Bourgeois and Proletarian Organization | libcom.org

The argument that forms of organization must be adapted to the respective epoch of development is very often contradicted by the apparently logical and common saying: Revolution is not a “question of organization.” This phrase largely arises from the concern for the existence of an existing organization defended by the advocates of this latter thesis, and refers in general discussions to the trade unions and to all political parties, which at the same time with this confession document that they themselves pay homage to this principle and apply it practically within their own parties. Needless to say, the tendency of such a “position” is exactly the same as the assertion that certain positions must not be shaken, that a discussion of them would contradict the “position” as soon as it has been taken. A revolutionary who defends a “position” in this way, however, can never have arrived at his conclusion on the basis of a critical examination of the factors determining this position, but has a “position,” come what may. Despite all the warnings and events of history, he continues to hold to his “position”, which for him is valid forever, and defends it all the more as the organisation and the principle of organisation which he defends prove to be more and more useless, ossify and become an instrument of counter-revolution. He becomes the most ardent defender of the position which has already been half uprooted and refuted by history, and so today one hears more often than ever that it is not always easy to say whether it is stubbornness or desperation in view of the attitude of the trade unions and parliamentary parties: “The revolution is not a question of organisation.” Of course, an organisation is a requirement. But the form would not really matter. Otherwise the necessary organisational changes could be carried out even within the old organisations. In any case, it would be unwise and short-sighted to break up all existing organisations in order to build new ones.

This self-made logic is in itself characteristic of the reactionary petty bourgeoisie; once such a “position” has been taken, it is difficult to refute. As a rule, the advocates of such a principle also follow their own logic, or rather the logic of their position, and end up in the ranks of the counter-revolution, not only organizationally, but of course also politically. Among them are the organizational machinists of the reactionary trade unions and parliamentary parties. They put forward an apparently innocent organizational question in order to defend a reactionary principle: such a dogma, fixed forever as the position of an organization, excludes all intellectual and principled life within that organization. Within such an organization everyone can only be an object. From this follows quite naturally the division of labor among the “representatives” which flows from the structure of this organization. This organization forces people into submission. Since the political attitude does not depend on pious wishes and petty-bourgeois ideals, but on iron historical facts, the class struggles within society force decisions. However, since the owners of the organization have different economic and social interests than the objects of the organization, the whole body is exposed to ever more serious crises in the ever more intense struggle between the proletariat and capital. In every struggle, in the whole political attitude corresponding to the interests of the professional leadership, it increasingly places itself in strict opposition to the interests of the proletariat, which has been hurled into the social abyss by bourgeois society. This crisis of capital, which is transmitted to the organizations that have arisen under capitalism, and which must also intensify as it becomes more intense, has in reality raised the question of whether the revolution is an organizational question or not, and will no longer allow it to disappear from the agenda. Even if the petty-bourgeois organizational bureaucracy does not fit into the “position”.

What is an organization? An organization is an association for the common pursuit of a common goal with common means. Organization therefore only makes sense if there is agreement in principle on tactics and goals. If contradictions arise in principle, the formal organizational break must also follow the breaking of the previous agreement in principle. If this is to be avoided, the fundamental contradictions must be put aside. These in turn, however, arise from the respective class positions of the various class layers united in the organization. The class will crystallized in the brain is the ideological reflection of the social process that takes place as a result of the economic collapse. The mental understanding of revolutionary necessities, their dissemination and the struggle to overcome the tactics that history has long marked as harmful and anti-class, is the logical outcome of a revolutionary ideology. It is the revolutionary process in the positive, in the creative revolutionary sense.

In the period of the last capitalist crisis, reformism and revolutionary class struggle are mutually exclusive. They are irreconcilable opposites, because reformism becomes the mortal enemy of the proletariat and, in order to assert itself politically, openly takes the side of the counter-revolution, complaints about the “preservation” of an organization in practice mean practical help for the counter-revolution, because the organizational structures shaken by the crisis due to the intensifying class antagonisms could be saved only at the cost of revolutionary knowledge, ultimately only at the cost of the suicide of the proletarian class.

Organization without intellectual activity is the hallmark of bourgeois organization. Bourgeois organization is the bourgeois class state in miniature. The ruling class within the organization “looks after” the “interests” of the dominated. The epoch of reformism, of developing capitalism, did not pose practical revolutionary tasks to the proletariat; capitalism fulfilled its social functions poorly. The working class fought for room for maneuver within capitalism as a class; its struggle for emancipation within the bourgeois world was, from a historical perspective, revolutionary in the bourgeois sense. But it was not aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system. The question of capitalism and communism was not on the agenda. The struggle of the proletariat for social reforms, for political concessions, was not directed against the bourgeois class state as such, but for the transformation of the bourgeois class state without shaking the capitalist order in principle. Consequently, organization and tactics also had to be bourgeois. In order to push through possible demands within the framework of developing capitalism, “pressure” from below was sufficient. The “weight” of the masses was sufficient. Sufficient were the masses that could be thrown into the struggle as objects, sufficient were the much-vaunted discipline and unity. The demands that were made in each case did not make demands on the creative power of the proletariat, but were addressed to the bourgeoisie for fulfillment. The capitalist division of labor brought with it the ever-increasing political and organizational dependence of the organization on the leadership, which was conditioned by the intellectual lack of autonomy of the proletariat. The organization became the property of the leadership. This fact, however, had no practical effect until capitalism entered its twilight and the world war broke out. The proletariat as a class was confronted with another task. The proletarian revolution cannot be carried out by the bourgeoisie, communism cannot be introduced by the leaders. The mental and physical strength to overthrow the old and create the new must come from the masses themselves. The class boundary does not run where the last worker stands and the first capitalist begins, but is drawn by the class knowledge that is slowly born in the class struggle and revolutionary experiences. The revolutionary, the creative principle breaks through the old organizational shells and barriers and stands in the struggle against the old world. Thus the new organization with the new content is already born in the revolutionary process. The proletariat recognizes that it is not enough to “want” something, but that action must come first. This action in turn is not only a display of personal courage, but first of all the working out of the programmatic and tactical path, the realization of the conditions and tasks that must be solved in the revolution on the basis of the conditions of the revolution. Whoever “wants” the revolution must want it for himself. The ability to seize the right moment in the revolution, in the revolutionary struggle, to successfully exploit conquered positions, to hold one’s head high in apparent or real confusion and to act steadfastly and confidently, cannot be “learned” but arises from the respective theoretical stage of the proletariat. The respective class consciousness! A communist is not someone who wears a Soviet star on every jacket, but someone who thinks revolutionary. Who always thinks only of the revolution and demands the highest of himself. Who does not avoid any question, but realizes that whoever wants to be practical must know what he wants to do. Whoever is content with devotion to the revolution and tries to replace everything with shouting, remains, despite his personal courage, a petty bourgeois, an object in the hands of those who are superior to him.

The revolutionary Class Will born of revolutionary knowledge, writing a new world on its program, separates itself from bourgeois ideology like fire and water; the rising creative Class Consciousness of the revolutionary proletariat is naturally directed against bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology is the content of the old workers’ organizations. The old good old mole history confronts the reformist forces with reformist impossibilities. In order to preserve themselves, they must take the side of the capitalist class in the period of the most bitter class struggle to save capital and create the conditions for reformist politics. Must march together with the enemies of the proletariat against the proletariat and are condemned to open the eyes of even the most stupid proletarian. In the unspeakable agony and suffering of the exploited class, the revolutionary class consciousness creates new forms as weapons against class betrayal. The revolutionary Class Will creates new organizations for struggle and construction at the same time. Between two fronts, however, stand the worshippers of the old barracks, which have long since become guillotines for the proletariat, and claim that revolution is not a question of organization. They affirm their revolutionary sentiments and do not realize that they themselves are living proof of standard reactionary petrifaction. The revolutionary proletariat, however, has no reason to distinguish between white and “red” apostles of counter-revolution; it has understood that the difficult work of its own liberation cannot be taken from it, from anyone, that it must accomplish its task entirely on its own. It has given itself the organizational forms in the AAU and KAPD and will continue the struggle with these weapons until victory.