Klassens förstfödslorätt
... Vi hoppas, att våra
kamrater inte skall undgå att se vilken väsentlig skillnad
som föreligger mellan dessa båda metoder ...
Om vi tar grundprincipen i betraktande, har denna skillnad avgörande
betydelse, när det gäller att bestämma karaktären
av vårt partis arbete. Å ena sidan är det fråga
om att producera tankar för proletariatet och att etablera sig som
ett politiskt substitut för arbetarklassen. Å andra sidan är
det fråga om den politiska utbildningen av proletariatet, klassens
politiska mobilisering ...
|
(De översatta delarna i fet kursiv)
DOWN WITH POLITICAL SUBSTITUTIONALISM!
By giving a detailed exposition of different examples it has
been my intention to draw attention to the difference in principle which
separates two opposing methods of work. And this
difference, in essence, is decisive, if we are to define the character
of all work carried out by our Party. In the one case we have a party
which thinks for the proletariat, which substitutes itself politically
for it, and in the other we have a party which politically educatesand
mobilises the proletariat to exercise rational pressure
on the will of all political groups and parties. These two systems give
objectively quite different results.
|
Liksom hos 'ekonomisterna' (fackföreningsfolket) är också
det politiska substitutet eller ersättningssystemet medvetet eller
omedvetet ett resultat av en felaktig och förvrängd uppfattning
om sambandet mellan proletariatets objektiva intressen och dess medvetenhet. |
The system of political substitutionism, exactly like the
system of simplification of the “Economists,” proceeds—consciously
or not—from a false and “sophistical” understanding of
the relationship between the objective interests of the proletariat and
its consciousness. Marxism teaches that the interests of the
proletariat are determined by the objective conditions of its existence.
These interests are so powerful and so inescapable that they finally oblige
the proletariat to allow them into the realm of its consciousness, that
is, to make the attainment of its objective interests and its subjective
concern. Between these two factors—the objective fact of its class
interest and its subjective consciousness—lies the realm inherent
in life, that of clashes and blows, mistakes and disillusionment, vicissitudes
and defeats. The tactical farsightedness of the Party of the proletariat
is located entirely between these two factors and consists of shortening
and easing the road from one to the other. |
I motsats till 'ekonomisterna' utgår 'politikerna' från
proletariatets objektiva klassintressen, som bygger på marxismen.
Men i likhet med 'ekonomisterna' ser inte 'politikerna' de objektiva och
subjektiva intressena hos den klass de i princip 'representerar' . . .
Om 'ekonomisterna' å sin sida inte leder proletariatet, därför
att de hänger efter, så blir proletariatet inte heller styrt
av 'politikerna', därför att dessa själva vill utföra
alla dess förpliktelser. Om 'ekonomisterna' har räddat sig från
denna överväldigande uppgift genom att tilldela sig den beskedliga
rollen att passivt hänga historien i rockskörten, så har
'politikerna' försökt lösa problemet genom att göra
historien till sin hantlangare.
|
By contrast with the “Economists,” the “political”
elements took at their starting point the objective class interests of the
proletariat, established by the Marxist method. But they too, with the same
apprehension as the “Economists,” drew back before the “gap”
separating the objective from the subjective interests of the class which
they are supposed to “represent.” And for them,
questions of political tactics—in the true sense of the term—exist
as little as for the “Economists.” Once one has at one”s
disposal an histoico-philosophical analysis revealing the tendencies of
social development, when the results of it are made “our” chief
patrimony, and we think substitutionally, then there is nothing to do but
to cash in at the bank of history, as one cashes a cheque, the conclusions
we have reached. So, if the “Economists” do not
lead the proletariat, because they are merely tail-ending it, the “political”
elements do no better for the good reason that they themselves are carrying
out duties in its place.If the “Economists” are disarmed in
the face of the enormity of their task, contenting themselves with the humble
role of marching at the tail-end of history, the “politicians”
on the other hand, have resolved the problem by trying to transform history
into their own tail. |
Vi gör massorna mer eller mindre revolutionära (helst inte
mindre) genom att väcka de enklaste politiska instinkter hos dem.
Men så snart det blir tal om mer komplicerade uppgifter - t. ex.
att omvandla dessa 'instinkter' till en medveten strävan efter politisk
självbestämmanderätt hos arbetarklassen - tar vi tillflykt
till 'förenklingens' påhitt och 'substitut'.
Som vi snart skall se, kommer dessa metoder att leda till följande
resultat i den interna partipolitiken: partiorganisationen blir ett substitut
för partiet, centralkommittén blir ett substitut för
partiorganisationen och till sist kommer en diktator att bli ett substitut
för centralkommittén ...
|
In the first case, it is more difficult to “cheat”: history,
having placed a definite task on the agenda, is observing us sharply. For
good or ill (more for ill), we are leading the masses to revolution, awakening
in them the most elementary political instincts. But in so far as we have
to deal with a more complex task—transforming these “instincts”
into conscious aspirations of a working class which is determining itself
politically—we tend to resort to the short-cuts and over-simplifications
of “thinking-for-others” and “substitutionism.”
In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead,
as we shall see below, to the Party organisation “substituting”
itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the
Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for
the Central Committee; on the other hand, this leads the
committees to supply an “orientation”—and to change
it—while “the people keep silent”; in “external”
politics these methods are manifested in attempts to bring pressure to
bear on other social organisations, by using the abstract strength of
the class interests of the proletariat, and not the real strength of the
proletariat conscious of its class interests. These “methods,”
as adopted by us and the content of our Party work. All in all, these
“methods” lead to the complete disappearance of questions
of political tactics in Social Democracy.
|
Enligt Lenins nya filosofi är det tillräckligt för proletariatet
att genomgå en 'fabriksskola' för att kunna ge lektioner i
politisk disciplin till intelligentian, som under tiden har varit partiets
ledare. Enligt denna nya filosofi kommer var och en som inte kan föreställa
sig det ideala partiet som en 'oerhört stor fabrik', som tvärtom
anser, att detta är något vidunderligt, och som inte tror på
en dylik politisk utbildningsmaskins oinskränkta makt, 'ögonblickligen
att avslöja sig som en borgerlig intellektuell' .. .
Utan fruktan för att avslöja 'tänkesätten hos en
borgerlig intellektuell' vill vi framför allt hävda, att de
vil1kor, som leder proletariatet till kollektiv enighet om kampmetoderna
inte ligger i fabriken utan i proletariatets allmänna sociala nivå..... |
According to Lenin’s new philosophy, which
has barely had time to wear out its shoe-leather since What Is To Be Done?
the proletariat only needs to have been through the ‘schooling of
the factory’ in order to give the intelligentsia, which up till them
had played the leading role in the Party, lessons in political discipline!
According to this new philosophy, anyone who does
not see the Party as a ‘huge factory,’ who finds the idea ‘monstrous,’
or does not believe in the immediately (politically) educative strength
of the machine, ‘at once betrays the psychology of the bourgeois intellectual,’
incapable by nature of distinguishing between the negative side of the factory
(’discipline based on the fear of dying of hunger’) and its
positive side (’discipline based on common work resulting from highly
developed technique’)
Without fear of betraying my
‘bourgeois intellectual psychology,’ I affirm first-of-all
that the conditions which impel the proletariat into concerted, collective
struggle, are not to be found in the factory but in the general social
conditions of its existence; and further, that the objective
conditions and the conscious discipline of political action, there is
a long road of struggle, errors, education—not the ‘school
of the factory’ but the school of political life, in which the Russian
proletariat penetrates only under the leadership—good or bad—of
the social democratic intelligentsia; and reaffirm that the Russian proletariat,
in which we have barely begun to develop political self-activity, is not
yet able—unfortunately for it and fortunately for Messrs. candidates
for ‘dictatorship’—to give lessons in discipline to
its ‘intelligentsia,’ whatever the training the factory gives
him in ‘common work resulting from highly developed technique.’
Without the least fear of giving away my ‘bourgeois intellectual
psychology,’ I even declare my complete solidarity with the idea
that ‘the technical submission of the worker to the uniform rhythm
of the work tool (’discipline based on work in common resulting
from highly developed technique’) and the particular composition
of the collective worker as individuals of both sexes and ages, creates
a barracks discipline (barracks, not politically conscious discipline!)
perfectly in line with the factory regime.’ (Capital)
|
’En högt utvecklad teknisk produktion' skapar naturligtvis
grundvalen för proletariatets politiska utveckling och politiska
disciplin, precis som kapitalismen i allmänhet skapar förutsättningarna
för socialismen. Men det är lika tokigt att identifiera socialismen
med kapitalismen som att identifiera fabriksdisciplinen med revolutionär
och politisk disciplin.
Socialdemokratins uppgift är att förmå proletariatet att
förkasta en sådan disciplin, som ersätter den mänskliga
tanken med rytmen hos en fysisk rörelse. Dess uppgift är att
svetsa proletariatet samman till en stridande arme, där allmän
politisk medvetenhet och revolutionär entusiasm marscherar skuldra
vid skuldra mot denna döda och förkvävande kadaverdisciplin.Det
ryska proletariatet har ännu inte revolutionär självdisciplin;
fabrikerna och maskinerna skapar inte en dylik egenskap lika fort som
de skapar arbetsrytm.
Kasernregimen kan aldrig bli vårt partis ideal, liksom fabrikerna
aldrig kan bli partiets förebild.
|
If Lenin believes in the discipline of the Russian proletariat as a real
entity, in fact, to use his own formula, he confuses a ‘philosophical’
question with a political one. Naturally, ‘highly technically
developed production’ creates the material conditions for the political
development and sense of discipline of the proletariat, just as in general
capitalism, creates the premises of socialism. But factory discipline is
as little identical with political, revolutionary discipline of the proletariat
as capitalism is to socialism. The task of
Social Democracy is precisely to rouse up the proletariat against this
discipline, which replaces the work of human thought with the rhythm of
physical movements; it consists of uniting it against this brutalising,
mortal discipline in a single army linked hand to hand and shoulder to
shoulder by community of political consciousness and revolutionary enthusiasm.
Such discipline does not yet exist in the Russian proletariat; the factory
and the machine give it this quality much less spontaneously than union
disputes or conflicts.
The barracks regime could never be the regime of our Party,
no more than the factory could be its model. Poor Comrade
‘Practitioner’ who admitted thinking this ‘does not
even suspect that the terrible word he cries out (the factory) at once
gives away the psychology of the bourgeois intellectual,’ (One Step
Forward...). Poor Comrade Lenin! Fate has decided to place him in an especially
ridiculous position: he does not even suspect that the Comrade ‘Practitioner’
is not a ‘bourgeois intellectual,’ but a proletarian who has
been through the saving school of the factory... The Russian proletariat,
from whom Lenin’s supporters so often hide the problems of the internal
crisis of the Party, will tomorrow, on Lenin’s orders, give a severe
lesson in ‘anarchical individualism.’
|
Den revolutionära regimens uppgifter blir så komplicerade,
att de inte kan lösas på annat sätt än genom konkurrens
mellan olika ekonomiska och politiska metoder - inte bara genom metoderna
i den socialistiska världen i kontrast till de kapitalistiska utan
också mellan olika tendenser inom socialismen. Sådana tendenser
kommer oundvikligen att uppstå, så snart som proletariatets
diktatur kastar fram hundra nya, hittills olösta problem. Och inga
'starka, auktoritära organisationer' kan undertrycka dessa tendenser
och motsättningar för att påskynda eller förenkla denna
process. Ty det står helt klart, att proletariatet, som är i
stånd att utöva diktatur över samhället, inte kommer
att tåla en diktatur över sig självt.
|
|
