New Communism

New Communism

Research on party and state and

Problems of Contemporary Communism

Author: Aso Kamal

 

 

 Introduction

 

1. Preface
2. How do we understand the history of communism?
3. Party and class struggle
4. Why does worker consider a party as a metaphor?
5. How the Social Democrats changed the foundations of workers’ internationalism?
6. The dualism of revolution and reform
7. Deceptive democracy
8. Does Bolshevism tell us “What is to be done”?
9. What does Bolshevism change?
10. The right to revolutionize
11. What was the model of Bolshevik socialism?
12. The dualism of bureaucracy and state capitalism
13. How does Bolshevism change the basis of internationalism?
14. What is the political model of the power of Bolshevism?
15. How does the Bolshevik Party change in power?
16. What has been the economic model of the Bolsheviks?
17. Capitalist control or workers’ control
18. What is the problem with Trotskyism?
19. Worker communism and the problem of the party
20. Communist Party of Iran and Worker Communist Party
21. What is the problem of workers’ communism?
22. Kurdistan Workers’ Communism
23. The problems of workers’ communism in Kurdistan and Iraq
24. New Communism

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 This book is the result of a year and a half of writing and working. I published most of its chapters one after the other. This style of writing and publishing was very useful for me because the publication of each chapter made me more determined to write the next. Meanwhile, I knew what the reactions would be. This was an opportunity for me to engage in the research process more.

So, I started with the same initial plan that I mentioned in the first part and the reason for writing this book, and later while writing I realized that I had to learn from the political experience of the last three decades of workers’ communism. Let me also say that I have participated in myself.

What weighed heavily on me in writing this experience was that I had been criticizing my work, my views, and my views for more than three decades, and so I felt a heavy burden on my communist friends. And accepting my criticisms and interpretations will not be easy for them. I overcame this difficulty by turning to fact and science and knowledge and turning my back on nostalgia and facing reality. More important than that is achieve the truth which can free communist movement from this crisis and give a horizon and a plan for the class and communist performance on which we have lived our lives.

What motivated me in this research was the critique of the passivity of the left movement and workers’ communism that I had been working on for some time. The weakness and marginalization of the communist movement has always been criticized within workers’ communism, but various attempts to solve these problems and to bring them to a standstill have not led me to the source of these problems. So, I decided to find a solution out of this format and relying solely on a source that was “Mansour Hekmat”.

I must look for the intellectual heritage that our communist movement has presented for the last two centuries and used for my research. It was here that I realized that the communist view itself was part of the problem, not a solution, so my research should include workers’ communism.

This book seeks to examine the reasons for the Communists’ withdrawal from their original and explicit duty, which has been the main slogan of our communist movement for the last two centuries[DM1] [ak2] , in simple terms, including ending the differences and divisions among the workers and uniting them, despite all the differences this class had various intellectual and political organizations, to change the conditions of the capitalist world and launch a social revolution to create a better socialist world.

Undoubtedly, this would not be possible without the unity of the communists themselves and their alliance with the working class. What we have experienced in these two centuries shows that this is only possible through the party.

So, I came to the fact that if we want to determine the root of this political and ideological crisis of contemporary communism, we must look for this division and separation that has arisen in the communist and workers’ movement in the party itself to trace the origins of the problem.

So, we faced a lot of questions and queries. We first sought an answer to the question of what role the party plays as the tool we use for class struggle. Why, instead of being a tool for the unity of communists and workers, has the party become a class wall that divides the power of this class and movement as a different program and a different party and group? Why has the party always been accepted as an immutable phenomenon and model and not questioned in the workers’ communist movement?

We have taken this party model from the Bolsheviks. While they have failed to establish a socialism, does this not raise any questions about how they wanted to establish a different society? This question led us to explore the history that founded this model. So, we did historical research on the First International models of workers and the Social Democrats and Bolshevism. Then we looked at the current problems of contemporary communism and the relationship we had with that history. Accordingly, we continued to investigate workers’ communism.

This study is devoted to the position of the party in the struggle of the working class and the changes that have taken place over this political tool in the labour struggle in the last two centuries. It is about the models that have played a role in the Workers’ and Communist Party, in the political arena and in the economic struggle, in the revolutions and in the government, and at the same time in the model of the communist intellectual group of this age.

Our aim is to come up with a new theory of the party and workers’ organization to provide an answer to the problems that the workers’ and communists’ movement faced in the twenty-first century.

First, in Chapters 2 to 4 of this study, we discuss the historical research method we have chosen for this topic to find out what is the materialistic root of this crisis? Here we are looking for answers to these questions: What perception of the party has put us, like fetish, passively on the margins of society? Why should we save the party from this view, which we saw as a fixed and unchangeable idol, and why should the connection between communism and the working class and the class struggle and the party and the historical process of party formation, known as the “working class structure”?

Hence, we first state the difference between our views and metaphysical analyses of different communisms. To know what communism itself is. What is the history of communism? Does communism and the working-class struggle have a history other than the history of parties? In these chapters we have also dealt with the scientific difference between the party in both the bourgeoisie and the working class, and the foundations of the workers ‘party and its relation to the workers’ state and communist society have been criticized in the popular communist view of the communist party and organization.

In this research, I have used many sources to present as a fact this historical, political, economic, and party process that I have discussed.

In Chapters 1 and 4, the beginning of the socialist movement is considered because the party theory has emerged from there. We discuss examples from The International Workingmen’s Association and then the Social Democrats as the first step in forming a party in the working class. At the same time, we discuss the process of how the Social Democrats changed the concepts of communism and internationalism, and what damage these changes did to the Second International Movement.

We discuss the dualism of the revolution and reform and the effects of parliamentary democracy and parliamentarism on the workers ‘and socialist movement, and the differences within the world socialist movement on the question of the workers’ revolution and the state.

Undoubtedly, we cannot conclude this research without discussing the model of the Bolsheviks and the Soviets state, because this model not only covers the whole of the twentieth century but is still followed by the communist movement. Therefore, we have devoted most of this research to this experience.

According to Gramsci, the party is the “soul of the state,” so if there is a problem with this model, the same problem will occur tomorrow after the seizure of power, and thus in the form and content of the workers’ government and the politics and economy of that communist society, which we want to be an alternative to the capitalist system.

This thesis must be proven. We prove this thesis on the issue of Bolshevism and the Soviet state.

Chapters 7 to 18, that is, Chapters 11, deal in detail with the changes that Bolshevism has brought about the communist movement and the foundations of the party and the dictator of the proletariat and the socialist economy and communist society. These questions answer the questions: What do the problems of contemporary communism have to do with Russian communism? What model of Bolshevism and Sufism has prevailed in the twentieth century?

First, we discuss the Bolshevik movement and its differences with the Social Democrats, the historical place of Bolshevism in the Russian Revolution, and the revolutions of the early twentieth century.

Then we explain the model of Bolshevik socialism in the party and the government. What we want to achieve in this study is the connection between state capitalism and the model of Bolshevik state socialism. We examine this model of political power, the economic model, the program of war communism and then state capitalism after the October Revolution of 1917. We discuss the dualism of bureaucracy and state capitalism.

We discuss the views of Trotsky, Tony Cliff, and Mansour Hekmat on the political model of the Bolshevik state. If it was a worker state or not?

What we are looking for in this study is what is the connection between the Bolshevik Party and the political and economic model of government and property, and the relation of the working class to production and the reasons for production? Did this socialist model change the foundations of communism?

We then turn to the anatomy of the Bolshevik model, which has been followed as a model throughout the 20th century and to this day, to explore the differences between the concept of the workers Party or the Communist Party. Here we examine the relationship between the Bolshevik Party model and the factors that led it to bureaucracy and the return of capitalist power to Russia.

We discuss why in this model, when the revolution wins and takes power, is it possible for the workers Party to become a party of the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy? Why does a workers’ revolutionary party, instead of concentrating all the power of its class, move towards separating its borders with the great part of its class power that founded this revolution?

These discussions lead us to the analysis of the power model of Bolshevism, what is this political model? What is the difference between the dictatorship of the party and the whole power over the councils? We present the connection of this model with Lenin’s thesis about the replacement of the party with the working class and Lenin’s view of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We continue this discussion to know what is the benefit of the process of turning a party dictator into a dictator between the party and the workers ‘party and the workers’ state? Let us present the facts of the problems between the Bolshevik Party and the position of the factions and the freedom in the ranks of the party and the cleansing of the party in order to know the reason for these changes and its source? And what about the socialist revolution and the Bolshevik Workers’ Revolutionary Party?

In the last chapters we explain the Bolshevik economic model and clarify what was the position of the working class economically and in the administration of the Bolshevik state? We answer the question of whether having an economic plan and the division of capital and product according to the plan and by the government, like the Bolshevik example, deprives us of the method of capitalist production and turmoil and market problems and lower purchasing power. And save the living standards of workers? What are the commonalities between the model of state socialism economically and politically with state capitalism and the soviet bureaucracy and the model of the Bolshevik Party? How did the Bolsheviks seek to establish socialism through the development of capitalism? This research is to find out what model of socialism Bolshevism has established. When the Bolshevik Party came to power, what changes did this party make in the process to the workers Party’s relationship with the working class as a whole?

These are the questions facing 20th and 21st century socialism, and Bolshevism and the model of state socialism that has overshadowed half of the 20th century world and now covers both China and Cuba and most of the communist parties’ program are just a model. Which we have practically faced for more than a century, and it is still prevalent in the model of the left, socialists, and communists. For this reason, the analysis of the experience of the model of Bolshevism socialism and its economic program is very important and crucial in presenting the differences of a new model of communism that is different from the model of state socialism.

We then examine the differences between the economic model of state capitalism and the Bolsheviks in workers’ control. We critique the New Economic Policy (NEP) on how workers play a role and control over production and the economic model and speak of the NEP’s position in defeating the socialist revolution.

Undoubtedly, the model of bureaucracy was criticized in Sufism, and here Trotskyism, as a critic of Stalinist bureaucracy during the Bolshevik period, evaluated Trotskyism’s position and policy on party dictatorship and state capitalism. And we examine the politics of the NEP and the role of the left opposition.

In chapters nineteen to twenty-three, we examine workers’ communism and the problems of the party. In this section, we discuss the concept and character of workers’ communism as an example of communist groups and parties of the late twentieth century, which, despite being different from sophistry and class communism and the state capitalist model, is criticized. Have not been able to create a new model for the party? What effect does Hekmatism’s emphasis on demarcation with the left and the process of setting the program and model of the working-class representative party and the leadership elite have on the problems and demarcations with which workers’ communism is involved?

We research the problems of this group and the Communist Party in the class struggle of the workers by researching the history of workers’ communism in Iran and Iraq and criticizing the program and foundations of the political and economic views and perceptions of this communist current, and the connection of this type of communism with the history of the communist movement. Why did the communists split into different intellectual, political, and organizational branches, and each of them with a different program, party, and group frontier from the other with a wall as high as the Great Wall of China, while having a single Demand, vision, and goal? This is the question we will seek to answer by researching the example of workers’ communism, and we have identified the reasons, characteristics, and policies and practices of this working-class intellectual group. In this section, we examine the reasons for the disintegration of these groups in the working class and the class struggle, and show what history, views, and perceptions are behind this disintegration, and the real position of these groups in the class struggle and in the society? What is the source of the difference between the performance of the Soviet movement and the political pacifist view of workers’ communism?

The reason for bringing workers’ communism in this study is that the history of the last three decades of the communist movement has occupied Iraqi Kurdistan and part of Iran, and we as activists of this movement are aware of its details and the subject of our work is now. But this is just one example of the workers intellectual movement being divided into dozens of similar groups, and the problems of workers ‘communism are the same for all contemporary communist intellectual groups, and this research and criticism is not specific to workers’ communism, and all groups and themselves It also includes the movement.

Undoubtedly, research has relied on the criteria of political science and the political lessons and experience of the workers’ and communist movements, and the results are presented in the final section, such as logic and understanding of the interests of the working class and the needs of today’s class movement.

We have presented those new theses and theories that make the party the main axis and the state and the communist and human society the secondary axis of its discussions, which itself responds to the political and ideological crisis in which the contemporary labor and communist movement is located.

This book, by analysing the history of the workers’ and communist movement and identifying lessons and experiences and criticizing the views and policies that currently dominate this movement, seeks to prove the theory of the necessity of another type of party, which with its current examples Like the Social Democrats, the Bolsheviks and workers’ communism and other groups are different.

Undoubtedly, in order to be able to establish a workers ‘people’s party and a workers’ communist movement in the society of Kurdistan and in today’s world, we need the theoretical and practical efforts of all activists of the workers ‘and communists’ movement, so that we can deal with dissatisfaction and revolution. And to organize and prepare the revolutions of the twenty-first century against capitalism, 99% of the working class against the 1% of the ruling bourgeoisie.

I hope that this book will be considered as part of these efforts and will open the door for dialogue, criticism, and suggestions to achieve the goal of building a Workers’ Party.

In the end, I gratitude my dear friend Jamal Sharif who edited this book. I also have a lot of thanks and appreciation from my dear friends Salah Fathullah and Salam Marf who endured the design on the cover and inside the books. I am grateful for the participation of my wife Gona Saeed in the conversations we had on the topics, and from my other dear friends Zahir Baher, Anwar Najmuddin, Jamal Kooshesh and many other friends who carefully and critically on Facebook. And their comments have contributed to these discussions, I am very grateful.

Preface

 

This book seeks to explain the roots of the political and ideological crisis in which contemporary communism, that is, post-Soviet communism and the final period of the cold war, where the Eastern half was under the names Socialist and the West part under the names Liberal Democratic, has fallen. Communism is a movement that has gone through two centuries of theory and practice, but today more than ever it needs to re-introduce itself in the theoretical and practical way of its time. Because communism has never been as fragmented, marginal, and small as it is now.

Class divisions, on the other hand, have never grown and reached their peak as much as contemporary history, and wealth has not been accumulated by just a few, so that 1% of the capitalist class has 45% of its wealth.[1] More and more centralized concentration of capital in 2030, this 1% of the bourgeoisie will have two third of the income of the society.[2]

Class divisions are often seen in the form of revolutions and mass upsurge, such as the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa, or in the face of property crises such as Greece and Spain, or in the form of street riots in the French yellow vest, and so on. War of workers and low-income classes with dictatorial and neoliberal governments and the World Bank and the European Union.

The stage of capitalist development has created a global working class, with a globalized way of life and struggle against the global capitalist system.

If communism is the intellectual part of the working class, based on the above facts, it must now be a world power and a majority and a forerunner and organizer of this class struggle that is going on in the world. But in fact, our contemporary communism has not shared these characteristics, and therefore is not at the forefront of this class struggle and is grappling with problems that relate more to the past than to contemporary needs. As communism is divided into various currents and parties of Marx, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, anti-Capitalist and Hekmatist, Social-Democratic and syndicalist, etc. Each of these is divided into dozens of other groups and categories, such as the churches. Catholics, Protestants, Shiites and Sunnis have split from it.

The ranks of the working class are scattered in the same way, and the trade union and the workers ‘union and the workers’ mass organization, although active, are in the trenches of self-protection, and in many other places they are either banned or illegal or not formed. This “spontaneous” struggle of street revolution and mass explosions has not yet taken an active organizational form so that it can be organized at the alternative level of bourgeois power, both at the local and state level and at the global level.

This crisis is the result of two different phenomena. First, failure is a socialist model and alternative that arose out of the Russian October Revolution, and the lack of theoretical and political criticism of this failure, as a lesson from the experience of previous working-class revolutions. Second, there was no clear communist alternative to the way the party and the masses of workers were organized and the political and economic program that relied on changing capitalism in the twenty-first century. An alternative that makes communist society distinct and may become a slogan and practical program in the labour movement.

In this analysis, two concepts and tools are the most important part that can be used to interpret the reasons for the weakness and crisis of communism. First the party and second the state. These two political tools play a decisive role in the revolution and the changes by which the working class can revolutionize capitalist society. What role does the popular notion of the communist party and government play in the crisis of communism? Why is learning from previous experiences related to overcoming the common model of party and government? What is the place of the party and the government in the communist worldview and the presentation of the principles of a future human society?

Is the Communist Party a secessionist elite party and “leader” that defines the boundaries of the organization, or is it a working-class people’s party that manifests itself in various fields and in different forms? Is the workers’ state the one-party state and the absence of political freedom, which existed in a sophistry and bloc called the socialist, or is it a people’s government, temporary and bound by political freedom, whose steps are the abolition of its identity and after the fear of the bourgeoisie returning to Power is gone, is it gradually abolishing its supranational apparatus and bureaucracy?

These and dozens of other questions that contemporary communism must answer today in order to present its political image and ideology as the intellectual section of the working class, which can hegemonize this class within itself and in society opposite the bourgeoisie and the political system. Show its economic and social as well as present its differences with them.

It also explicitly criticizes all the shortcomings of the past so that, as Marx puts it, ” seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible.” [3]

In this article, we discuss the history of the emergence of these tools and concepts, and th problems and controversies within the communist movement about the party and the state. Then we criticize the perceptions and forms that have now caused the crisis and hindered the development of the workers’ class movement and the rise to power of the workers and the creation of a classless and exploitative society.

On the other hand, the party and its relationship with the working class and communist society, the party as an example of the interim workers ‘government, the party and the workers’ revolution, the party and the people’s organization, the element of awakening and spontaneity and the concept of elite and people, position and concept of leadership and people We discuss the party, the workers’ party, and the problem of sectarianism and bureaucracy, democratic centralism, and the centre and mechanism of decision-making, and so on.

On the other hand, the state and party power and council power, party dictatorship and working class dictatorship, political freedom and the system of government, the difference between the establishment and abolition of the state apparatus, the communist economy and government, parliament and council and elections We examine the state and the bureaucracy, the self-government and the state apparatus, the foundations of the abolition of the state, the communist society and the communist ideology, and the human society, and so on.

[1] [1]“Global Inequality,” Inequality.org: https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/07/global-inequality-tipping-point-2030

[3] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

2

How do we understand the history of communism?

Before engaging in a historical and theoretical analysis of the party and the state, we must have a materialist view of the history of communism itself.

First, the history of communism itself is wrapped in a metaphysical conception, and this history has become the history of groups and groups of communists and different political currents and organizations, and the history of the class struggle of the workers, which is the basis of communism, has been forgotten and every group considers their history as a history of communism.

Therefore, every viewer has the right to be confused and say that can’t see the forest for the trees.

The working class in capitalism, like the bourgeoisie in the serfdom system, struggle against the slavery imposed on it by the capitalist system. This class has tried various theories, tactics, and revolutions, including communism, to overcome obstacles and gain power and end the capitalist system.

But it is not communism and the politics of communism that create these histories and revolutions, but it is the development of capitalism and the development of the class struggle of the workers that casts communist and socialist efforts in a historical form, which, according to Marx, efforts “If it is not in the historical context of working class development, you will see how reluctant it is to achieve the ultimate goal, and vice versa, how invincible it will be if it is in the historical context of the working class movement.” Thus political decision was inserted into a framework of historical change, which did not depend on political decision.”[1]

This materialist view clarifies two things for us:

First, although various political endeavours do not name a class, but period, personalities, parties, and political currents, they are, in fact, the result and remnant of the historical development of the working class. Thus, behind the names and history of Marx, Lenin, the Manifesto, the Paris Commune, the Russian October revolution, and the various communist parties, we must see this historical development achieved by the working class at different stages of capitalist development, and socialist efforts have been shaped by the needs of the class struggle at this stage.

We can understand these efforts by analysing the framework of this step. We cannot set communist efforts for all stages as a fixed and unchangeable form and standard and dogma, and divide the labour movement according to these historical forms called Marxism, Bolsheviks, Communards and Trotskyists, workers’ communists, democratic socialists, etc.

Such a non-historical view, which replaces communism and communists with the class struggle of the workers and makes them the representative of that history and class, is a common view because of the process of separation and the departure of a large section of class intellectuals and politicians from the working class itself and the class struggle and their transformation into a propaganda group or representative of other classes.

But the materialist view of the class struggle is quite the opposite of the metaphysical view, which sees the history of communism as the history of established groups and their events, and with all the different self-textures of today within the communist movement that historical forms such as Marxism, Bolshevism, syndicalism and anarchism are consider to be a stable and sacred form, and on the basis of which they analyses the world today and the class capitalist struggle differently. The work of these stable forms is like “The Bed of Procrustes”[2] who cut the body of this movement exactly according to the size of their own ideological board and create various organizations and parties from it. While the manifesto shouts:

“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.”[3]

Second, each of these communist efforts is part of a historical process, which never becomes the beginning or the end of the history of the class struggle, but each of which has its own role and influence in the historical process, which is constantly evolving and changing, either rising or failing.

Marx considers this to be one of the dialectical features of the class struggle of the workers, which is unlike the previous classes.

“The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts.”[4]

This is the dialectical feature of the class struggle of the workers. “The German working-class movement is the inheritor of German classical philosophy.” says Engels.[5]

Contrary to this dialectical method, by which we must critique the entire history of the 19th and 20th centuries so that contemporary revolutions can learn from the shortcomings and weaknesses of the Commune and the October revolution and the reasons for their failure, yet a metaphysical and non-historical view of the communist movement is dominant. This view not only divides the working class by intellectual forms, but also transforms communism itself into something different from the working class and the class struggle that is taking place in the arena of freedom squares today. Thus, it can never solve the problem of the separation of communism from the worker, which it has established in its mind for the demarcation between communist and non-communist. It thinks that it needs a pure and orderly communism to be able to unite the two, like the followers of religion who return to the texts and behaviour of the prophets to save the world today.

To understand the history of the working class and the intellectual and political changes and differences that have arisen in this class, we must look at the history of the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary class against the master-servant system. We see that based on the evolution of the economic position of the bourgeoisie in the Renaissance, its continuous intellectual and political endeavour took several centuries to complete the political formations of its system. It enters the war against the Catholic Church through Lutheranism, as an organization of the lord-servant system, and also through Micaville against the political thought of the lord and the feudalism and the church, and introduces political science into the real world, and then through each of John Bogdan, Thomas Hobbes, Jon Luke, Montysko, Rousseau, Bentham, and Stuart Mill, and dozens of philosophers, jurists, politicians, and political movements, thought and theoretically work on the concepts of servitude, the power of law, the form of government, the separation of religious power from political power, the separation of legislative and executive powers and the judiciary and the state and order and rights were formulated and settled.  The process of formation of the state and the apparatuses of the capitalist system has taken place as a result of several centuries of intellectual, political and military conflict between the bourgeoisie and the against the ideology and dominant beliefs of the feudalism.

Along with the needs of imposing, maintaining, and developing the economic power of the bourgeoisie and the effect of the class struggle on them, the form of the party and the government and the bourgeois state has changed and the current form of parliament and government, the judiciary, the intelligence, and the army institutions has taken over and created various devices at the global level of the UN and the World Bank.

The party and the government have for the working-class also gone through two centuries of intellectual, theoretical, and practical competition. In each period the working class has taken several steps towards progress and in the constant struggle and revolution has tested the truth and reality of theories and policies and proved them, or in its failures its ambiguities and mistakes have been revealed to it.

The various attempts of a class to end capitalist slavery have manifested themselves as a historical current in the forms of the International, the Syndicate, the Council, the Trade Union, the Party, the Revolution, the strike, and the government. And is in a historical process of preparing itself as an alternative to this exploitative system. Even though “the working class is increasing in number every day and is becoming organized and united through the many mechanisms of its capitalist production”[6], in the class struggle new issues such as the party, the International, the government, the council and Syndication and culture and so on.

Communism emerged with the anti-feudalism bourgeois revolutions as a newly arrived dissatisfied workers’ movement and very simply showed itself in the alternative cover of capitalism. Just as the bourgeoisie needed centuries of intellectual, political, and economic struggle to break free from the shackles of feudalism, so the workers are in a constant historical struggle to prove themselves as an alternative to capitalism and to free themselves from Liberate the intellectual, political, and economic chains of capitalism.

This class has stamped its mark on the history of the capitalist world with several struggles in the 19th and 20th centuries. Communism, with its experiences in the intellectual, political, and social fields, has become one of the movements influencing the turbulent and crisis-ridden formation of the capitalist system. Each stage of these intellectual and political efforts should be seen as a reflection of the political and economic situation of that era and the struggle needs of that period, not as a form and dogma in which history gets stuck and now communism must answer those problems. And these are the problems that the working class faces in the struggle and organization and struggle of the neoliberal, populist, and nationalist bourgeois movement, not the struggle that Marx had with Bakunin, or Lenin with Kautsky, or Trotsky with Stalin. As the bourgeoisie does not say that the views of Hobbes and Rousseau speak the last word of the state and the order and the social covenant. Undoubtedly, social classes in the political struggle of the real world change their law and system by force or in the interests of their own class. Therefore, the working class must constantly change the type of attitude and vision and the development of the tools of struggle.

A materialist view of the history of the working class tells us that this class emerged with the emergence and expansion of the bourgeoisie and the industrial revolution, and that the two classes together created the capitalist system. The class difference between the two classes was gradually highlighted in the middle of the war to end the remnants of the feudalistic system, leading to a war between the two classes, and in any war waged by the bourgeoisie against the monarchy and feudal system for more democracy and freedom, the working class also participated and tried to make these achievements not only for the bourgeoisie, but also for it. The working class, like the bourgeoisie of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, carried out a series of revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries and had a continuous process of struggle and pressure against capitalism. This class has emerged based on the economic position and level of capitalist growth and the level of consciousness and organization of workers in it and the worldview of the communist world and equality and freedom, and the class of intellectuals, philosophers, thinkers, and activists of this class have the same demands and they have stated the goals. Communism, as part of this intellectual and political endeavour, grew in line with the political experiences and revolutionary actions of the workers, and went from imaginary communism to the level of political, economic, and philosophical theory, and then to scientifically analyses the capitalist system. And it addressed the differences and crises and the means of changing it to a communist system and presented them.

The concept of the Workers’ and Communist Party was found in the history of this political and class rivalry. First, secret communist groups and public popular organizations were formed, and then the importance of integrated, global, and global organizations of this class emerged, and the First International and the Social Democratic and Workers’ Parties emerged in Europe, Russia, and the United States.

This concept had two main features, first, that the party was concerned with the organization of the whole working class and did not mean a particular party among the workers. That is why in the First International and the German Social Democratic Party, we see different views, currents and the parties work together as a social party and a political power, despite the political and intellectual rivalry between them. The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels when she says: “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. they always unite the whole class and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”[7] “This stage is interpreted. This definition of the party is the basis for understanding the concept of the workers ‘and communists’ party.

Second, those parties and organizations that have merged in the struggle of the working class for the workers to come to power and the anti-capitalist socialist revolution. Such as the merger of the First International with the Paris Commune and its constant connection with the political and economic struggle of the European workers, or the Social Democratic parties and the parliamentary struggle and the workers’ strike and demonstrations and the presence of hundreds of thousands of workers in these parties and participation in the October Revolution and the German revolutions. And nationwide strikes in Italy, Britain, Norway, and other countries.

At this level of growth and development of the workers ‘and communists’ movement as a political and popular movement, and especially of the Paris Commune, the concept of the state becomes one of the main parts of this struggle. Later in World War I, the movement entered a completely different phase and faced a historic task. For the modern world, this world war means the collapse of all the principles of the world of liberalism and human rights and bourgeois liberties, against which a wave of revolutionary discontent arose and the workers’ and communists’ movement faced a historic confrontation with this world war and capitalism. And presented the Communist as an alternative and solution for human society. Thus, once again, the question of the workers’ revolution against the power of the bourgeoisie and the seizure of power and the creation of a communist society becomes a daily need.

“The State and the Revolution” When Lenin says, “The tools of the bourgeois state must be destroyed and a state created which relies on the general arming and direct representation of the workers and peasants,” [8] is in fact the developed stage of communism and the working-class states.

At this stage we face two issues: first; A demarcation within the labour movement is based on tactics against world war and the bourgeois state.

A nationalist current within the labour movement supports one side of the war against the other, and at the same time supports reformism in the face of a revolutionary change of power.

Second: In Russia, where the grounds of the social revolution are reviving from the beginning of the twentieth century and three revolutions occur in a row, and the labour and communist movements show an example of the socialist revolution and the model of Bolshevism in the workers’ state.

This is a turbulent and difficult period. In this period, both the concept of party and state enter a stage of social functioning, which encompasses a comprehensive political and economic change in Russian society and has an impact on the world. The model of the party and the state of Bolshevism in the 20th century and still is seen as two immutable and sacred models, and there is no fundamental critique of these models and alternatives. Such a metaphysical and non-historical view of the party and the state is the subject of this research. Here the materialist view of the role and history of the working class is of vital importance, so it must have a correct and scientific analysis of this history and present reality and answer questions that are like a blind alley to the working class and the future in these struggles. The attitude of the party and the government are rings of the chain that we use in these analyses to open the door to clarify problems and issues.

Here we must look more closely at the changes that have taken place between the two concepts of party and government in order to know how they differ from the basic and simple principles before this period and our contemporary world.

[1] https://asokamal.com/index/?p=2515

Page 86 How to Change the World, Eric Hobsbawm

[2] https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/classical-literature-mythology-and-folklore/folklore-and-mythology/procrustes

[3] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[4] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

[5] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm

[6] https://asokamal.com/index/?p=2515

How to Change the World, Eric Hobsbawm

[7] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[8] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

3

 

Party and class struggle

 

We said in the previous chapter that the working class and the class struggle make history, not communism. Communists are part of the intellectuals, as Gramsci puts it: “it itself reflects the growth and expansion of the foundation and structure of the working class”[1] which emerges and grows as the intellectual part of the organ of this class. And there we criticized the metaphysical view that considers the history of communism as the history of individuals, parties, organizations, and political currents, and contrary to the dialectical reality of the growth of the working class and its class struggle, which is the basis for the emergence, success, and failures of communism in the capitalism society.

This perception is clearly seen in the issue of the party. Therefore, we will make a comprehensive analysis of the current view of this concept and its history and the changes that have taken place to present the real position of the party in the communist worldview.

The party has become merely an abstract statement and a phenomenon detached from class communism and the working class, which has itself changed from an instrument to become a goal and a sanctification. Contemporary communism has become fetishized, and resembles Hagel’s dialectical dissection, which ended history with the attainment of the state and bourgeois rights.

Therefore, we must first, to pull out the concept of the party from the world of abstract politics and return it to its historical form, so that we can see the real role of this political tool as a real concept in the world of class warfare, far from idolatry.

In the capitalist system, the ruling class in a historical process develops its method of organization in the form of a separate political party, which is the result of separate layers of capital and the formation of distinct intellectual and political forms in relation to the internal problems of the capitalist system.

In a large part of the world today, where parliamentarism has taken the form of the political administration of bourgeois rule, this class has gathered around different political, economic, and social program, but according to the same basis for maintaining the capitalist system and has separate and opposing parties. They are competing for control of the government and the state. This is part of the process of state-building, which the bourgeoisie undertook to centralize markets and regions, to build large cities and executive apparatuses, and to suppress and respond to the needs of capital development, and thus to take a place of a serfdom system based on Villages and scattered federal governments were established.

The concept and phenomenon of the party in the eyes of the working class has also developed along with the growth of statistics and the economical position of this class in the of capitalism and as a result of the revolutionary experience of the working class as well. The “spontaneous” movement and the imaginary goals of this class first appear in Europe. Communism emerges as a historical element of the class struggle from the Jacobins of the French Revolution to the English Chartres and the mid-nineteenth-century revolutions in Europe, not as a theory put forward by reformists such as Robert Owen, Proudhon, and Marx. Among these spontaneous elements of the working class there is always a class awakening, which expresses class interests. Communism has grown and developed in the heart of these spontaneous processes and has enlightened the class awakening and has drawn a scientific approach to the imaginary demands of this class. The party and the organization of the workers were among the effects of this process of awakening, in which this class manifested itself as a class in separate stages and in separate ways. Thus, the party is a form made by the class, not the party makes the class and the class struggle. The party is a stage of organized struggle that represents the awakening of a class, not an awakening that builds a class and a class struggle. When the collective demand of the workers reached the level of a revolution against bourgeois and the capitalist system, then communism became a revolutionary theory that expressed the necessity and manner of this change. The Manifesto and the First International reflect the fact that there is a class in the political arena that has taken a definite form. As Gramsci puts it: “History has presented this organism. It is the political party, the first element of which is the common desire to globalize and generalize.”[2]

Here we must dwell on one point, which is the party’s dependence on the class struggle. If the party is the result of the growth of the workers’ struggles, then the laws that govern the development and survival of the party are the laws of class struggle. This equation tells us that the party is part of a social process, which is influenced by the power that drives this process. If this power is small, scattered, unplanned and inexperienced in the beginning, the party will be the same. But if the organic parts of the party are the three constituent parts; First, a disciplined and organized working-class population; Second: Political intellectuals who have the ability to unite this force. And third, if the tools that bind the two upper parts together exist, then the stage of transferring the class struggle to the highest level, that is, taking action to gain power, begins.

This growth and development begin with a historical process in which the material and social contexts of the working-class struggle against capitalism have been assessed. For example, two decades of class struggle and the French class war from the Revolution of 1848 to 1870 led to the Paris Commune. Here arises the communist awakening, not in the specific partisan sense, but in the sense of a work of the working class that the aim of the workers’ political and class struggle is to gain power. For the first time, the workers are raising their political power to the level of hegemony over society, and from here the character of the commune government and workers’ government became the future form and character of the workers’ party. Hence the communist theory or worldview, especially for Marx and Engels, about the communist state and society became clearer.

Although in the Manifesto the party meant an organized working class, which must organize itself like an authority, after the examination of the commune the party is denoted a continuous class of revolutionaries, who not only replace the bourgeois party with a seat of the authority. But it destroys all the apparatuses of the bourgeois state and the state itself. This definition changes and expands the party, transforming the horizon and perspective of the class struggle from an economic struggle demanding democracy and economic reforms to an organized political struggle that seeks to revolutionize the entire capitalist system. Hence Marx’s theory becomes a more complete statement of communism than the socialist theories of Proudhon, Blanqui, Lassalle, and others. But it is not Marx’s theory that determines the future of the class struggle and presents the class awakening in a partisan form, but rather the political and intellectual rivalry that takes place at the working-class level and in the arenas of daily and all-out struggle will decide on where are plans, tactics, and perceptions and tools of struggle and future going to?

Marx and Engels’ insistence that the party is not just a distinct group, and a party called the Communist Party but the whole political and organized working class is a party, this is quite different from Lenin’s view of a party that includes only the Communists. And insists on political program and tactics as the dividing point between the workers’ movement and the communists. This is the result of a history of class struggle at the Western and Russian levels, as we will see below.

After the commune we are witnessing great changes in the class struggle, the emergence of the Second International and the expansion of labour parties in Europe and Russia and the United States are among the effects of these changes. At this stage, two issues dominate the way communism is perceived and programmed.

First, for the Labour Party to be able to muster a popular power in the political arena and to fight for the rights of the working class, it must act openly and seek power within the framework of parliamentary democracy.

The second issue, which is more influenced by the revolutionary situation in Russia, and which affects the whole of Europe with the outbreak of World War I, is that the Labour Party, by seizing political power through the revolution, must learn from the Paris Commune and disarm the bourgeoisie and make up its government’s party. From this Russian experience, the criterion of the Labour and Communist Party is determined based on its readiness for revolution, and the party is placed as the representative of the working class, defending that the party power should replaces the power of the working class.

In carrying out this process, two types of political parties emerge. The Social Democratic Party, which with the trade union created the method of popular and professional organization, the reform program, and the parliamentary list, and became part of the political system of Western European governments. The Russian Bolshevik Party, under the conditions of Russian repression, will have various methods of organizing the secret professional party, the masses Union and the parliamentary list, and has a revolutionary program and demand, which is itself influenced by the Russian revolutionary conditions, and wants a Caesarean political system to be changed and socialism as a substitute for capitalism to be carrying out. This model, however, a bureaucratic party and a one-party power emerge and banned different factions and political parties.

In contrast to the Social Democratic form of party and popular organization, which takes on a reformist, bureaucratic content, a revolutionary critique of direct popular democracy emerges, in which Rosa Luxemburg and many other leaders also play an important role. Ernest Mandel’s book “On Bureaucracy”[3] gives a clear idea of ​​the history of bureaucracy that we use in this study.

At the same time, there was a critical current in World War I against the nationalist policies of the main parties of the Second International, of which Lenin was one of the leaders. This tactical issue became one of the problems and internal rivalries of the communist movement.

Also, because of the victory of the anti- Caesarean revolution in Russia, the class struggle spread rapidly and affected that time’s issues of political struggle and anti-capitalist revolution. This class struggle also brings about changes in the Russian Social Democratic parties.

Once again, after the commune, the communist movement is being tested to find its hegemony over society, and it must show its power as an alternative to the political power of the bourgeoisie. This creates a kind of separation from the common contemporary social democratic method, which seeks change through parliamentary struggle and staying within the framework of the capitalist system.

The Bolshevik Party becomes the character of the state, and the collective and general socialist desire of the working class is formed around the Bolshevik alternative to power. But inside the Bolshevik Party is criticized by the Workers’ Opposition faction, and among them Kollontai, and outside the party by Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin’s position and policies are criticized by the party and the government as the bureaucratic party method and one-party power and banning the faction and it takes on a distinct political party. In the character of the Soviet state, we must look for Lenin’s view of the party and the role of the party in communist society.

Although in the Marx era the working class is still at the beginning of its experience, and the Communist Manifesto says in a rudimentary way that workers must be organized as a ruling class that carries out a series of reforms. This is the lesson of the Paris Commune experience which shows how dark and vague is this system and the communist world of the workers, and how another tool and step is needed to create a communist society?

Lenin worked on the workers’ state according to Marx’s advice on the Paris Commune. In the eyes and structure of the party as the character of the state, these steps show progress, but now, after a century, we see how imperfect and vague the aims and steps of the workers’ and communists’ parties are, as well as the actions of the Bolsheviks and the soviet government is different with the necessities of political and economy liberation of the working class from the capitalist system!

The question that arises is why did the critique and separation of Bolshevik from the social-democratic current of the reformists within the labour movement went towards the model of a bureaucratic party and state? What effect did this model have on the whole form of the party in the twentieth century, and how did the emergence of the party based on the same program and pro-government replace the concept of uniting the working class in the party? What role did this process play in the separation of the communist intellectuals and the communist movement from the workers? How has the notion of the class struggle and the working-class party become the representative party of the working class and the elite that makes history for the working class instead of the working class? To answer these and many other questions, one must research this party model.

The Paris Commune was defeated by the enemies of the working class, but the October Revolution was defeated by the Workers’ and Communist Party. All these defeats tell us that the class struggle of the workers at this time was faced with problems and issues that this class was not yet intellectually, politically, and organizationally prepared to overcome. Instead of glorifying this past, this forces us to scientifically analyses its shortcomings and look for the reasons for the failure of his revolutions in the heart of this class struggle and its tools.

However, the issue of party and government are two sides of the same phenomenon, or they are a phenomenon on two different levels. But to analyse the phenomenon of communism, we must discuss these two organs of this body separately. In this article, we emphasize the issue of the party and the party model, what effect the party has on the success and failure of the revolution, and more importantly, what model of political, social, and economic system it shows, and how a free and collective human world will be reflected in politics and party’s practice? After this analysis and interpretation of the relationship between the party and the class struggle and the process and history of partisanship in communism, in the next chapter we will consider the party itself as a part of the class organ and how the party concept is related to the class, government, program and politics.

[1] Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Problems of History and Culture, P5

[2] Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, The Modern Prince, P129

[3] https://www.marxists.org/…/works/1973/boorkorasi.pdf

Chapter 4

Why does the worker consider the party as a metaphor?

The Labour Party today resembles a metaphor in today’s capitalist system. The working class wants to free itself and human society from a system based on class exploitation. However, for this class to be able to do so, it must build the tools of struggle in the form of the apparatuses of class society. The creation of the Workers’ Party and its workers’ state goes against the goal of purging society and class systems. Therefore, the Workers’ Party and the workers’ government are not the ultimate goal for the workers. They are not considered sacred by this class and do not hold their true meaning. The party and the workers’ state are metaphorical components of the bourgeois party and state, which have a different meaning and content from what is prevalent in the intellectuals and culture of bourgeois society. Here, we will discuss the differences between the workers’ party and the bourgeois party and the relationship between the party and the class from a working-class perspective.

To simplify the discussion, we will first remove the party from its historical process and focus on the changes that occur in the class struggle. In the next chapter, we will discuss historical examples. Here, we present the general views and the communist worldview about the party.

In previous chapters, we have mentioned that communism and the party are appendices of the working-class struggle. The connection between the party and the working class is formed at the heart of this struggle. The communist perspective and worldview for this relationship are shaped through the participation of communists in the daily and continuous struggle of the working class, their pursuit of revolution, the seizure of power, and the transformation of the capitalist system.

However, there is a difference between the way the communist party and its views are embraced within the working class and how the bourgeois party is embraced within the bourgeois class and society. The science, tradition, code of conduct, and terms of reference of the bourgeois party are different from those of the communist party.

The method of capitalist production depends on the existence of the working class, as capital can survive by extracting surplus value from their labour. Additionally, the social production of capital gives the working class a social organization, empowering them to engage in social revolution. The working-class revolution is unique because, for the first time in history, a class comprising the majority of society collectively owns property, unlike revolutions led by other minority classes, such as landlords and the bourgeoisie, who transfer their private property to another minority. The collective ownership of the workers changes social and political relations and even human nature itself. As Gramsci states, “The basis which Marx has presented for political and historical science shows that ‘human nature’ is not separate, abstract, fixed, and unchangeable, but that human nature itself contains the historical destiny and determinism of social relations.” The working class alters the class nature of humanity by changing the social relations of capitalist production and eliminating the private property of capitalists. This concept of “political science, with definite content and rational formulation, relies on the need to view politics as an organic development.”*1

This organic development of politics within the working class entails the emergence of class consciousness among workers, which evolves through a historical process of class struggle. It is initially theorized by the intellectual class of the working class and later becomes a popular and organized movement through scattered daily and economic struggles. This movement represents the collective and general will of the socialist class, taking a definite form within the party.

As we mentioned earlier, the party is a product of the class struggle process for the working class. Initially, the working class seeks to establish a tool that unifies the power of the entire class. In the 19th century, the slogan “the power of the working class lies in its organization” gained prominence. This means that the party is not just a section with its own program, but an organization that represents and organizes the class as a whole.

During that time, the bourgeoisie was organized in various governmental, political, and economic apparatuses. In response, the working class also organized itself through trade unions and different political parties and factions. The party, in this context, becomes a means to unite and coordinate the power and efforts of the working class.

The philosophy behind the party goes beyond being a mere group with its own program. It is seen as a tool for the working class to bring about social revolution and transform the capitalist system into a communist system. The party should be capable of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and its government, taking ownership from the capitalists, and establishing a system of collective property and low-level council power.

To fulfil its role, the party must not only have the support and consent of the working class but also unite and coordinate the active and political elements within the class. Sectarianism and divisions within the working class, such as those based on communist, syndicalist, or anarchist labels, should be seen as obstacles to the social revolution. Instead, they need to be addressed and resolved in order to achieve the main goal of organizing the working class for a revolution that eliminates class and exploitation.

In summary, the party is not just a specific group or program but an organization that represents and organizes the working class. Its purpose is to unite the power of the working class and coordinate efforts towards a social revolution and the establishment of a new society without class and exploitation.

Here the meaning of party membership shifts, and every worker can and should be organized and have freedom within the party. Party discipline does not imply that the lower rank blindly follows the decisions of the upper rank within the organization. Rather, it means that the lower rank has the ability to participate in decision-making processes and to challenge decisions that go against their interests.

“”Centralism in the labour movement” refers to establishing stability in the organization of the actual movement by unifying the lower levels with decisions made from above, ensuring continuous participation of the lower elements, and elevating those lower elements within the leadership. This type of leadership guarantees sustainability and the continuous accumulation of experiences. It represents a temporary “state spirit” of the workers, contrasting the bureaucracy of government employees within the Labour Party. The aim is to prepare for the abolition of the party, government, and bureaucracy”. *2

In summary, the concept of party membership transforms, allowing all workers to be organized and free within the party. Party discipline implies active participation and the ability to challenge decisions. Centralism in the labour movement ensures stability, inclusivity, and the accumulation of experiences. Building a party for the workers is fundamentally different from constructing a minority government by the bourgeoisie, as workers have a shared interest in unity and the elimination of divisions. The aim is to create a new society through the collective power of the working class.

The process of building a party and its importance for the workers differs from the formation of a minority authority by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie organizes the interrelations within its class based on the accumulation of capital and the protection of the capitalist system. The constant differences between capital fractions, the concentration of capital in the hands of a minority, and the gradual defeat of small capitalists shape the fate of all internal intellectual, political, and economic rivalries within the bourgeoisie.

In contrast, workers have no economic or competitive interests such as the accumulation of capital or encroaching upon the work, products, or property of others that would necessitate political competition or conflict. On the contrary, it is in the workers’ interest to unite and eliminate differences that hinder their ability to overthrow the exploiters from power as a collective force. This unity is crucial for the entire working class, including its various components, organizations, divisions, and divisions across different countries and nations. The working class, in its pursuit of building a new society for humanity, aims for a society that is not just for a particular class or group, but for all. There is no discussion here of a political or intellectual current that can change society solely through ideology or grant the privilege of building a state to communists because they possess a theory that expresses the conditions for the salvation of the working class. The entirety of the “Communist Manifesto” emphasizes the philosophy that workers, as a class, have the capacity to change the capitalist system and emancipate themselves. According to Marx, this forms the foundation for the creation of the party, as exemplified by the First International (The International Workingmen’s Association (IWA) (1864–1876).

As the party progresses and grows, the power of the elite upper rank diminishes, necessitating changes in the party’s organization and management methods. This goes beyond merely electing officials and implementing “democratic centralism.” The party becomes an organ in which any ordinary worker can participate in decision-making, and decisions are not monopolized by a group that remains in leadership positions indefinitely. The division of work within the party’s organs is designed to be simple and accessible, allowing every worker to take on responsibilities.

While the bourgeoisie organizes their parties based on parliamentary constituencies, workers’ organizations are based on their places of residence and work, which serve as the headquarters for the comprehensive struggle against the bourgeoisie. With each step, the Labor Party removes barriers between the party and the mass struggle, transforming from a specialized private organization to a mass organization that encompasses all levels and ranks. It paves the way for broad participation and policies that prevent the party from becoming a sect or a collection of bureaucratic employees. This is the fundamental difference between a workers’ party and a bourgeois party.

A workers’ party cannot and should not remain like elite or communist parties. It is built as the soul of the state and the future political society. Therefore, the activities, programs, policies, and organizational structure of the party reflect the spirit of the state’s actions and the changes in the future society’s governance and economic system. Each party represents a form of political society and a future economic system.

The workers’ party cannot organize, politicize, and plan for the state and economy in the same way as bourgeois parties. It serves as the soul of the workers’ state, aiming to prevent the division of politics due to the division of work. The party seeks the active participation of society and its compatriots in determining government policy, strategy, programs, and activities. The party’s philosophy of existence works towards a society that no longer relies on the party, where the gates of bourgeois defence have been broken, and society can govern itself without the need for the party.

According to Gramsci, “When the party is fully formed, it will no longer exist and will end historically. Every party bears the name of a class. It is evident that the party’s task is to eliminate the differences between classes. This happens when the party itself ceases to exist due to the eradication of classes, and its interpretation goes away.” *3

The communist worldview perceives the role of the party from the perspective of the working class as a temporary tool necessary to end bourgeois rule. After achieving this goal, the party and the workers’ government should as quickly as possible relinquish political and bureaucratic power, as part of the history of minority rule, and allow society to be free from such constraints. In a society where freedom is the recognition of everyone’s needs and voluntary participation in social production, direct connections between human beings are established, eliminating the need for legal centres, surveillance systems, interrogations, and leadership. This represents a current in which human capabilities continually grow and shape the philosophy of life.

When a worker becomes a member of the Workers’ Party, they should not lose their freedom of speech and political agency in the name of the party’s plans and decisions. Instead, the party should provide a framework that encompasses all views within the working class and its administration. Transparency in decision-making and practical steps is the outcome of active participation by all members. When workers are unable to actively engage in the party, members become passive under the party’s administration, leading to the disease of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy transforms and suppresses opposition forces, even if those forces align with the core interests of the party.” *4

The relationship between the party and the class is dialectical for the workers. The working class requires the structure of a political organization to succeed in the class struggle against the bourgeois system of government. However, the working class also needs the party itself, as a class apparatus, to transform into a non-class, non-political organization when it comes to power. As Saint-Simon stated, “The affairs of society must be managed by it, not to rule over humans.” This is not limited to abolishing the bureaucratic apparatus of the bourgeoisie and its army, as seen in historical events like the Paris Commune and the Soviet state. It is not enough for the employees of the workers’ government to receive equal wage as the professional workers, or for the apparatuses of the workers’ state to combine legislation and executive administrations. Instead, these steps should mark the beginning of building a system where the lower classes of society engage in legislative and executive duties as daily responsibilities, enabling broad participation. As Lenin expressed, “All cooks can rule in government.”

In socialism, as technology and communication flourish, the administrative system will gradually eliminate the need for political power and representative systems. Political power must be abolished, and direct participation by all compatriots in decision-making should replace political categorization. The Workers’ Party should serve as the instrument of this political and social revolution against the political apparatus of the state and party, which have shaped the history of class society and perpetuated the class system. Politics in human society entails awareness of dominant social relations, mastery of social organization, and collective human awakening, leading society towards genuine human civilization and eradicating the remnants of slavery and exploitation. It aims to eliminate repression and inequality.

With this understanding, it is important to compare the history of workers’ partisanship with different worldviews and the foundations of communist beliefs. We can examine how existing models have deviated from these views and how the bourgeois party model has influenced and dominated workers’ parties over the past two centuries. Specifically, we can discuss the models of Social Democrats and Bolsheviks, and then explore the model of workers communism and our history of work in the Communist Party.

Sources

1* https://asokamal.com/index/?p=1595
2* https://asokamal.com/index.?p=1635
3* Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, The Modern Prince, P151
4* https://asokamal.com/index/?p=1635