This link has been bookmarked by 7 people . It was first bookmarked on 28 Oct 2006, by dizzle.
-
29 Oct 12
-
“spontaneous element”, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in an embryonic form
-
workers
-
sense <!-- vol=05 pg=375 src=v05fl61h type=GUESS --> the necessity for collective resistance
-
strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed
-
Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles
-
the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”, remained a purely spontaneous movement
-
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness
-
The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals
-
revolutionary socialist intelligentsia
-
Instead of sounding the call to go forward towards the consolidation of the revolutionary organisation and the expansion of political activity, the call was issued for a retreat to the purely trade union struggle.
-
Political consciousness was completely overwhelmed by spontaneity
-
It is important at this point to note three circumstances that will be useful to our further analysis of contemporary differences
-
In the first place, the overwhelming of political consciousness by spontaneity, to which we referred above, also took place spontaneously
-
it occurred because of the fact that an increasing number of “old” revolutionaries were “torn away” by the gendarmes and increasing numbers of “young” “V. V.s of Russian Social Democracy” appeared on the scene
-
Secondly, in the very first literary expression of Economism we observe the exceedingly curious phenomenon
-
hat the adherents of the “labour movement pure and simple”, worshippers of the closest “organic” contacts (Rabocheye Dyelo’s term) with the proletarian struggle, opponents of any non-worker intelligentsia (even a socialist intelligentsia), are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments of the bourgeois “pure trade-unionists”
-
Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement
-
the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology
-
to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology
-
he spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology
-
for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism
-
and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie
-
our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come <!-- vol=05 pg=385 src=v05fl61h type=GUESS --> under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy
-
But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination
-
our movement is indeed in its infancy, and in order that it may grow up faster, it must become imbued with intolerance against those who retard its growth by their subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are “old hands” who have long ago experienced all the decisive stages of the struggle
-
Thirdly, the first issue of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term “Economism”
-
does not adequately convey the real character of the new trend
-
the instinctive is the unconscious (the spontaneous) to the aid of which socialists must come; that the “first available means of struggle” will always be, in modern society, the trade union means of struggle, and the “first available” ideology the bourgeois (trade union) ideology.
-
That the mass movement is a most important phenomenon is a fact not to be disputed. But the crux of the matter is, how is one to understand the statement that the mass working class movement will “determine the tasks”? <!-- vol=05 pg=390 src=v05fl61h type=GUESS --> It may be interpreted in one of two ways
-
Either it means bowing to the spontaneity of this movement, i.e., reducing the role of Social-Democracy to mere subservience to the working-class movement as such
-
or it means that the mass movement places before us new theoretical, political, and organisational tasks, far more complicated than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of the mass movement
-
We need only point out that Rabocheye Dyelo considered that it was impossible to set the overthrow of the autocracy as the first task of the mass working-class movement, and that it degraded this task (in the name of the mass movement) to that of a struggle for immediate political demands
-
To confound recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient, with the demand at a given political moment to be guided by a strictly observed plan is tantamount, if we are to talk of tactics, to confounding the recognition by medical science of various methods of treating diseases with the necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment for a given disease.
-
That struggle is desirable which is possible, and the struggle which is possible is that which is going on at the given moment. This is precisely the trend of unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to spontaneity
-
And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error committed by the “new trend” in Russian Social-Democracy is its bowing to spontaneity and its failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness from us Social-Democrats
-
The greater the spontaneous upsurge of the masses and the more widespread the movement, the more rapid, incomparably so, the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organisational work of Social-Democracy
-
-
28 Oct 06
-
we think, has until now doubted that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.
-
The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the "revolts’, remained a purely spontaneous movement.
-
The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.
-
“politics always obediently follows economics”
-
“We think that it is not and should not be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic sentiments” (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23), and with the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune” (Two Conferences, p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror does not come within the scope of the “resolution”.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.