Nasser Paydar
Communism Abolition of Wage Labour and Leninist Militant Reformism
The legacy of the two organizations of social democracy in Russian society wore the garb of the “party of professional revolutionaries” and hid its reformist and social-bourgeois content from view to the point of complete revolutionary and communist sanctity. It cut the name of Karl Kautsky and the leaders of social democracy from its family and class tree, became completely Leninist, ascended from earth to heaven and joined the world of the sacred. Acceptance and rejection of it became the valid criterion for being a communist or not. It became the basis for distinguishing the proletariat from the bourgeoisie, in a word, it became everything, and it was after going through all these stages that it acquired the knowledge and tools necessary to export to the labour movement the seven regions of the capitalist system from all sides. The story of the reception of this theory of labour organization by leftist nationalism and popular anti-imperialists is much more exciting and shocking than all other parts of the history of this idea. The theory of two organizations in the line of Bolshevism became the mechanism of radical intervention of the Russian working class in a democratic revolution and the opening of a fruitless and defeated workers’ revolution of the October Revolution type. In the strategy of the camp coalition and world people’s anti-imperialist movement, however, this theory actually became the means of enslaving and completely dissolving the workers’ movement in the framework of the interests, horizons and expectations of a section of the world bourgeois reaction. Left nationalism and people’s anti-imperialist countries found the theory of two organizations of the party and the trade union their greatest heavenly table and their salvation ship, and for this very reason they snatched it from the earth and the sky.
The beginning of the 20th century and the expansion of the imperialist conditions of capitalist production brought political and intellectual representatives of a stratum of the bourgeoisie in the countries of three continents into the field of political struggle, which was forced to speak in the language of the left. This section, in a romanticist manner, without any regard to the historical course of the development and concentration of capital on a global level, and with a deeply erroneous, reactionary and metaphysical understanding of the imperialist stage of capitalist development, demanded to turn back the hand of history, through the phase of primitive accumulation of capital to the previous methods and a special type of capitalist development of society, which in the narrative of its nature was interpreted as the free growth of capitalism!! From the point of view of this group, “finance capital” had a function that conflicted with the true nature of the capitalist mode of production!! Imperialism, as the phase of dominance of this form of capital, did not have a good middle ground with industrial growth and the development of the relationship of buying and selling labour in new areas of capital and commodity export!!! It saw a blatant conflict between the imperialist development of capitalism and the expansion of the capitalist mode of production in new societies!! And at the same time, he considered the successful and desirable path for the growth of capitalism in his homeland to be confronting the influence of finance capital and the presence of imperialism!!! The intellectual representatives of this section of the bourgeoisie were thinking about revolution and were waiting for this event to occur. The revolution in their life perspective was supposed to destroy the domination of imperialism!! To pave the way for the free development of capitalism!! To overthrow the ruling political regime that protected the dominant role of imperialist capital in its society. To transfer foreign capital to the ownership of the state or to native and patriotic owners and to do many other things of this kind. The owners of these opinions and the bearers of these utopias were in great need of the support of the working class and the use of the fighting forces of this class, they worked hard for the unity of the proletariat with their respective social strata and all patriots “opposed to imperialist domination”, and they always had the establishment of a united “anti-imperialist” front!! consisting of what they themselves called the “national bourgeoisie”, “liberal landlords”!! Market traders, small urban artisans, peasants and finally the working class on their agenda. In the analysis of this group, these forces formed the people’s alignment against imperialism, reaction and anti-people forces. For them, overthrowing the regime was the first phase of the struggle, and the path to “eliminating imperialist domination” passed through the path of opposing the regime and replacing it with a government that they themselves called a “workers’ and peasants’ government.”
The history of the presence of these intellectual representatives of the bourgeoisie in the countries of the three continents of Asia, Latin America and Africa coincided with the first years after the victory of the October Revolution. A kind of time symmetry that was very bad for the international labour movement, but for this group itself and also for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of the day, it constituted a “Sadeen Quran” (When two sides confront each other, hostilities are resolved and reconciliation is achieved). What they said and sought were all issues that had already been given sufficient legitimacy by Soviet theorists in a coherent manner and in the form of accepted theories and practically determined the basis of the internationalist approach of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union!! The nationalist narrative of imperialism, the existence of a phenomenon called “national bourgeoisie” in the countries of the three continents!! The alignment of the people and the anti-people!!, the formation of a united anti-imperialist front!!, the People’s Democratic Republic and the like were issues that were also proposed and propagated in different periods and in different forms by theorists of the Soviet Union.
Another very important point in this regard was the very wide-ranging impact of the ideals and horizons that the victory of the October Revolution had historically created on the world level in the perspective of thought and life of the working and subordinate masses. The workers’ revolution of 1917 truly and far from any kind of sloganeering recorded the greatest event in the history of human life. For the first time in history, there was talk of an objective occurrence of an event that carried the banner of planning and establishing a kind of economic and social relations without exploitation and the existence of classes and class oppression. The direction in which this revolution was moving and towards what goals could not be the subject of lively, present and conscious exploration by the working masses of some societies, at least for many years. The fundamental issue was the wide penetration of expectations, horizons and prospects that the occurrence of the revolution had sown the seeds of their realization in all the grooves of the minds and lives of the leading layers of the working class of these societies.
What concrete and decisive practical impact could the effects and results of the influence of the beliefs resulting from the October Revolution on the public opinion of the working masses of the world have on the world’s labour movement today? In turn, it was a question that was related to the current situation of the working class of the countries and the content of the interpretation and practical inference of the leading sections of the labour movement of each society from the various ways of advancing the class struggle, and it was precisely here that the role of a stratum of the bourgeoisie and its political representatives, which we mentioned above, enjoyed great prominence. This stratum, considering the similarity of its analyses, perspectives and interests of the day with the day’s visions and expectations of the Soviet Communist Party on the one hand and the weak position of the labour movement of the societies on the other, set about taking advantage of an important historical opportunity. The formation of a party under the name of the working class and communism was the real prescription for the cure for the pain of this section of the intellectual representatives of the bourgeoisie of the societies within these conditions. This is what was done at the beginning of the 20th century in most countries of the three continents, and the Third International (Comintern) was formed in its dominant composition from parties that had similarly gone through the process of their birth, within the context of this process and from the depths of this class and social origin. At the same time, the Comintern assumed the role of planning, coordinating, and setting the common policy of these parties at the global level. To be more precise, if seventy years earlier in history the European working class and the pioneers and activists of the labour movement of the continent had embarked on the work of the First Labor International to shoot the power of the European proletariat into the heart of the capitalist system, here parties and forces under the same name were joining hands, whose job was to organize a united front of the bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants, and liberal landlords against imperialism!!! to pave the way for the development of capitalism, the establishment of the People’s Democratic Republic, and ultimately the establishment of state capitalism under the name of socialism. The urgent need of the Soviet Union government for a united anti-imperialist front and the even more urgent need of representatives of the bourgeoisie of the three continents to combat the dominant role of monopoly capital in the process of economic development of their societies formed a solid material basis for the historical union of these two poles and the advancement of a single strategy in relation to the nascent labour movement of the countries.
If all the above points are carefully considered, the great importance of the theory of the two-organization of the party and the mass organizations of the working class for this vast historical coalition becomes even more evident. Political and intellectual representatives of the bourgeoisie of the countries of three continents took the lead in forming parties whose task was to lead the struggles called the “anti-imperialist movement of the peoples.” By resorting to this approach, they practically enjoyed all forms of support from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its allied communist parties in Western Europe. At the same time, they considered their organization to be the communist party of the working class. They attracted all the activists of the labour movement of society to themselves and dissolved them in the process of advancing their policies and ideas. They used all the class and historical attachments and affiliations of the broad masses of workers and the subordinates of each society to the ideals and horizons of the October Revolution as a guarantee of their influence on the working class and of attracting the support of this class for their strategies and interests. On the other side of the story was the government of the Soviet Union, which, firstly, within the framework of its analyses and the foundations of its views, felt sympathy with what the leaders of the popular movements were proposing and pursuing; secondly, they were in dire need of the support of this movement; and thirdly, as far as the specific issue of organizing the labour movement was concerned, had long been a promoter and herald of this type of party-building.
The theory of two organizations in the twists and turns of the twentieth century and in the context of the alliance between the left nationalism of countries and the state resulting from the October Revolution put much more pressure on the international labour movement than before. Throughout the capitalist world, under the name of communism, workers were induced that their movement was fundamentally a trade union movement!! The range of expectations, awareness, and power of flight of thought of the broad masses of their class does not go beyond the boundaries of the trade union struggle!! Socialist and anti-capitalist consciousness is not their class and social conscious existence!! Rather, it is the scientific achievements of thinkers of other classes!! Following the anti-capitalist organization and with the horizon of the disappearance of wage labour is not their work nor in the field of their class power, insight, and efficiency, which is the work of thinkers and graduates of the school of scientific socialism!! In a word, everything that social democracy had woven together at the end of the 19th century and all the embellishments, embellishments, and reworkings that Bolshevism had introduced into its original structure in relation to the conditions of Russian society became here the foundation of every conversation and approach regarding the working-class movement of societies. Worse than all of this, all these bourgeois social-political ideas and insinuations were dressed in the sacred garb of “Leninism,” and any kind of communist or Marx’s’ criticism of them was met with the worst excommunications, curses, and curses!!
With the establishment of the state capitalist camp under the name of communism, the disaster of the two-organization theory became even more disastrous for the world working class. The bourgeoisie all over the world built a party in the name of the proletariat, wrote a program for the proletariat, spoke in the name of the proletariat, buried the largest part of the activists of the world labour movement in the rubble of its party building and hanged the working class on the widest level with its completely reactionary, anti-socialist and anti-worker illusions and policies and approaches. These parties also handed over all the old formulations of social democracy to the workers in the camp’s glamorous packaging and in the name of defending the Leninist party. They led the working masses of the world to build unions, to be content with trade union struggles, to strategically submit to the perpetuation of the wage slavery system, and to forget about any anti-capitalist and socialist movement. And wherever the rabid dictatorship of capital did not even allow for open unionization typical of the party, they still called on the workers to become the fuel and metabolic force of the ultra-reactionary and police unions of the capital’s order apparatus.
The party of a section of the bourgeoisie called the workers’ party and the trade union or any mass organization of workers as an institution worthy of wage slaves, the latter’s subordination to the former, the former’s domination over the latter, the latter’s fighting at the feet of the former, the seizure of power for the former by the latter, and in the event of this process’s victory, the planning of all the exploitation, crimes, atrocities, inhumanities, and evils of capitalism by the former and the imposition of all these on the latter, these were the organic links of the historical chain of scenarios that the theory of the two organizations needed and used to advance itself.
The course of historical events and the process of class struggle also pushed the theory of the two organizations more and more into the abyss of insoluble dead ends every day. Along with the bankruptcy, decline, and removal of popular movements from historical relevance, this theory and this type of view on working class organization gradually became a vehicle for the continuation of the leftist sectarianism. What now remains of the fossil form of this solution is more of a sham show for the deception and business of the heirs of nationalist movements and the extinct remnants of the former popular anti-imperialism, rather than having the place of a real social phenomenon.
The working class does not need to build syndicates, unions, and dissolved organizations within the framework of legality and the swamp of capitalist order. Because it is an anti-capitalist class and in its daily practice is struggling with exploitation, oppression, crimes, and injustices resulting from the existence of capital. This class does not need any kind of party beyond itself, because every institution beyond itself is an institution belonging to other classes against it. The theory of the party and syndicate is the theory of the metamorphosis, stupidity, and freezing of the working class in the scaffolding of the perpetuation of wage slavery. It is the theory of separating the working masses from any anti-capitalist struggle and from any anti-wage labour approach and for the abolition of wage labour. This theory is the container for organizing the labour movement to replace the current type of capitalist planning of labour and production with its state and party-ruled form. Here, the working masses are asked not to be against capital in their daily struggles and to base their disputes on agreement and consensus with the owners of capital. At the same time, the working masses are advised to be the conveyor belt for launching their own party into the ranks of political power, so that on the morrow of the revolution, they can sell their labour and production in another form of capitalist planning.
The proletariat is a class whose liberation requires the abolition of any state over it. To achieve such a day, the proletariat cannot hang on to two organizations. It needs to establish an organization within which it can fight for the demands of its day, while expanding each circle of this struggle into a roaring bulwark against the labour process of capital and the conditions of reproduction and self-expansion of the capitalist mode of production. Here and in every step of this continuous struggle, it should deepen its understanding of the dimensions of exploitation and oppression of capital, elevate the critique of the political economy of capital in the context of the practical struggle of the day and the living and present process of labour and production to its conscious existence. Its conscious people, if they are truly conscious people of their class, should, in the heart of this struggle and in the depths of this organization, use all their efficiency, power, and insight to guarantee the victory of the struggles, the greater consciousness of the struggles, and the greater horizons of this struggle. It is only in the context of such organization that the working masses will make the process of their ongoing anti-capitalist struggle conscious step by step, make this struggle more and more organized, and link the content of this organization with a more conscious anti-wage labour approach. It is in this process that they remove the collar of superiority of any kind of force, organization, and power beyond their movement. They fight, while becoming more and more conscious, they fight while becoming more and more anti-wage labour, they fight while making their struggle more and more horizon oriented. It is in the context of this process that the conscious makes the unconscious more conscious, the progressive brings its chain of command with it, the Marxian critique of capitalism becomes a weapon for the critique of present objectivity and the entire existing existence. It is only in the context of this process that the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie from the throne of power and subsequently establish the all-embracing Council organization of socialist labour and production with the participation of all its members.
The opponents of these statements have historically made many contradictions. Their first argument could be that the labour movement is actually composed of various tendencies. How is it that all of this movement is supposed to come together within a nationwide organization, with an anti-capitalist approach and the horizon of abolishing wage labour? We have answered this question repeatedly and here we repeat very briefly that there are definitely different tendencies in the labour movement. But communists are not allowed to separate themselves from the nationwide structure of the labour movement on the pretext of the existence of different tendencies within the working class. If their difference from other tendencies is in the fight for the liberation of the entire class and their pursuit and steadfastness in achieving this goal, then how do they want to move in this direction without the masses of the class?! Let alone, the existence of different tendencies in the working class does not invalidate the basis of the antagonism of the proletariat as a class with the capitalist system. The masses of the working class, based on their working conditions, livelihood and exploitation, and as members of the class that sells labour power, have not been ideologically or predestined to package themselves into different social and class approaches. It is in the process of fighting against this exploitation and working conditions that they turn to different solutions and approaches. The nature of this approach, the grounds for its germination, growth, coherence and maturity, in turn are a function of the result of the pressure of forces that come from different sides and from different types of class and social strategies on the labour movement. The radical materialist view of the reality of this movement requires that communists, or the radical approach that calls for the radical abolition of the capitalist system, strive to mobilize and unite the largest possible sections of the entire class against the capitalist base within this movement and in its overall anti-capitalist organizational structure. Just as all other approaches will certainly do and have done so horribly in order to advance their reformist goals and drag as many workers as possible into the swamp of reformist expectations. The divergence of approaches in the labour movement is natural, but which part of the working masses will join which approach is a matter that depends on the objective conditions of life of different sections of the working class, but in particular on how the class struggle progresses and how tendencies confront each other within this struggle. What makes communists real communists of the labour movement are not party building beyond the workers and chanting empty slogans: Destroy! and establish! Not sectarian and sectarian propaganda, not calls to attract the class to the party, not just calling on the masses to overthrow, and none of these, but their organic nature with the daily course of the workers’ class struggle and the anti-wage labour response to all the needs of the development of the labour movement. By effectively proposing radical solutions against wage labour in every small and large conflict within this movement, by making maximum efforts to make the anti-capitalist struggle of the working masses more conscious, and in a word, by helping to fuel, develop, and build the living and present movement of the working class in the context of the struggle against the system of wage slavery, one can claim to play the role of a true communist. For this, what is not at all necessary is to cling to the two organizations of the party and the union, and what is very vital is to strive for a nationwide anti-capitalist organization of the working class with the horizon of abolishing wage labour.
Among the various fortifications that are being built to defend the boundaries of the two organizations, the most important thing is that the party and mass organizations of the working class are different organizational containers that are suitable for different levels of workers’ struggle!! What these people mean by proposing this formulation is that the labour movement is not a one-sided phenomenon and that not all workers are at the same level of social knowledge and class consciousness and the passion for struggle and political intervention. There is always a layer of progressive, aware and familiar activists with the bright socialist horizon in this movement, whose close connection and connection with each other and within an organization can play a very decisive role in organizing the entire workforce. This section of labour activists is aware of Marx’s teachings, the history of class struggle and the experiences gained from these struggles, they have the power to think of solutions and influence the speech and provide a path for the labour movement, and in short, they are not comparable to the general public in terms of awareness and capacity for influence.
The defenders of the two organizations continue their argument by adding that, in contrast to the spectrum of intellectuals, progressives, and socialist elements above, there is a vast mass of workers who, due to their working and living conditions, are in conflict with capitalist exploitation and the oppression of this system. However, these are not socialists, they do not actually demand a radical change in the capitalist system, their expectations are limited to improving living conditions and achieving a minimum of welfare and social facilities. This vast mass may also feel terrified at hearing the name of socialism and may turn away from any kind of organization or even any kind of struggle under the pressure of this fear, and…
By pointing out the differences between these two distinct parts of the labour movement, the supporters of Lenin’s party theory conclude that the organization of the working class must be pursued at two different and distinct levels!! This argument is fundamentally anti-socialist and anti-Marxist in its approach to the abolition of wage labour. I will explain this issue briefly, but at the beginning of this explanation, we must dwell on an important preliminary point. The content of this point is to examine the true meaning of the communist activist of the labour movement. This is a subject that left reformism presents and portrays in a deeply distorted, anti-Marxist, and anti-practical and radical materialist version. The communist activist of the working class means the conscious worker who practically and through various aspects of his intervention plays the greatest possible role in the course of current events within the labour movement. He follows all the daily events of this movement with class acumen and prudence, watches all the dangers on the path of the workers’ class struggle with open and worried eyes, and thinks of solutions to ward them off. The communist activist of the labour movement is not a schoolboy with academic baggage, rhetorical art, and theory-making skills; on the contrary, he is a person who is in close contact with the life, pain, and suffering of the workers’ struggle from moment to moment. He does not plot to falsely infect his name among the workers by joining this or that sect; on the contrary, he is an inner member of his neighbour, a confidant, and an empathizer of the masses of his class. He is considered a credible person among his associates not because he is a good speaker or a capable writer or because he is a member of this or that party committee, but because he connects the needs of the day’s struggle of the workers to the wave of their protest with language, pen, and any other means. He is the beloved of the workers’ hearts, and he has earned this popularity not through false fame derived from a name and social custom within the class society, but from the heart and substance of empathy, collaboration, and companionship in the common class struggle with the workers. Wherever he is, the communist activist of the working class accompanies the process of the formation of workers’ strikes, he moves through the maze of this process from all different channels and tries in various ways to make it successful. He plays the same role in the process of organizing the working class. The main issue is not where he is physically present or not, the whole point of the matter is that he is and is not. His life, thoughts and preoccupations are the workers’ movement, and he spontaneously and spontaneously gets involved in the course of the workers’ struggles. He thinks everything he can to unite the workers and turns the result of this thought into practice in every possible way.
There is much to be said about what makes a worker a communist activist of his class struggle, but our task here is not to describe these characteristics. This brief reference is merely an introduction to the discussion of those who depart from different levels of workers’ struggles to arrive at the valley of two organizations. The statement that the real distinctions existing in the labour movement have been the natural basis of party building on the one hand and mass organizations on the other is, first of all, a baseless conversation lacking any reliable historical background. The vast majority of the so-called “communist” parties from the time of the Comintern to the present have absolutely not been parties composed of communist labour activists of the labour movement. All of these parties were formed by representatives of other movements and, in order to exercise leadership over the working class, have at best hunted down a few labour activists. A very obvious example is the parties that have been formed with the same name in Iranian society and throughout the history of the labour movement in this country. What has happened here is not an exception, but rather the true rule of the emergence of all parties in all other societies in the world.
Among all the parties up to now, the Bolshevik Party has had a different situation in this respect. This party had a large working-class base and had a very wide influence among the Russian working masses. Nevertheless, the idea that the Bolshevik Party was truly a party of communist activists of the Russian working class is pure fantasy. I have explained this point explicitly above as far as the content of the party’s policies, goals and approach is concerned. The point at issue here is not a return to those issues but precisely the organizational structure of the party. The founders of the Bolshevik Party were not communist activists within the labour movement, who were generally the participants, organizers and policymakers of the democratic revolution of the day in Russia. It should not be forgotten that there is a very big difference between the social influence of a party among the workers and its multi-worker nature, whether in terms of the content of class goals and expectations or organizational structure. The Bolsheviks had remarkable success in attracting and assimilating radical activists within the Russian labour movement, but the reality is that these same radical labour elements, in the dynamics of the party’s political approaches and prescriptions, instead of trying to organize the anti-wage labour masses of their class, practically played the role of heroes of the anti-tsarist revolution of the day. In any case, as far as the historical background of the formation of the so-called communist parties is concerned, what is true is that the aforementioned parties were never formed as a solution to the current situation of organizing communist activists within the labour movement with the aim of advancing the class struggle against wage labour and establishing socialism. More importantly and worse, all the leaders, leaders, and founders of these parties have basically denied the living and present existence of an anti-wage labour approach in the labour movement. All of them have considered, at best, the growth of a socialist tendency in the working class to require intervention from above and the miracle of their respective parties. The Comintern parties were generally the arena for the role-playing and influence of people who wore their own helmets and poplar’s anti-imperialist Armor and fought in the wake of the establishment of state capitalism of the camp type. Another point is worth mentioning here. The current defenders of Lenin’s party and the phenomenon of the “two organizations” themselves have no idea about the anti-capitalist and anti-wage labour character of the labour movement. They very persistently consider communism to be the discovery of the genius of the propertied classes. The clear meaning of this type of conception of communism is that this group admits to their class alienation from the working masses and to their complete denial of their belonging to the labour movement, and it is precisely on the strength of all these reasons that their appeal to the bearers of different levels of the working class struggles to prove the necessity of two separate labour organizations, one of which should be a communist organization of the living and present activists within the labour movement, rather than being a serious statement, evokes in the minds of the famous story of the shark and the broad beard. Thus, referring the subjectivity of two distinct communist and syndicalist formations, or “party” and ” Tudeh Party” for the working class to two different levels of struggle of this class is a statement that is not supported by any previous historical event. No party has truly arisen from such a necessity, and all parties up to now, with their class and political presence and absence, prove the opposite of this claim. But our conversation with the defenders of this view is absolutely not about the presence and absence of precedent or referring the correctness and incorrectness of the issue to the past history of the labour movement. So, let’s see what the fundamental and insoluble problem of those who put forward this view is and what basic and complex contradictions they face.
We start from the existence of two different levels of workers’ struggle. The first level is a socialist struggle, with a clear horizon of the conscious abolition of wage labor, represented by communist activists, and the second level, which does not have these characteristics, is based on opposition to capitalist exploitation, the injustices, atrocities, and crimes of this current system, and the vast majority of the working masses are the real driving force behind it. The first and most fundamental question in this passage is why and for what reason should these two levels of struggle be separated and distinct?!! What is the purpose of being communist, aware, having a horizon, wisdom, insight, and class solution of the representatives of the first sphere, and where is it supposed to be used?! If all this is for the current working-class movement and the anti-wage labour and socialist ignition force is supposed to be the class struggle of the working masses, then why should it take the path of exile on its own feet?! It should simply settle in a monastery and remain completely away from any kind of socialist influence on the course of the daily events of the labour movement within the four walls of the party ruins?!!! Doesn’t issuing this verdict and believing in this horrific option mean deliberately issuing a license to organize the ugliest type of capitalist division of labour within the labour movement?! The division of intellectual and manual labour is an organic phenomenon of all class societies, and this division of labour reaches its final stages of perfection in the capitalist mode of production and the political, civil, and social order corresponding to it. The planning of the work and production process above the heads of the working masses, the politicization of social order beyond the will and thoughts of the workers, and in a word, the complete collapse of the working class from any kind of interference and decision, planning and exercising will, are all coercive phenomena of the capitalist production method. The important and basic question is, isn’t the division of the working class into policymakers, managers, resourceful, thinkers and solution-makers at the same time and the politicized masses, obedient, executors, lacking the power of thinking and planning, desperate and without interference and waiting for the miracles of unseen forces beyond themselves, is not the same reactionary division of labour, anti-communist and against any kind of Marxist view and attitude towards the fate of humans and the class struggle of the working masses? Isn’t the issuing of this fatwa that the first group should set up a party and the large population of the latter become dry firewood for trade-unionist campaigns, is not resorting to the evillest way to lock the collar of the division of labour of reactionary capitalism on the hands and feet of the workers?
The answer to all these questions is definitely positive. The theory of two organizations of party building by the political and intellectual representatives of the working class, assuming that this is really the case!! (We explained above that it has never been the case) and the simultaneous organization of the masses of the working class in mass organizations, is nothing other than the fragmentation of the labour movement based on the capitalist division of labour. This division of labour is also the real cornerstone of the productive, political and civil order of state capitalism. According to this theory, a population under the name of intellectuals, thinkers and elites of the working class! They gather together by writing a program and statute and a handful of professional formulations. With their own diligence and without having anything to do with the ongoing struggles of the working masses, they name their organization the Workers’ Communist Party!! According to what they have determined and deduced, they demand from the vast mass of wage slaves of capital that they establish a syndicate, union and in any case some kind of institution of struggle with the employers for their daily struggles. Gradually and to the extent of their ability, they begin to hunt down labour activists. Each and every one of these activists is being surgically removed from the body of the class struggle of the Workers’ Day and made an honorary member of the party. In the continuation of this process, the current anti-wage labour movement of the working class, with the loss of its activists and intellectuals, is practically becoming a sick movement, surgically cut into its vital tissues and tissues, exhausted and vulnerable. While at the same time, as another part of the same event, its isolated and ineffective members, within the framework of a specific capitalist division of labour, are working to form a superior headquarters to govern the same exhausted, hopeless, sick and confused movement!!!
The direct result of the situation is the decline of the labour movement into the abyss of despair in the field of anti-wage labour struggle, and in the meantime, what is being formed under the name of the party in its name is not only not its breadwinner, but on the contrary, is a scourge for its life. The only role of the latter institution is to try with all its cunning to make the shadow of its hegemony based on the capitalist division of labour heavy on the head and face of that weakened movement without a horizon, by issuing fatwas and revealing the sacred verses of the party, asking the workers to overthrow the current political regime and install the party in its place with its catapult of power. What will happen in the future of these possible changes and shifts is also very clearly known in advance. The party will seize political power and will order the labour movement, which has been left powerless under the pressure of the disaster of two organizations to unite and organize itself against wage labour, to begin and continue a new era of wage slavery, this time under a different name and under another false flag.
The discussion of the two levels of the working-class struggle and the derivation of the theory of two organizations beyond these two levels of struggle is in fact an attempt to push the labour movement into the black wilderness that we have depicted above. But apart from all this, another serious question arises here. Why should we speak of two contradictory and distinct levels of workers’ struggles? Despite what the founders of this idea think, the labour movement is a movement with a single and definite class identity before it is presented to us with different levels of expression of its political or social life. The movement of wage slaves is capital, which is characterized by this identity, namely the struggle against capital and the capitalist system. The basis of the work of this movement is also fundamentally based on maintaining its unity and integrity, and all its distinctions and internal conflicts must be considered in order to maintain this integrity and in accordance with its objective and class nature. Opposition to wage labour is the fundamental axis of this unity, and what must necessarily be the foundation of the outlook, practice, and struggle of every communist activist is to bring the divisions, differences, and disagreements closer together around this axis. To what extent this goal is achievable and to what extent the communists will succeed in realizing it is a later issue, but moving from different levels of struggle and issuing a decree of division and separation is not a solution for the active worker to wage labour, but on the contrary, is the very mechanism used by the representatives of the bourgeoisie to divide the labour movement and exercise guardianship and domination over it. In the first case, i.e., the departure from the axis of anti-capitalist solidarity, the urgent, inevitable, and continuous task of the communist activist is to consciously and solution-orientally immerse himself in the depths of the current struggles of the workers and to make an all-round effort to fertilize and develop the anti-wage labour of the entire labour movement. For this, he sinks deeper and deeper into the depths of this movement. In its every step, by proposing clear anti-capitalist and practical solutions, he sows the seeds of awareness and transforms the daily struggles into a more conscious, more horizon-oriented, more united, and more organized struggle. He is everywhere with the masses of his class. He fights against right-wing syndicalist reformism and sweeps the destructive solutions of this tendency from before the workers’ feet in the daily practical process. Everywhere, in the field of objective disputes of approaches, he is present with an effective mechanism in favour of the anti-wage labour approach and puts pressure on the existing arrangement of forces, taking into account all the conditions, possibilities, obstacles, and prohibitions, to make the burden of communism heavier. The abolitionist activist joins forces with all other fellow activists in this continuous practice, and each step forward in this alliance becomes a new and effective force for the development of the anti-wage labour organization of the masses of his class.
In reference to the axis of unity and integrity of the labour movement, the relationship between the different levels of the workers’ struggle and the interaction between the activists and the less active or informed and less informed masses is regulated and described in the above manner, but the exact opposite is true in the case of the departure from the distinct levels of the workers’ struggle and the twisted version of the capitalist division of labour for it. Here, first of all, it is the anti-capitalist foundation of the labour movement that is the target of the attack. The line of anti-wage labour cohesion is bridged, and the progressives of the class under the name of communism, instead of giving a living, practical, objective, and present communist response to the course of events of the workers’ struggles, go to the party study and discussion rooms. First of all, they sing in the ears of all the working masses that the destined nature of their struggles is trade unionist and that they should not step out of their comfort zone and consider their daily struggle with capital as anti-capitalist and invalidating the validity of wage labour!! In this way, at the very first step, they bury the anti-wage labour nature of the working masses’ movement in the cemetery of submission and submission to capital and determine the task of the largest section of the working class in terms of the multifaceted class struggle. After this phase, or in fact, in order to gain the relief of the idea that being anti-wage labour is not the business of the working masses, but a virtue, dignity, and divine gift or a profession exclusive to a handful of elites, the defenders of the Leninist party set about forming a party. The departure from the two distinct levels of the working-class struggle has taught them that the first level is only worthy of trade unionism and class play and the corresponding disputes that accept the dominance of wage slavery. The second level, on the other hand, is composed of heroes, heroes, and role models. They must distinguish themselves from the first cursed ones in order to be able to carry the burden of the mission of emancipating the class!! It may seem that explaining the story in this way is exaggerated. Certainly, some people think so and they have evidence and proof to prove their idea. They say and are right to say that a large number of staunch defenders of the Leninist party or the theory of two organizations have never thought like this and have not been prisoners of these thoughts and beliefs. On the contrary, without any pretence and in the utmost honesty, they have devoted themselves wholeheartedly to socialism and the emancipation of the proletariat. What they say is absolutely true. Any doubt about the honesty, selflessness, high human idealism, and unshakable love of the individuals in question for socialism and the emancipation of the working masses is cruel and wicked. The problem is not here at all. The discussion is about something that becomes practical and becomes objective. The discussion is about departing from the different levels of workers’ struggles and securing the distinctions between these levels for the establishment of a party in one place and sending the workers’ movement into the sphere of trade unionism and syndicalist reformism leadership in another place. When people do this, they have practically transformed all the above components and characteristics into the practice of their lives, and in this case, their pure intentions and high human idealism and their unsparing sacrifices have not only watered the fields of socialism abolishing wage labour, but also the swamp of bourgeois interests and power. In a word, the existence of different levels of working-class struggles is a real and obvious thing, but the solution of Marx communism to it is the effort to ensure the unity of the workers’ movement around the axis of anti-wage labour. The two-organization theory moves in the opposite direction from the existence of this reality, transforming it into a strategy for party building over the heads of the workers, taking the weapons of communism from the working masses, and finally submitting the entire proletariat to the noose of wage slavery, within the scope of a full-fledged capitalist division of labour.
It was mentioned above that the theory of two organizations is fundamentally a suitable mechanism for establishing state capitalism. Accordingly, to the extent that it includes the labour movement within its influence, the risk of this movement falling into the lap of this form of capitalist planning of work and production becomes more serious. It is not necessary to go any further to prove this. If the rhetoric and demagoguery are set aside, what remains in the form of social and class practice embodied in this type of solution-making is that some people above the workers are busy building a party and building a party building, while the spontaneous and spontaneous movement of the workers remains at the level of clinging to union struggles and capitalist solutions to solve and overcome livelihood problems. The former transforms themselves into an anti-regime scaffolding devoid of any socialist content, while the latter also stay away from the platform of a class development that is horizon-oriented and consciously anti-wage labour and socialist. The former tries to impose their will on the latter, while at the same time, as the left opposition of capitalist society, they strive to seize political power. The latter, under the pressure of the terrible exploitation of capital and all forms of oppression and injustice of capitalism, are constantly fighting against the existing situation and the ruling political regime. What can come out of such a process is that the former will probably ride the wave of the latter’s power to the ranks of capital’s power and subsequently send the same mass of their power conveyor belt to the centres of work and production to begin a new era of wage slavery. If the defenders of the two-organization theory ever achieve victory in any corner of the world, they will do nothing else with the labour movement. They have done nothing else in the past and have recorded nothing else in their political record.
Sources
Marx. Capital, Volume I
Marx. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Marx. The Class Struggle in France,
Marx. The German Ideology
Marx. Capital, Volume III
Marx. Letter to Kugelmann
Engels. Anti-Dohring
Samani. The History of the Working Class
Kautsky. The Class Struggle
A.H. Kar. History of Soviet Russia
Trotsky. History of the Russian Revolution
Lenin. Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
Lenin. What is to be Done? Acute Problems of the Malian Movement
Lenin. Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Lenin. The Tasks of the Soviet Government,
Lenin. Speech on the Party Program at the Eighth Congress
Lenin. The Left-Wing Childhood Illness in Communism
Lenin. On the Sex Tax
Lenin. The Material Basis of Socialism and the Plan for Electrification