.e. state capitalism) was seen as “the result of the workers’<br />
and peasants’ revolutionary struggle”.<br />
Nonetheless, the <strong>The</strong>ses were lucid on the pernicious effect on the workers of the time, of the confusion between<br />
socialism and state capitalism: “... thanks to the Russian Revolution, the state socialist conception acquired a<br />
revolutionary halo which contributed largely to blocking the workers’ real revolutionary coming to<br />
consciousness”. 1205<br />
1205 In 1943, Pannekoek himself, despite his analysis of the Russian Revolution as ‘bourgeois’ showed that October 1917 had<br />
had a positive effect on class consciousness: “<strong>The</strong>n as a bright star in the dark sky the Russian revolution flared up and<br />
shone over the earth. And everywhere the masses were filled with anticipation and became restive, listening to its call for<br />
the finishing of the war, for brotherhood of the workers of all countries, for world revolution against capitalism. Still<br />
clinging to their old socialist doctrines and organisations the masses, uncertain under the flood of calumnies in the press,<br />
stood waiting, hesitating, whether the tale might still come true. Smaller groups, especially among the young workers,<br />
everywhere assembled in a growing communist movement. <strong>The</strong>y were the advance guard in the movements that after the<br />
end of the war broke out in all countries, most strongly in defeated and exhausted Central Europe.” [Les Conseils ouvriers,<br />
295