Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle
--------------------------------------------------------------------

People :
----------------------------------

Author : Amadeo Bordiga

Text :
----------------------------------



Source: Communist Program, n.1, 1975, n.3, 1977, n.4, 1978, n.5, 1979. This text originally appeared in Italian in our review Prometeo, nos 2 and 4 (1946), nos 5 and 8 (1947) and nos 9 and 10 (1948).
I. Actual and Potential Violence

In the history of social aggregates we recognize the use of material force
and violence in an overt form whenever we observe conflicts and clashes among
individuals and among groups which result, through many different forms, in the
material injury and destruction of physical individuals.

Whenever this aspect comes to the surface in the course of social history,
it is received by the most varied reactions of abomination or of exaltation
which in turn furnish the most banal foundations of the various successive
mystical doctrines that fill and encumber the thought of the
collectivities.

Even the most opposing conceptions are in agreement that violence among
humans is not only an essential element of social energetics but also an
integral factor, if not always a decisive one, of all the transformations of
historical forms.

In order to avoid falling into rhetoric and metaphysics – such as
those numerous confessions and philosophies which oscillate between either the
apriorisms of the worship of force, of the “superman” or of the
superior people, or else the apriorisms of resignation, nonresistance and
pacifism – it is necessary to go back to the basis of that material
relationship, physical violence. It is necessary to recognize its fundamental
role in all forms of social organization even when it acts only in its latent
state, that is through pressure, threat and armed preparation which produce the
most widespread historical effects even before there has been bloodshed, after
it, or without it.

* * *

The beginning of the modern age, which is socially characterized by the
gigantic development of productive techniques and the capitalist economy, was
accompanied by a fundamental conquest of scientific knowledge of the physical
universe that is bound to the names of Galileo and Newton.

It became clear that two fields of phenomena which Aristotelian and
scholastic physics had held as absolutely separate and even metaphysically
opposite – the field of terrestrial mechanics and the field of celestial
mechanics – were in reality one and the same and had to be investigated
and represented with the same theoretical scheme.

In other words it was understood for the first time that the force which a
body exerts on the ground on which it rests, or on our hand which supports it,
not only is the same force which puts the body in motion when it is left free
to fall but it is also the same force which governs the movements of the
planets in space, their revolutions in apparently immutable orbits, and their
possible collisions with each other.

It was not a question of a merely qualitative and philosophical identity but
of a scientific and practical one, since the same kind of measurement could
establish the dimensions of the fly-wheel of a machine and determine, for
instance, the weight and the velocity of the moon.

The great conquests of knowledge – as could be shown by a study of
gnoseology conducted with the Marxist method – do not consist in
establishing new eternal and irrevocable truths by means of revealing
discoveries, since the road always remains open to further developments and to
richer scientific and mathematical representations of the phenomena of a given
field. Instead, they consist essentially in definitively breaking down the
premises of ancient errors, including the blinding force of tradition which
prevented our knowledge from reaching a representation of the real
relationships of things.

In fact, even in the field of mechanics science has and will make
discoveries which go beyond the limits of Galileo’s and Newton’s
laws and formulas. But the historical fact remains that they demolished the
obstacle of the Aristotelian conception according to which an ideal sphere,
concentric to the earth, separated two incompatible worlds – the earthly
world of ours, that of corruption and wretched mortal life, and the celestial
world of incorruptibility and of the icy, splendid immutability. This
conception was profitably utilized by the ethical and mystical constructions of
christianity and was perfectly adaptable as a social parallel of the
relationships in a human world based on the privileges of aristocracies.

The identification of the field of mechanical facts revealed by our
immediate experience with the field of cosmic facts allowed for it to be
simultaneously established that the energy a body possesses is identical in
substance whether its movement with respect to us and its immediate
surroundings is empirically evident or whether this body itself is apparently
at rest.

The two concepts of potential energy (energy with respect to position or
positional energy) and of kinetic energy (the energy of motion) when applied to
material bodies will be and have already been subjected to more and more
complex interpretations. These interpretations will lead to the point where the
quantities of matter and energy which appeared invariable in the formulations
of the classical physics texts (and which are still adequate to calculate and
construct structures on the human scale that utilize non-atomic forms of
energy) will prove to be transmutable through an incessant exchange whose
radius of action extends to the entire cosmos.

However, it still remains that the recognition of the identity in their
action between the potential reserves and the kinetic manifestations of energy
was a historically decisive step in the formation of scientific knowledge.

This scientific concept has become familiar to everyone living in the modern
world. Water contained in an elevated tank is still and appears motionless and
lifeless. Let us open the valves of the pipeline with a turbine situated below
and the turbine will be set in motion yielding us motive power. The amount of
available power was already known before we opened the valve since it depends
on the mass of the water and on its height: that is to say it is positional
energy.

When the water flows and moves, the same energy manifests itself as motion,
i.e. as kinetic energy.

By the same token, any child of today knows that if we do not touch the two
still, cold wires of an electric circuit, no exchange will take place between
them; but if we introduce a conductor, sparks, heat and light are emitted with
violent effects on muscles and nerves if the conductor is our body.

The two harmless wires had a certain potential, but woe to whomever
transforms this energy into a kinetic state. Today all this is known even by
the illiterate but it would have greatly baffled the seven sages of ancient
Greece and the doctors of the church.

* * *

Let us now pass from the field of mechanics to that of organic life. Among
the much more complex manifestations and transformations of biophysics and
biochemistry which govern the birth, nourishment, growth, motion and
reproduction of animals, we find the use of muscular power in the struggle
against the physical environment as well as against other living beings of the
same or of different species.

In these material contacts and in these brutal clashes the parts and the
tissues of the animals are hurt and lacerated and in the cases of the most
serious injuries, the animal dies.

The intervention of the factor of violence is commonly recognized only when
an injury to an organism results from the use of muscular power by one animal
against another. We do not see violence, in common language, when a landslide
or a hurricane kills animals but only when the classic wolf devours the lamb or
comes to blows with another wolf which claims a share of it.

Gradually the common interpretation of these facts slips down into the
deceitful field of ethical and mystical constructions. One hates the wolf but
one weeps for the lamb. Later on man will legitimize without question the
killing of the same lamb for his meal but will scream with horror against
cannibals; murderers will be condemned but warriors will be exalted. All these
cases of the cutting and tearing of living flesh can be found in an infinite
gamut of tones which furnish the prolific soil for endless literary variations.
Among them we also could include – to give an ethical problem to those
who would judge our actions – the incision of the surgical knife on the
cancerous tumor.

The early human representations, with the inadequacy which characterized
them, investigated the phenomena of mechanical nature and, due to an infantile
anthropomorphism, applied moral criteria to these phenomena.

Earth returned to the earth, water returned to the sea and air and fire rose
because each element sought its own element, its natural position, and shunned
its opposites, since love and hatred were the moving forces of things.

If water or mercury did not drop down in the overturned vessel it was
because nature abhorred a vacuum. After Torricelli had carried out a barometric
vacuum, it became possible to measure the weight of the air, which also is a
heavy body and tends downward with such violence that it would crush us to the
ground if we were not surrounded and penetrated all over by it. Air therefore
does love its opposites after all and should be condemned for an adulterous
violation of its duties.

In every field, to one extent or another, voluntarism and ethicism lead man
to believe in the same stupidities.

Going back to the violent struggle of the animal against adversities or to
the struggle for the satisfaction of his needs through the use of his muscular
strength (and leaving aside the bourgeois Darwinian discourse on the struggle
for survival, natural selection and similar refrains) we shall point out that
here too the same motives and effects of the use of force can present
themselves as potential or virtual on one side, and as kinetic or actual on the
other.

The animal who has experienced the dangers of fire, ice and flood will learn
that instead of confronting them it is best to flee as soon as he perceives the
danger signs. In the same way violence between two living beings can exercise
its effects in many cases without being physically manifested.

The wild dog will never contend with the lion for the killed roe-buck since
he knows that he would follow the same destiny as the victim. Many times the
prey succumbs from terror before being actually seized by the carnivore;
sometimes a glance is enough to immobilize it and deprive it not only of the
possibility of struggle but also of flight itself.

In all these cases the supremacy of force has a potential effect without
need of being materially carried out.

If our ethical judge should pass sentence on the matter, we doubt that he
would acquit the carnivore on the sole ground that his prey had freely chosen
to be devoured.

* * *

In the primitive human aggregates the network of the relationships among
individuals grows and extends itself progressively. The greater variety of
needs and of the means to satisfy them, in addition to the possibility of
communication between one being and another due to the differentiations of
language, all give rise to a sphere of relationships and influences which in
the animal world were only roughly outlined.

Even before it is possible to speak of a true production of objects of use
that can be employed for the satisfaction of the needs and necessities of human
life, a division of functions and of aptitudes to carry them out is established
among the members of the first groups, who devote themselves to the tasks of
harvesting wild vegetables, of hunting, of fishing and of the first rudimentary
activity in the construction and conservation of shelters and in the
preparation of food.

An organized society begins to form itself and with it arises the principle
of order and authority. The individuals who have a superior physical strength
and nervous energy no longer resort only to muscular strength to impose fixed
limits on others in the use of their time and their labor and in the enjoyment
of the useful goods that have been acquired. Rules begin to be established to
which the community adapts itself. Respect of these rules is imposed without
the needs of using physical coercion every time; it suffices to threaten the
would-be transgressor with fierce punishment and in extreme cases with
death.

The individual who, driven by his primitive animality, might want to elude
such impositions must either engage in a hand-to-hand combat with the leader
(and probably also with the other members of the collectivity who would be
ordered to back their leader in exercising the punishment) or else the
individual must flee from the collectivity. But in this last case he would be
compelled to satisfy his material needs less abundantly and with more risks
since he would be deprived of the advantages of organized collective activity,
however primitive it might be.

The human animal begins to trace his evolutionary cycle, a cycle which
certainly is neither uniform and continuous nor without crises and reversals
but which, in a general sense, is unrestrainable. From his original condition
of unlimited personal freedom, of total autonomy of the single individual, he
becomes more and more subjected to an increasingly dense network of bonds which
takes the features and the names of order, authority, and law.

The general trend of this evolution is the lessening of the frequency of
cases in which violence among men is consumed in its kinetic form, i.e. with
struggle, corporal punishment and execution. But, at the same time, the cases
in which authoritarian orders are executed without resistance become doubly
more frequent, since those whom the orders are addressed to know by experience
that it would not pay to elude these dictates.

A simplistic schematization and idealization of such a process leads to an
abstract conception of society which sees only two entities, the individual and
the collectivity, and arbitrarily assumes that all the relationships of each
individual to the organized collectivity are equivalent (such as in the
illusory perspective of the “Social Contract”). This theory
postulates the ongoing march of the human collectivity as being conducted
either by an obliging god who leads the drama towards a happy ending or else by
a redeeming inspiration, more mysterious still, which is placed who knows how
in each person’s mind and is immanent to his way of thinking, feeling,
and behaving. It is presented as a march which leads to a idyllic equilibrium
in which an egalitarian order allows everybody to enjoy the benefits of the
common work, while the decisions of each individual are free and freely
willed.

Dialectical materialism on the contrary, scientifically sets into relief the
importance of the factor of force and its influence not only when it is overtly
manifested, such as in wars among peoples and classes, but also when it is
applied in a potential state by means of the functioning of the machinery of
authority, of law, of constituted order and of armed power. It explains that
the origin and the extension of the use of force springs from the relationships
in which individuals are placed as a result of the striving and the possibility
to satisfy their needs.

If we analyze the ways and means by which human aggregates since prehistory
have procured their means of subsistence, as well as the first rudimentary
devices, arms and tools that extend the reach of the limb of animal man to act
over external bodies, we will be led to the discovery of an extremely rich
variety of relationships and intermediate positions between the individual and
the totality of the collectivity which are the basis of a division of this
collectivity into many diverse groups, according to attributions, functions and
satisfactions. This investigation furnishes us the key to the problem of
force.

The essential element of that which is commonly called civilization is this:
the stronger individual consumes more than the weaker one (and up until this
point we remain within the field of the relationships of animal life and, if we
want, we can also add here that so-called “nature”, which bourgeois
theories conceive of as a clever supervisor, provided for the fact that more
muscles means more stomach and more food); but the stronger also arranges
things in such a way that the major share of the workload falls on the weaker
one. If the weaker refuses to grant the richest meal and the easiest job (or no
job at all) to the stronger, then muscular superiority subdues him and inflicts
on him the third humiliation of being struck.

The distinctive element of civilization, as we said, is that this simple
relationship explained above is materialized innumerable times in all the acts
of social life with no need to use coercive force in its actual, kinetic
form.

The division of men into groups which are so dissimilar in their material
situation of life has its basis initially in a distribution of tasks. It is
this which, in a great complexity of manifestations, assures the privileged
individual, family, group, or class a recognition of its position. This
recognition, which has its origins in a real consideration of the initial
utility of the privileged elements, leads to the formation of an attitude of
submission among the victimized elements and groups. This attitude is handed
down in time and becomes part of tradition since social forms have an inertia
which is analogous to that of the physical world; due to this inertia these
social forms tend to trace the same orbits and to perpetuate the same
relationships if superior causes do not introduce a disruption.

Let us continue our analysis, which even the reader who is unfamiliar with
the Marxist method will understand to be a schematic explanation for the sake
of brevity. When for the first time the minus habens (the have-not) not only
does not constrain his exploiter to use force in order to compel him to execute
the orders, but also learns to repeat that rebellion is a great disgrace since
it jeopardizes the rules and order on which everybody’s salvation depends
– at this point, hats off please, the Law is born.

The first kings were clever hunters, valiant warriors who risked their life
and shed their blood for the defense of the tribe; the first wizards were
intelligent investigators of the secrets of nature useful for curing illnesses
and for the well-being of the tribe; the first masters of slaves or of wage
laborers were capable organizers of the productive efforts for the best yield
in the cultivation of the land or in the use of the first technologies. The
initial recognition of the useful function they fulfilled led them to build the
apparatus of authority and power. This apparatus permitted those who were at
the top of the new and more profitable forms of social life to appropriate, for
their own enjoyment, a large portion of the increased production that had been
realized.

Man first submitted the animals of other species to such a relationship. The
wild ox was subjugated to the yoke for the first time only after a harsh
struggle and with the sacrifice of the boldest tamers. Later, actual violence
was no longer necessary in order to make the animal lower his head. The
powerful effort of the ox multiplied the quantity of grain at the
master’s disposal and the ox, for its nourishment and for the
preservation of its muscular efficiency, received a fraction of the crops.

The evolved homo sapiens did not wait long to apply this same relationship
to his fellow-man with the rise of slavery. The adversary, defeated in a
personal or in a collective conflict, the prisoner of war, crushed and hurt, is
forced with further violence to work with the same economic contracts as the
ox. At the beginning he may have revolted, rarely being able to overwhelm the
oppressor and escape his grip; in the long run the normal situation is that the
slave, even if superior to his master in muscular strength just as is the ox,
suffers under his yoke and functions like the animal – only providing a
much wider range of services than the beast.

Centuries pass and this system builds its own ideology, it is theorized; the
priest justifies it in the name of the gods and the judge with his penalties
prohibits it from being violated. There is a difference, and a superiority of
the man of the oppressed class over the ox: no one could ever teach the ox to
recite in a most spontaneous way, a doctrine according to which the drag of the
plow is an immense advantage for him, a healthy and civilized joy, a
fulfillment of God’s will and an accomplishment of the sanctity of the
law, nor will it ever happen that the ox officially acknowledges all this by
casting votes in a ballot box.

Our long discourse on such an elementary subject aims at this result: to
credit the fundamental factor of force with the sum-total of effects which are
derived from it not only when force is employed in its actual state, with
violence against the physical person, but also and above all when it acts in
its potential or virtual state without the uproar of the fight and the shedding
of blood.

Crossing the centuries (and avoiding a repetition of the analysis of the
successive historical forms of productive relationships, of class privileges,
and of political power) we must come to an application of this result and this
criterion to present-day capitalist society.

It is thus possible to defeat the tremendous contemporary mobilization of
deceit, the big universal production which provides for the ideological
subjugation of the masses to the sinister dictates of the dominant minorities.
The fundamental trick of all this machinery is “atrocitism”: that
is, the exhibition (which incidentally is often corroborated by powerful
falsifications of facts) of all the episodes of material aggression in which
social violence, as a result of the relationships of force, is manifested and
consumed in blows, gunshots, in killings and in atomic massacres – and
this last would certainly have appeared as the most infamous if the producer of
this show had not had tremendous success in stupefying the world.

It will thus be possible to give the proper consideration, the
quantitatively and qualitatively preponderant importance, to the countless
cases in which aggression, resulting always in misery, suffering and
destruction of human life on a tremendous scale, is exercised without
resistance, without clashes and – as we said at the beginning –
without bloodshed even in times and places in which social peace and order seem
to be dominant. This is the social peace and order that is boasted of by the
professional pimps of spoken and written propaganda as being the full
realization of civilization, order, and freedom.

In comparing the importance of both factors – violence in an actual
state and violence in a potential state – it will be evident that despite
of all the hypocrisies and scandalmongerings, the second factor is the
predominant one. It is only on such a basis that it is possible to build a
doctrine and to wage a struggle capable of breaking the limits of the present
world of exploitation and oppression.

II. The Bourgeois Revolution

The research we have engaged in regarding the “dosage” of
violence exercised in its actual state (through physical beatings and injuries)
and violence left at its potential state (by subduing the dominated to the will
of the dominators through the complex play of penalties threatened but not
exercised) if applied to all social forms which preceded the bourgeois
revolution would prove to be too lengthy. For this reason we shall consider the
question by starting from a comparison of the social world of the “ancien
régime” which preceded the great revolution with that of capitalist
society in which we have the great joy to be living.

According to a first and well known interpretation, the revolution which
carried into effect the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity, as
expressed in the elective institutions, was a universal and final conquest for
mankind. This was claimed on the basis

1) that it radically improved the conditions of life of all
the members of society by freeing them from the old oppressions and by opening
up for them the joy of a new world and

2) that it eliminated the historical eventuality of any
further social conflict which could violently shatter the newly established
institutions and relationships.

A second interpretation which is less naïve and less impudently
apologetic about the delightfulness of the bourgeois system, recognizes that it
still harbors large differences of social conditions and economic exploitation
to the detriment of the working class and that further transformations of
society must be carried out through more or less brusque or gradual means.
However it maintains with absolute obstinacy that the conquests of the
revolution that brought the capitalist class to power represented a substantial
advancement also for the other classes which, thanks to it, gained the
inestimable advantage of legal and civil liberties. Therefore, it alleges that
the question is only that of proceeding on the road that has already been
opened up; that is to say, it is claimed that all that is necessary is to
eliminate the remaining forms of despotism and exploitation – after
having eliminated the most sever and atrocious ones – all the while
keeping hold of those first fundamental conquests. This worn out interpretation
is served to us in many forms. This is the case when Roosevelt, from the summit
of the pyramid of power, deigned to add new liberties, freedom from need and
freedom from fear, to the well known liberties of the old literature (and this
at a time when a war of unprecedented violence was raging, bringing an
extermination and starvation of human beings beyond any previous limit). This
is also the case when, from the base of the pyramid, a naïve
representative of the vulgar popular politicking formulates, with new words,
the old concoction of democracy and socialism by chattering about social
liberties which should be added to those that have already been achieved.

We should not need to recall that the Marxist analysis of the historical
process of the rise of capitalism has nothing to do with the two
interpretations we have mentioned.

In fact, Marx never said that the degree of exploitation, oppression and
abuse in capitalist society was inferior to that of feudal society but, on the
contrary, he explicitly proved the opposite.

Let us say right now, in order to avoid any serious misunderstanding, that
Marx proclaimed that it was a historical necessity for the Fourth Estate to
fight side by side with the revolutionary bourgeoisie against the monarchy, the
aristocracy, and the clergy. He condemned the doctrines of
“reactionary” socialism according to which the workers –
warned in time of the wild exploitation to which they would be subjected by the
capitalists in the manufacturing and industrial plants – should have
blocked with the leading feudal class against the capitalists. The most
orthodox and left-wing Marxism recognizes that in the first historical phase
which follows the bourgeois revolution, the strategy of the proletariat could
not be other than that of a resolute alliance with the young Jacobean
bourgeoisie. These clear-cut classical positions are not derived at all from
the assumption that the new economic system is less bestial and oppressive than
the previous one. They result instead from the dialectical conception of
history which explains the succession of events as being determined by the
productive forces which, through constant expansion and utilization of always
new resources, weigh down upon the institutional forms and the established
systems of power, thus causing crises and catastrophes.

Thus revolutionary socialists have been following the victories of modern
capitalism for more than a century in its impressive expansion all over the
world and they consider this as useful conditions of social development. This
is so because the essential characteristics of capitalism (such as the
concentration of productive forces, machines and men into powerful units, the
transformation of all use values into exchange values and the interconnection
of all the economies of the world) constitute the only path that leads, after
new gigantic social conflicts have taken place, to the realization of the new
communist society. All this remains true and necessary although we know
perfectly well that the modern industrial capitalist society is worse and more
ferocious than those which preceded it.

Of course, it is difficult for this conclusion to be digested by minds which
have been shaped by bourgeois ideology and which have been ingrained with the
idealisms pullulating from the romantic period of the liberal democratic
revolutions. In fact if our thesis is judged according to sentimentalist,
literary and rhetorical criteria, it cannot but arouse the banal indignation
from those righteous people who would not fail to confront us with their
jumbled erudition about the cruelties of the old despotisms – the
autos-da-fé, the Holy Inquisition, the corvées of the serfs, the
right of the king as well as the last feudal squire to dispose of the life and
death of their subjects, the jus primae noctis and so forth – thus
showing us that pre-bourgeois societies were the theater for daily incessant
violence and that their institutions were dripped with blood.

But if the research is founded on a scientific and statistical basis and if
we consider the amount of human work extorted without compensation in order to
allow a privileged enjoyment of wealth; if we consider the poverty and misery
of the lower social strata; if we consider the lives which are sacrificed and
broken as a result of economic hardships and of the crises and clashes which
break out in the form of private feuds, civil wars, or military conflicts among
states; if we consider all this, the heaviest index shall have to be computed
and attributed to this civilized, democratic and parliamentarian bourgeois
society.

In response to the scandalized accusation of those who reproach the
communists for aiming at the destruction of private property, Marx answered
– and it is a fundamental point – that one of the basic aspects of
the social upheaval brought forth by capitalism was the violent, inhuman
expropriation of the artisan laborer. Before the rise of the large
manufactures and mechanized factories, the isolated craftsman (or one who
worked in association with a few relatives and apprentices) was bound to his
tools as well as to the products of his work by a factual, technical and
economic tie. The right of ownership over his few implements and over the
limited amount of commodities produced in his shop was, in fact, legally
recognized with no limitation. The coming of capitalism crushes this
patriarchal and almost idyllic system. It defrauds the intelligent industrious
craftsman of his modest possessions and drags him, dispossessed and starving,
into the forced labor camps of the modern bourgeois enterprise. While this
upheaval unfolds, often with open violence and always under the pressure of
inexorable economic forces, the bourgeois ideologists define its legal aspects
as a conquest of liberty which frees the working citizen from the fetters of
the medieval guilds and trade rules, transforming him into a free man in a free
state.

Such was the process which manufacturing industry underwent on the whole,
and the presentation, in Marxist terms, of the development of agricultural
production is not much different. To be sure, the system of feudal servitude
obliged the laborer of the soil to give up a large portion of his production
for the benefit of the dominant classes, i.e. the nobility and the clergy. But
the serf who was bound to the soil maintained a technical and productive tie
with the earth itself and with a part of the products, a tie which indirectly
offered him a guarantee of a secure, quiet life (a situation which was also due
to the low population density and to the limited exchange of products with the
large urban centers).

The capitalist revolution breaks those relationships and claims to free the
serf-peasant from a whole series of abuses. However the land laborer, reduced
to a pure proletarian, follows the destiny of the slave-army of industrial
laborers, or else he is transformed into a fully legal manager or owner of a
small plot of land, only to be dispossessed by the capitalist usurer, the tax
collector, or through the melting away of the value of money.

It is not in the scope of this work to go into a detailed analysis of this
process. However the elementary considerations we have made will be enough to
answer those who pretend they have never heard before that Marx considered the
new bourgeois society to be more infamous than feudal society.

The essential point to establish is this: the differentiating criterion
which must be used in order to know if a new historical movement should be
supported or combated is not whether or not this movement has realized and
accorded more equality, justice and freedom, which would be an inconsistent and
trivially literary criterion. Instead it is the totally different and almost
always opposite criterion of asking whether the new situation has promoted and
brought forth the development of more powerful and complex productive forces at
society’s disposal.

These more highly developed forces are the indispensable condition for the
future organization of society itself in the sense of a more efficient
utilization of labor which will be able to provide a larger amount of consumer
goods for the benefit of all.

It was not only useful but also absolutely necessary for the bourgeoisie, by
means of civil war, to demolish the institutional obstacles which hampered the
development of large factories and the modern exploitation of the land. If we
consider these results, it does not matter that the first and immediate
consequence, a transitory one on a larger historical scale, was that of making
the chains of the social disparity and the exploitation of the labor force
heavier and more hideous.

* * *

The critique of scientific socialism has clearly shown that the great social
transformation achieved by capitalism (a transformation which historically has
fully matured and which in turn is fertile with further great developments)
cannot be defined either as a radical liberation of the vast masses or as a
meaningful leap forward in their standard of living. The transformation of the
institutions concerns only the mode in which the small, dominant, privileged
minority aligns and organizes itself in society.

The members of the pre-bourgeois privileged classes formed a system of
complex hierarchies. The high-ranking ecclesiastics belonged to the ordered and
well-organized network of the church; the noblemen, who also occupied the
highest civil and military offices, were hierarchically arranged in the feudal
system which had at its summit the King.

It is quite different in the new type of society (and it must be understood
that we are referring here to the first and classical type of bourgeois
economic society based on the unlimited freedom of production and exchange and
leaving aside the great differences between the various nations and historical
phases). In this society the members of the higher and privileged stratum are
almost totally free from ties of interdependence since each factory owner has
no personal obligations towards his colleagues and competitors in the
management of his company and in the choice of his initiatives. This technical
and social change, in the ideological field, takes the appearance of a
historical turn from the realm of authority to that of freedom.

It is clear however that this conquest, this sensational change of scenery,
did not take place on the theater of the entire social collectivity but only
within the narrow circles of the fortunate stratum of full and gilded bellies,
to which we may add the small following of accomplices and direct agents, i.e.
politicians, journalists, priests, teachers, high officials and the rest.

The mass of half-empty bellies are not absent in this gigantic tragedy
– on the contrary, they participate in it fighting with the sacrifice of
their lives and blood. What they are excluded from is the participation in the
benefits of this transformation.

The conquest of legal freedom, which all charters and constitutions claim to
be the heritage of all citizens does not concern the majority who are even more
exploited and starved than before; in reality this conquest is only the
internal affair of a minority. All the contemporary and historical questions
which have been placed again before the nauseating postulate of freedom and
democracy must be resolved in light of this approach.

On the scale of the individual, the materialist thesis states that since the
mind functions only when the stomach is nourished, the theoretical right to
freely think and to freely express one’s thought in fact concerns only he
who actually has the possibility of such superior activity. Of course it is
perfectly contestable whether those who constantly boast of having attained
this superior activity actually should be credited with it, but in any case it
is certainly precluded for the mass of poorly-fed bellies.

The harshness of this thesis customarily unchains a sequence of bitter
reproaches against the “vulgar obscene materialism”. This
materialism is accused of taking into account only the factor of economics and
nourishment, ignoring the glorious realm of spiritual life and refusing to
acknowledge those satisfactions which are not reducible to physical sensations,
i.e. those which man is supposed to draw from the use of reason, from the
exercise of civil liberties, and from the enjoyment of electoral rights by
which the citizen chooses his representatives and the heads of state.

Here we have nothing new to present and at the most we will only verify
well-known theories with recent facts. Therefore in regard to these reproaches
it is necessary once again to establish the real scope of the economic
determinism professed by Marxists as opposed to a common deformation which is
more obstinate in refusing to disappear than scabies or other contagious
diseases. This deformation reduces the problem to the petty individual scale
and pretends that the political, philosophical or religious opinions of each
individual are derived from his economic relationships in society and
mechanically spring forth from his desires and interests. Hence the large
landowner will be a right-wing reactionary bigot; the bourgeois businessman
will be a conservative in regards to economics but sometimes, at least until
recently, vaguely leftist in philosophy and politics; the petty bourgeois will
be more or less democratic; and the worker will be a materialist, a socialist
and a revolutionary.

Such a Marxism, custom-made for the bourgeois democrats, is very convenient
for optimistically declaring that since the economically oppressed workers
constitute the great majority of the population, it will not be long before
they have control of the representative and executive organs and, later on, all
wealth and capital. Naturally for the rapid movement of this merry-go-round it
will be of great advantage to swing the political opinions, beliefs and
movements towards the left, forming blocs and jumbled conglomerations with all
the slime of the middle strata which supposedly are progressively evolving and
taking a position against the politics and privileges of the upper classes.

In place of this stupid caricature, Marxism draws a totally different
picture. While speaking of the ideological, political and mystical
superstructures which find their explanation in the underlying economic
conditions and relationships, Marxism establishes a law and a method which have
a general and social relevance. In order to explain the significance of the
ideology which, in a given historical epoch, prevails among a people who are
governed through a given regime, we must base our analysis on data concerning
the productive techniques and the relationships of the distribution of goods
and products. In other words, we must base it on the class relationships
between the privileged groups and the collectivities of producers.

Briefly, and in plain words, the law of economic determinism states that in
each epoch the general prevailing opinions, the political, philosophical and
religious ideas which are shared and followed by the great majority are those
which correspond to the interests of a dominant minority who holds all power
and privilege in its hands. Hence the priests and wisemen of the ancient
oriental peoples justify despotism and human sacrifice, those of the pagan
civilizations preach that slavery is just and beneficial, those of the
christian age exalt property and monarchy, and those of the epoch of democracy
and the Enlightenment canonize the economic and juridical systems suitable to
capitalism.

When a particular type of society and production enters into a crisis and
when forces arise in the technical and productive domain which tend to break
its limits, class conflicts become more acute and are reflected in the rise of
new doctrines of opposition and subversion which are condemned and attacked by
the dominant institutions. When a society is in crisis, one of the
characteristics of the phase which opens up is the continuous relative decrease
in the number of those who benefit from the existing regime; nevertheless, the
revolutionary ideology does not prevail in the masses but is crystallized only
in a vanguard minority that is joined even by elements of the dominant class.
The masses will change ideologically, philosophically and religiously through
the force of inertia and through the formidable means utilized by every
dominant class for the molding of opinions, but this transformation will occur
only after a long period following the collapse of the old structures of
domination. We can even state that a revolution is truly mature when the actual
physical fact of the inadequacy of the systems of production places these
systems into conflict even with the material interests of a large section of
the privileged class itself. And this is true in spite of the fact that the old
traditional dictates of the dominant opinions, with their tremendous
reactionary inertia, continue to be endlessly repeated by the mass which is the
victim of it as well as by the superior layers which are the depositories of
the regime.

Thus slavery definitively collapsed, in spite of an obstinate resistance on
the level of ideology and that of force, when it proved to be a system which
was scarcely profitable for the exploitation of labor and which was of little
advantage for the slave-masters.

To say it briefly, the liberation of an oppressed class does not proceed
first from the liberation of the spirit and then of the body but it must
emancipate the stomach well before it can affect the brain.

The forces for deceptively mobilizing the opinions of the masses in a way
which conforms to the interests of the privileged class are, in capitalist
society, much more powerful than in pre-bourgeois societies. Schools, the
press, public speeches, radios, motion pictures, and associations of all kinds
represent means which are a hundred times more powerful than those that were
available to societies in the past. In the capitalist regime, thought is a
commodity and it is made to order by utilizing the necessary equipment and
economic means for its mass production. Germany and Italy had their Ministries
of Propaganda and People’s Culture, and Great Britain, in turn,
instituted its Ministry of Information at the beginning of World War II in
order to monopolize and control the whole flow of news. In the period between
the two World Wars, the dispatch of news was already a monopoly of the powerful
network of the British press agencies; today such a monopoly obviously has
crossed the Atlantic. Thus as long as military operations were favorable for
the Germans the daily production of tall tales and lies from the English
information factory attained a level that the fascist organizations could only
envy. To give one example, at the time of the incredible German military
operation to conquer Norway in 48 hours, the British radio broadcasted the
details of a disastrous defeat of the German fleet in the Skagerrak!

The social factor of the manipulation of ideas, which ranges from the
falsification of the news to the fabrication of ready-made critics and
opinions, is of no small importance (in fact, in the news industry today the
various versions of an event are already compiled before the event actually
happens, so even if a reporter seems to tell it like it is, it still remains a
falsehood – the event that is reported is always the event which must
take place according to this or that state or this or that party). This
manipulation of ideas is a component of that mass of virtual violence, that is
to say, of violence which does not take the form of a brutal imposition carried
out with coercive means but which nonetheless is the result and the
manifestation of real forces that deform and modify the actual situation.

The modern type of democratic bourgeois society does not joke with the
administration of actual (or kinetic) violence through its police and military
apparatus – and in reality it exceeds the level of kinetic violence used
by the old regimes which are so slandered by bourgeois democracy. But alongside
of this, it brings the volume of that application of virtual violence to a
level never known before, a level which is comparable to the unprecedented
level of production and the concentration of wealth. Due to this, sections of
the masses appear which, out of apparently free choices of confessions,
opinions, and beliefs, act against their own objective interests and accept the
theoretical justifications of social relationships and events which cause their
misery and even their destruction.

The passage from the pre-bourgeois forms to the present society has thus
increased and not diminished the intensity and the frequency of the factor of
oppression and coercion.

And when Marxism, for all these reasons we have explained, advocates the
full completion of that fundamental historical step, we certainly do not intend
to forget or to contradict this fundamental position.

It is only with criteria which are consistent with those we have established
above, that we can judge and unravel one of the burning questions of today,
i.e. the transformation of the bourgeois method of administration and
government corresponding to the rise of the dictatorial and fascist
totalitarian regimes.

Such a transformation does not represent a change of one ruling class for
another, or even less a revolutionary rupture of the modes of production. But
while making this critique it is necessary to avoid the banal errors which, in
line with the deviations of Marxism we have been refuting, would lead to
attributing to the democratic-parliamentary form and phase a lesser intensity
and density of class violence.

This criterion, even if it were in keeping with the facts, would not in any
case be sufficient to induce us to support and defend the
democratic-parliamentary phase, for the same dialectical reasons that we have
used in evaluating the previous historical changes. But an analysis of this
question can demonstrate that to refuse the temptation of considering only
actual violence and to take into account, on the contrary, the whole volume of
potential violence which is inherent to the life and dynamics of society, is
the only way to avoid falling into the deception of preferring (even if it is
in a subordinate and relative manner) the hypocritical method and the noxious
atmosphere of liberal democracy.

III. The Democratic Form and the Fascist Form of Bourgeois
Rule

This work examines the extent to which force is used in social
relationships, distinguishing between the two forms in which violence is
manifested: the open manifestations which are carried out up to the point of
massacre; and the mechanism of social rules which are obeyed by the affected
individual or group without physical resistance, due to the threat of
punishment inflicted on offenders or, in any case, due to the predisposition of
the victims to accept the norms which rule over them.

In the first chapter we have established a comparison between the two types
of manifestation of energy in the social domain and the two forms in which
energy is manifested in the physical world: the actual or kinetic form (or
energy of motion) which accompanies the collisions and explosions of the most
varied agents; and the virtual or potential form (or energy of position) which
even if it does not produce such effects plays just as great a role in the
collection of events and relationships under consideration.

This comparison – developed from the field of physics to that of
biology, then to that of human society – has been carried out with brief
references to the course of historical epochs. Arriving at the present
bourgeois capitalist period we have shown that in this period the play of force
and violence in the economic, social, and political relationships between
individuals and above all between classes not only has an enormous and
fundamental role but – inasmuch as we can measure it – becomes much
more frequent and widespread than in previous epochs and pre-capitalist
societies.

In a more exhaustive study we could use a social-economic measurement if we
try to translate into figures the value of human labor extorted to the benefit
of the privileged classes from the great masses who work and produce. In modern
society there is a constant decrease in the proportion of individuals and
economic groupings which succeed in living in their own autonomous cycle,
consuming what they produce without external relationships. Simultaneously
there has been an enormous increase in the number of those who work for others
and who receive a remuneration that compensates them for only a part of their
work; likewise there has been an enormous increase in the social gap between
the living standard of the great productive majority and that of the members of
the possessing classes. In fact what is important is not the individual
existence of one or only a few tycoons who live in luxury, but the mass of
wealth which a social minority can use for its pleasures of all kinds while the
majority receives only a little more than is absolutely necessary for
existence.

Since our subject deals more with the political aspect of the question than
the economic, the question we must pose in regard to the regime of capitalist
privilege and rule is that of the relationship between the use of brute
violence and that of potential force which compels the impoverished to submit
to the rules and laws in force without violating them or revolting.

This relationship varies greatly according to the various phases of the
history of capitalism and according to the various countries where capitalism
has been introduced. We can cite examples of neutral and idyllic zones where
the power of the state is exalted as being freely accepted by all the citizens;
where there is only a small police force and where even the social conflicts
between workers and employers are solved through peaceful means. But these
Switzerlands tend, in time and space, to become more and more rare oases in the
world-wide capitalist system.

At its birth capitalism could not conquer its ground without open and bloody
struggle since the shackles of the state organization of the old regime could
only be broken through force. Its expansion in the non-European continents with
its colonial expeditions and wars of conquest and pillage was no less bloody,
because only through massacre could the mode of social organization of the
native population be replaced by that of capitalism, and in some cases this
meant the extermination of entire human races, something unknown in
prebourgeois civilization.

In general, after this virulent phase of the birth and foundation of
capitalism, an intermediate period of its development begins. Although this
period is marked by constant social clashes, by the repression of revolts of
the exploited classes, and by wars between states which however do not embrace
all the known world, it is the one which has more than any other given rise to
the liberal and democratic apologia that falsely depicts a world in which
– except for exceptional and pathological cases – the relationships
between individuals and between social strata are supposed to have taken place
with a maximum of order, peace, spontaneous consent and free acceptance.

Let us say incidentally that in these colonial or national wars, revolts,
insurrections, or repressions – which constitute, even in the smoother
and calmer phases of bourgeois history, the areas in which open violence is
unleashed – the bloodshed and the number of victims in these crises tend
to increase, all the other conditions being equal, with respect to the crises
of the past, and for this we can thank “progressive” bourgeois
technological development. In fact, in parallel with the improvement of the
means of production, the means of attack and destruction are made more and more
potent, more powerful weapons are created, and the casualties which
Cesar’s pretorians could inflict by putting rebels to the sword were a
joke compared to those which machine-gun fire can inflict against the
insurgents of the modern epoch.

But our aim is to show that even in long phases of bloodless enforcement of
capitalist rule, class force does not cease to be present, and its influence in
its potential state against the possible deviations of isolated individuals,
organized groups or parties remains the primary factor in conserving the
privileges and institutions of the ruling class. We have already cited among
the manifestations of this class force not only the entire state apparatus,
with its armed forces and its police, even when its weapons are kept at rest,
but also the whole arsenal of ideological indoctrination which justifies
bourgeois exploitation and is carried out by means of the schools, the press,
the church and all the other ways by which the opinions of the masses are
molded. This epoch of apparent tranquility is only disturbed occasionally by
unarmed demonstrations of the proletarian class organizations; and the
bourgeois onlookers can say, after the Mayday march, as in the verses of the
poet: “Once more, thanks to Christ and to the police chief, we have had
no trouble”.

When social unrest rumbles more threateningly, the bourgeois state begins to
show its power by taking measures to maintain order. A technical police
expression gives a good idea of the use of potential violence: “the
police and the troops are standing by”. This means that there is no
street fighting yet, but that if the bourgeois order and the bosses’
“rights” were threatened the armed forces would leave their
quarters and open fire.

The revolutionary critique has never let itself be hypnotized by the
appearances of civility and serene equilibrium of the bourgeois order. It long
ago established that even in the most democratic republic the political state
constitutes the executive committee of the ruling class; and thus it decisively
demolished the stupid theories which would have us believe that after the
destruction of the old feudal, clerical and autocratic state a new form of
state arises in which, thanks to elective democracy, all the elements of
society, whatever their economic condition may be, are represented and
protected with equal rights. The political state, even and primarily that
representative and parliamentary one, constitutes an apparatus of oppression.
It can be compared to an energy reservoir which stores the forces of domination
of the economically privileged class. This reservoir is such that these forces
are kept in the potential state in situations where social revolt does not near
the point of exploding, but it unleashes them in the form of police repression
and bloody violence as soon as revolutionary tremors rise from the social
depths.

This is the sense of the classical analysis of Marx and Engels on the
relationship between society and state, or in other words between social
classes and the state. All attempts to shake this fundamental point of the
proletariat’s class doctrine have been crushed in the restoration of the
revolutionary principles carried out by Lenin, Trotsky and the Communist
International immediately after World War I.

There is no scientific sense in establishing the existence of a quantum of
potential energy if it is not possible to foresee that, in subsequent
situations, it will be liberated in the kinetic state. Likewise the Marxist
definition of the character of the bourgeois political state would remain
meaningless and inconsistent if it did not conform to the certainty that in the
culminating phase this organ of power of capitalism will inevitably unleash all
its resources in the kinetic state against the eruption of the proletarian
revolution.

Moreover, the equivalent of the Marxist thesis on the increase of poverty,
and on the accumulation and concentration of capital could, in the sphere of
politics, be nothing other than the concentration and increase of the energy
contained within the state apparatus. In fact once the deceitfully peaceful
phase of capitalist era had been closed with the outburst of the war of 1914
and with the economic characteristics evolving towards monopoly and towards the
active intervention of the state in the economy and in the social struggles, it
became evident – above all in the classical analysis of Lenin –
that the political state of bourgeois regimes was taking on more and more
decided forms of strict domination and police oppression. We have established
in other works that the third and most modern phase of capitalism is
economically defined as monopolist, introducing economic planning, and
politically defined as totalitarian and fascist.

When the first fascist regimes appeared they were considered in the more
immediate and commonplace interpretations as a restriction and an abolition of
the so-called parliamentary and legal “guaranteed” rights. In
actuality it was simply a question, in certain countries, of a passage of the
political energy of domination of the capitalist class from the potential state
to the kinetic state.

It was clear to every follower of the Marxist perspective – a
perspective defined as catastrophic by the stupid castrators of that
doctrine’s revolutionary strength – that the increasing severity of
the class antagonisms would move the conflicts of economic interests to the
level of an erupting revolutionary attack launched by the proletarian
organizations against the citadel of capitalist state, and that the latter
would uncover its artillery and engage in the supreme struggle for its
survival.

In certain countries and in certain situations, for example in Italy in 1922
and in Germany in 1933, the tensions of the social relations, the instability
of capitalist economic fabric and the crisis of the state apparatus itself due
to the war became so acute that the ruling class could see that the inevitable
moment was at hand where, with all the lies of democratic propaganda being
exhausted, the only solution was the violent clash between the antagonistic
social classes.

Then there occurred what was correctly defined as a capitalists’
offensive. Until then the bourgeois class, with its economic exploitation in
vigorous development, had seemed to have been slumbering behind the apparent
kindliness and tolerance of its representative and parliamentary institutions.
Having succeeded in mastering a very significant degree of historical strategy,
it broke the hesitations and took the initiative, thinking that rather than a
supreme defense of the state’s fortress against the assault of revolution
(which, according to Marx’s and Lenin’s teaching, does not aim at
taking over the state but at totally smashing it) it was preferable to launch
an offensive action aiming at the destruction of the bases of the proletarian
organization.

Thus a situation which was clearly foreseen in the revolutionary perspective
was accelerated to a certain extent. In effect, Marxist communists have never
thought that it was possible to carry out their program without this supreme
clash between the opposing class forces; and moreover, the analysis of the most
recent evolution of capitalism and of the monstrous enlargement of its state
machineries with their enormous framework clearly indicated that such a
development was inevitable.

The great error of judgment, tactics, and strategy which favored the
victory of the counter-revolution was that of deploring capitalism’s
powerful shift from the democratic hypocrisy to open violence, as if it was a
movement that could be historically reversed. Instead of counterposing to this
movement the necessity of the destruction of capitalist power, one counterposed
instead the stupid pacifist pretension that capitalism would go in reverse,
backwards along its path, in a direction opposite to the one which we Marxists
have always ascribed to it, and that for the personal convenience of some
cowardly rogue politicians, capitalism would be kind enough not to unsheathe
its class weapons and return to the inconsistent and obsolete position of
mobilization without war which constituted the “pleasant” aspect of
the previous period.

The basic mistake is to have been astonished, to have whined or to have
deplored that the bourgeoisie carried out its totalitarian dictatorship without
mask, whereas we knew very well that this dictatorship had always existed, that
the state apparatus had always had, potentially if not in actuality, the
specific function of wielding, preserving and defending the power and privilege
of the bourgeois minority against revolution. The error consisted in preferring
a bourgeois democratic atmosphere to a fascist one; in shifting the battle
front from the perspective of the proletarian conquest of power to that of an
illusory restoration of a democratic method of capitalist government in the
place of the fascist one.

The fatal mistake was of not understanding that in any case the eve of the
revolution which had been awaited for so many decades would reveal a bourgeois
state drawn up for the armed defense against the proletarian advance, and that
therefore such a situation must appear as a progress, and not as a regression,
in comparison with the years of apparent social peace and of limited impetus
from the class force of the proletariat. The damage done to the development of
the revolutionary energies and to the prospects of the realization of a
socialist society does not stem from the fact that the bourgeoisie organized in
a fascist form is supposedly more powerful and more efficient in defending its
privilege than a bourgeoisie still organized in a democratic form. Its class
power and energy is the same in both cases. In the democratic phase it is in
its potential state: over the muzzle of the cannon there is the innocuous
protection of a covering. In the fascist phase energy is manifested in the
kinetic state: the hood is taken off and the shot is fired. The defeatist and
idiotic request which the traitorous leaders of the proletariat make to
exploitative and oppressive capitalism is that it put back the deceitful
covering over the muzzle of the weapon. If this were done the efficiency of the
domination and exploitation would not have diminished but only increased thanks
to the revitalized expedient of legalistic deception.

Since it would be even more insane to ask the enemy to disarm, we must
gladly welcome the fact that, compelled by the urgencies of the situation, it
unveils its own weapons, for then these weapons will be less difficult to face
and to defeat.

Therefore the bourgeois regime of open dictatorship is an inevitable and
predicted phase of the historical life of capitalism and it will not die
without having gone through this phase. To fight to postpone this unmasking of
the energies of the antagonistic social classes, to carry on a vain and
rhetorical propaganda inspired by a stupid horror of dictatorship in principle,
all this work can only favor the survival of capitalist regime and the
prolonged subjection and oppression of the working class.

* * *

And with just as much certainty we can conclude the following, though it is
quite likely to cause an uproar from all the geese of the bourgeois left: the
comparison between the democratic phase of capitalism and the totalitarian
phase shows that the amount of class oppression is greater in the first
(although it is obvious that the ruling class always tends to choose the method
which is more useful for its conservation). Fascism undoubtedly unleashes a
greater mass of police and repressive violence, including bloody repression.
But this aspect of kinetic energy primarily and gravely affects the very few
authentic leaders and revolutionary militants of the working class movement,
together with a stratum of middle bourgeois professional politicians who
pretend to be progressive and friends of the working class, but who are nothing
but the militia specially trained by the capitalists for use in the periods of
the parliamentary comedy. Those who do not change their style and their costume
in time are ousted with a kick in the ass – which is the main reason for
their outcries.

As for the mass of the working class, it continues to be exploited as it has
always been in the economic field. And the vanguard elements which form within
the class for the assault against the present regime continue as always to
receive – as soon as they take the correct anti-legalistic way of action
– the lead which is reserved for them even by the bourgeois democratic
governments. This we can see in countless examples, on the part of the
republicans in France in 1848 and 1871, on the part of Social Democrats in
Germany in 1919, etc.

But the new method introducing planning in the management of capitalist
economy – which in relation to the antiquated unlimited classical
liberalism of the past constitutes a form of self-limitation of capitalism
– leads to a leveling of the extortion of surplus value around an
average. The reformist measures which the right-wing socialists had advocated
for many decades are adopted. In such a way the sharpest and extreme edges of
capitalist exploitation are eased, while forms of public assistance
develop.

All this aims at delaying the crises of class conflicts and the
contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. But undoubtedly it would
be impossible to reach this aim without having succeeded in reconciling, to a
certain degree, the open repression against the revolutionary vanguard with a
relief of the most pressing economic needs of the great masses. These two
aspects of the historical drama in which we live are a condition for one
another. Churchill in his latter days said with good reason to the Laborites:
you won’t be able to found a state-run economy without a police state.
More interventions, more regulations, more controls, more police. Fascism
consists of the integration of artful social reformism with the open armed
defense of state power.

Not all the examples of fascism are at the same level. Nevertheless the
German one, as pitiless in the elimination of its enemies as one may say, has
achieved a very high average standard of living economically speaking and an
administration that technically was excellent, and when it has imposed war
restrictions these even fell on the propertied classes and this to an
unprecedented extent.

Therefore, even though bourgeois class oppression, in the totalitarian
phase, increases the proportion of the kinetic use of violence with respect to
the potential one, the total pressure on the proletariat does not increase but
diminishes. It is precisely for this reason that the final crisis of the class
struggle historically undergoes a delay.

The death of revolutionary energies lies in class collaboration. Democracy
is class collaboration through lots of talk, fascism is plain class
collaboration in fact. We are living in the midst of this latter historical
phase. The rekindling of the class struggle will dialectically arise from a
later phase, but for the time being let us establish that it cannot proceed
through rallying the working classes behind the slogan of the return to
liberalism, in which they have nothing to gain, not even relatively.

* * *

This section deals mainly with the use of force, violence and dictatorship
by the ruling classes. It does not exhaust the subject of the use of these
energies by the proletariat in the struggle for the conquest of power and in
the exercise of power, an important question that will be reserved for
following sections. But still remaining within the field of the study of the
bourgeois forms of dictatorship, it would do well to specify that when we speak
about the fascist, totalitarian and dictatorial capitalist method we always
refer to collective organizations and actions. We do not see the prevailing
factor of the historical scene to be individual dictators, who so greatly
occupy the attention of a public that has been artfully enthralled, whether it
is by their supporters or their adversaries.

During the last world war, two of the Big Three have been eliminated:
Roosevelt and Churchill. But nothing has substantially changed in the course of
events. We will leave Italy aside because here the examples of fascism and
anti-fascism have had a very clownish character (the first models of an
innovation always make one laugh, as the early automobiles which can be seen in
a museum compared with a modern mass produced one). In Germany the person of
Hitler represented a superfluous factor of the powerful Nazi organization of
forces. The Soviet regime will do very well without Stalin when his time has
come. The other impressive machinery of domination, that of Japan, was based
upon castes and classes without a personal leader.

We can escape from the overwhelming tide of lies which gorges modern public
opinion only if we relentlessly drive away both the fetish of the individual as
a protagonist of history, meaning not only the ordinary person, the man in the
street, but also the one in the center of the stage, the Leader, the Great
Man.

That we live in an epoch of self-government of the peoples, not even the
simpletons believe...

But we are not in the hands of a few great men either. We are in the hands
of a very few great class Monsters, of the greatest states of the world,
machines of domination whose enormous power weighs upon everybody and
everything. Their open accumulation of potential energies foreshadows, in all
corners of the earth, the kinetic use of immense and crushing forces when the
conservation of the present institutions will require it. And these forces will
be unleashed without the slightest hesitation on any side in the face of civil,
moral and legal scruples, those ideal principles which are croaked about from
morning till night by the infamous, purchased, hypocritical propagandas.

IV. Proletarian Struggle and Violence

The first three parts of this article have briefly outlined the historical
development of the class struggles up to present-day bourgeois society. They
presented the perspective which Marxist socialism has long given on this
subject but which nevertheless continues to be an object of deviation and
confusion.

To clarify the question we made the fundamental distinction between energy
in the potential state (energy which is capable of entering into action but is
not yet acting) and energy in the actual or kinetic state (energy which has
already been set into motion and is producing its various effects). We
explained the nature of this distinction in the physical world and extended it
in a very simple way to the field of organic life and human society.

The problem was then to identify this energy, i.e. violence and coercive
force, in the events of social life. We have emphasized that this is operating
not only when there is a brutal physical act against the human body such as
physical restraint, beating, and killing, but also in that much larger field
where the actions of individuals are coerced through the simple threat and
under the penalty of violence. This coercion arises inseparably with the first
forms of collective productive activity and thus of what is considered to be
civilized and political society. Coercion is an indispensable factor in the
development of the whole course of history and in the development of the
successive institutions and classes. The question is not to exalt or condemn
it, but to recognize and consider it in the context of the different historical
epochs and the various situations.

The second section compared feudal society with bourgeois capitalist
society. Its aim was to illustrate the thesis, which of course is not new, that
the passage from feudalism to capitalism – an event fundamental in the
evolution of the technology of production as well as in the evolution of the
economy – has not been accompanied by a decrease in the use of force,
violence, and social oppression.

For Marx, the capitalist form of economy and society is the most
antagonistic that history has presented until now. In its birth, its
development, and its resistance against its own destruction, capitalism reaches
a level of exploitation, persecution, and human suffering unknown before. This
level is so high in quality and quantity, in potential and mass, in severity
and range and – if we translate it into the ethical-literary terms which
are not ours – in ferocity and immensity, that it has reached the masses,
the peoples, and the races of all corners of the earth.

Finally the third section dealt with the comparison between the
liberal-democratic and the fascist-totalitarian forms of bourgeois rule,
showing that it is an illusion to consider the first to be less oppressive and
more tolerant than the second. If we take into consideration not violence as it
is openly manifested, but instead the actual potential of the modern state
apparatuses, that is to say their ability and capacity to resist all
antagonistic, revolutionary assaults, we can easily substitute the blind
common-place present-day attitude, one that rejoices because two world wars
supposedly drove back the forces of reaction and tyranny, and replace it by the
obvious and clear verification that the capitalist system has more than doubled
its strength, a strength concentrated in the great state monsters and in the
world Leviathan of class rule now being constructed. Our proof of this is not
based on an examination of the juridical hypocrisy or of the written or
oratorical demagogy of today, which anyway are more revolting than they were
under the defeated regimes of the Axis powers. Instead it is based on the
scientific calculation of the financial, military, and police forces, in the
measurement of the frantic accumulation and concentration of private or public,
but always bourgeois, capital.

In comparison to 1914, 1919, 1922, 1933, and 1943, the capitalist regime of
1947 weighs down more, always more, in its economic exploitation and in its
political oppression of the working masses and of everyone and everything that
crosses its path. This is true for the “Great Powers” after their
totalitarian suppression of the German and Japanese state machines. It is also
and no less true even for the Italian state: although defeated, derided, forced
into vassalage, salable and sold in all direction, it is nevertheless more
armed with police and more reactionary now than under Giolitti and Mussolini,
and it will be even more reactionary if it passes from the hands of De
Gasperi[1] to those of the left
parties.

Having summarized the first three parts, we must now deal with the question
of the use of force and violence in the social struggle when these methods of
action are taken up by the revolutionary class of the present epoch, the modern
proletariat.

In the course of about a century, the method of class struggle has been
accepted in words by so many and such various movements and schools that the
most widely differing interpretations have clashed in violent polemics,
reflecting the ups and downs and the turning points of the history of
capitalism and of the antagonisms to which it gives rise.

The polemic has been clarified in a classic way in the period between World
War I and the Russian Revolution. Lenin, Trotsky, and the left-wing communist
groups [2] who gathered in
Moscow’s International settled the questions of force, violence, the
conquest of power, the state, and the dictatorship in a way we must consider as
definitive on the theoretical and programmatic level.

Opposed to them were the countless deformations of social-democratic
opportunism. It is not necessary to repeat our refutation of these positions
but it is useful to simply recall some points which clarify the concepts which
distinguish us. Moreover, many of these false positions, which were then
trampled to the ground and which seemed to have been dispersed forever, have
reappeared in almost identical forms in the working class movement today.

Revisionism pretended to show that the prediction of a revolutionary clash
between the working class and the defensive network of bourgeois power was an
obsolete part of the Marxist system. Falsifying and exploiting the Marxist
texts (in this case a famous preface and letter of Engels) [3] it maintained that the progress of
military technology precluded any perspective of a victorious armed
insurrection. It claimed instead that the working class would achieve power
very shortly through legal and peaceful means due to the development and
strengthening of working class unions and of parliamentary political
parties.

Revisionism sought to spread throughout the ranks of the working class the
firm conviction that it was not possible to overthrow the power of the
capitalist class by force and, furthermore, that it was possible to realize
socialism after conquering the executive organs of the state by means of a
majority in the representative institutions. Left Marxists were accused of a
worship of violence, elevating it from a means to an end and invoking it almost
sadistically even when it was possible to spare it and attain the same result
in a peaceful way. But in the face of the eloquence of the historical
developments this polemic soon unveiled its content. It was a mystique not so
much of nonviolence as it was an apology of the principles of the bourgeois
order.

After the armed revolution triumphed in Leningrad over the resistance of
both the Czarist regime and the Russian bourgeois class, the argument that it
was not possible to conquer power with arms changed into the argument that it
must not be done, even if it is possible. This was combined with the idiotic
preaching of a general humanitarianism and social pacifism which of course
repudiates the violence utilized for the victory of the working class
revolutions, but does not denounce the violence used by the bourgeoisie for its
historical revolutions, not even the extreme terroristic manifestations of this
violence. Moreover, in all the controversial debates, in historical situations
which were decisive for the socialist movement, when the right contested the
propositions of direct action, it admitted that it would have agreed with the
necessity of resorting to insurrection if it were for other objectives. For
example, the Italian reformist socialists in May 1915 opposed the proposal for
a general strike at the moment of war mobilization, using ideological and
political arguments in addition to a tactical evaluation of the relation of
forces; but they admitted that if Italy intervened in the war on the side of
Austria and Germany they would call the people to insurrection.

In the same way, those who theorize the “utilization” of legal
and democratic ways are ready to admit that popular violence is legitimate and
necessary when there is an attempt from above to abolish constitutional rights.
But in such a case how can it be explained that the development of military
technology in the hands of the state is no longer an insurmountable obstacle?
How can it be foreseen, in the event of a peaceful conquest of the majority,
that the bourgeoisie will not use those military means in order to maintain
power? How can the proletariat in these situations victoriously use the
violence which is criticized and condemned as a class means? The social
democrats cannot answer this because in doing so they would be obliged to
confess that they are pure and simple accomplices in preserving bourgeois
rule.

A system of tactical slogans such as theirs can in fact be reconciled only
with a clearly anti-Marxist apology of bourgeois civilization which precisely
is the essence of the politics of those parties which have risen from the
deformed trunk of anti-fascism.

The social-democratic thesis contends that the last historical situation
where the recourse to violence and forms of civil war was necessary was
precisely that situation which enabled the bourgeois order to rise from the
ruins of the old feudal and despotic regimes. With the conquest of political
liberties an era of civilized and peaceful struggles is supposedly opened in
which all other conquests, such as economic and social equality, can be
realized without further bloody conflicts.

According to this ignoble falsification, the historical movement of the
modern proletariat and socialism are no longer the most radical battle of
history. They are no longer the destruction of an entire world down to its
foundations, from its economic framework and its legal and political system to
its ideologies still impregnated with all the lies transmitted by previous
forms of oppression and still poisoning even the very air we breathe.

Socialism is reduced to a stupid and irresolute combination of supposed
legal and constitutional conquests by which the capitalist form has pretendedly
enriched and enlightened society and vague social postulates which can be
grafted and transplanted onto the trunk of the bourgeois system.

Marx measured the irresistible and increasing pressures in the social depths
which will cause the mantle of the bourgeois forms of production to explode,
just as geological cataclysms break the crust of the planet. His formidable
historical vision of social antagonisms is replaced by the contemptible
deception of a Roosevelt who adds to the short list of bourgeois liberties
those of freedom from fear and freedom from need, or of a Pius XII who, after
blessing once again the eternal principle of property in its modern capitalist
form, pretends to weep over the abyss which exists between the poverty of the
multitude and the monstrous accumulations of wealth.

Lenin’s theoretical restoration of the revolutionary doctrine
reestablished the definition of the state as a machine which one social class
uses to oppress other classes. This definition above all is fully valid for the
modern bourgeois, democratic, and parliamentary state. But as a crowning point
of the historical polemic, it must be made clear that the proletarian class
force cannot take over this machine and use it for its own purposes; instead of
conquering it, it must smash it and break it to pieces.

The proletarian struggle is not a struggle that takes place within the state
and its organs but a struggle outside the state, against it, and against all
its manifestations and forms.

The proletarian struggle does not aim at seizing or conquering the state as
if it were a fortress which the victorious army seeks to occupy. Its aim
instead is to destroy it and to raze its defeated defenses and fortifications
to the ground.

Yet after the destruction of the bourgeois state a form of political state
becomes necessary, i.e. the new organized class power of the proletariat. This
is due to the necessity of directing the use of an organized class violence by
means of which the privileges of capital are rooted out and the organization of
the freed productive forces in the new, non-private, non-commodity communist
forms is made possible.

Consequently it is correct to speak of the conquest of power, meaning a
non-legal, non-peaceful, but violent, armed, revolutionary conquest. It is
correct to speak of the passage of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to
those of the proletariat precisely because our doctrine considers power not
only authority and law based on the weight of the tradition of the past but
also the dynamics of force and violence thrust into the future, sweeping away
the barriers and obstacles of institutions. It would not be exact to speak of
the conquest of the state or the passage of the state from the administration
of one class to that of another precisely because the state of a ruling class
must perish and be shattered as a condition for the victory of the formerly
subjected class. To violate this essential point of Marxism, or to make the
slightest concession to it (for instance allowing the possibility that the
passage of power can take place within the scope of a parliamentary action,
even one accompanied by street fighting and battles, and by acts of war between
states) leads to the utmost conservatism. This is because such a concession is
tantamount to conceding that the state structure is a form which is opened to
totally different and opposed contents and therefore stands above the opposing
classes and their historical conflict. This can only lead to the reverential
respect of legality and the vulgar apology for the existing order.

It is not only a question of an error of scientific evaluation but also of a
real degenerative historical process which took place before our eyes. It is
this process which has led the ex-communist parties down hill, turning their
backs on Lenin’s theses and arriving at the coalition with the
social-democratic traitors, the “worker’s government”, and
then the democratic government, that is to say a direct collaboration with the
bourgeoisie and at its service.

With the unequivocally clear thesis of the destruction of the state, Lenin
reestablished the thesis of the establishment of the proletarian state. The
second thesis does not please the anarchists who, though they had the merit of
advancing the first, had the illusion that immediately after bourgeois power
was smashed society could dispense with all forms of organized power and
therefore with the political state, that is to say with a system of social
violence. Since the transformation of the economy from private to socialist
cannot be instantaneous, it follows that the elimination of the non-laboring
class cannot be instantaneous and cannot be accomplished through the physical
elimination of its members. Throughout the far from brief period during which
the capitalist economic forms persist while constantly diminishing, the
organized revolutionary state must function, which means – as Lenin
unhypocritically said – maintaining soldiers, police forces, and
prisons.

With the progressive reduction of the sector of the economy still organized
in private forms, there is a corresponding reduction of the area in which it is
necessary to use political coercion, and the state tends to progressively
disappear.

The points which we have recalled here in a schematic way are enough to
demonstrate how both a magnificent polemical campaign ridiculing and crushing
its opponents and, above all, how the greatest event up to now in the history
of the class struggle have brought out in all their clarity the classical
theses of Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto, and the conclusions which
have been drawn from the defeat of the Paris Commune. These are the theses of
the conquest of political power, the proletarian dictatorship, the despotic
intervention in the bourgeois relationships of production, and the final
withering away of the state. The right of speaking of historical confirmations
parallel to the brilliant theoretical construction seems to cease when this
last phase is attained since we have not yet witnessed – in Russia or
anywhere else – the process of the withering away, the dying down of
itself, the dissolving away (Auflösung in Engels) of the state. The
question is important and difficult since a sound dialectic can demonstrate
nothing with certainty on the basis of a more or less brilliant series of
spoken or written words. Conclusions can only be based on facts.

The bourgeois states, in whatever atmospheres and ideological climates,
inflate in a more and more terrible way before our eyes. The only state which
[in 1947 – Ed.] is presented, through tremendous propaganda, as a working
class state, expands its apparatus and its bureaucratic, legal, police, and
military functions beyond all limits.

So it is not surprising that the prediction of the shriveling up and
elimination of the state, after it has fulfilled its decisive role in the class
struggle, is greeted with a widespread skepticism.

Common opinion seems to say to us: “You can always wait, you who
theorize even red dictatorships! The state organ, like a tumor in the body of
society, will not regress and will instead invade all its tissues and all its
innermost recesses until suffocating it”. It is this commonplace attitude
which encourages all the individualist, liberal, and anarchist ideologies, and
even the old and new deformed hybrids between the class method and the liberal
one, all of which are served to us by socialisms based on nothing less than the
personality and on the plenitude of its manifestation.

It is quite remarkable that even the few groups in the communist camp which
reacted to the opportunist degeneration of the parties of the now dissolved
International of Moscow, tend to display a hesitation on this point. In their
preoccupation with fighting against the suffocating centralization of the
Stalinist bureaucracy, they have been led to cast doubts on the Marxist
principles reestablished by Lenin, and they reveal they believe that Lenin
– and along with him all the revolutionary communists in the glorious
period of 1917-20 – were guilty of an idolism of the state.

We must firmly and clearly state that the current of the Italian Marxist
left, with which this review is linked, does not have the slightest hesitance
or repentance on this point. It rejects any revision of Marx and Lenin’s
fundamental principle that the revolution, as it is a violent process par
excellence, is thus a highly authoritarian, totalitarian, and centralizing
act.

Our condemnation of the Stalinist orientation is not based on the abstract,
scholastic, and constitutionalist accusation that it committed the sinful acts
of abusing bureaucratism, state intervention, and despotic authority. It is
based instead on quite different evaluations, i.e. the economic, social, and
political development of Russia and the world, of which the monstrous swelling
of the state machine is not the sinful cause but the inevitable
consequence.

The hesitation about accepting and defending the dictatorship is rooted not
only in vague and stupid moralizing about the pretended right of the individual
or the group not to be pressured by or forced to yield to a greater force, but
also in the distinction – undoubtedly very important – made between
the concept of a dictatorship of one class over another and the relationships
of organization and power within the working class which constitutes the
revolutionary state.

With this point we have reached the aim of the present article. Having
restated the basic facts in their correct terms, we of course do not pretend to
have exhausted these questions, which is something that only history can do (as
we consider it to have done with the question of the necessity of violence in
the conquest of power). The task of the party’s theoretical work and
militancy is something other: it is to avoid, in the search for a solution to
these questions, the unconscious utilization of arguments which are dictated or
influenced by enemy ideologies, and thus by the interests of the enemy
class.

Dictatorship is the second and dialectical aspect of revolutionary force.
This force, in the first phase of the conquest of power, acts from below and
concentrates innumerable efforts in the attempts to smash the long-established
state form. After the success of such an attempt, this same class force
continues to act but in an opposite direction, i.e. from above, in the exercise
of power entrusted to a new state body fully constituted in its whole and its
parts and even more robust, more resolute and, if necessary, more pitiless and
terroristic than that which was defeated.

The outcries against the call for the proletarian dictatorship (a claim that
even the politicians of the iron Moscow regime are hypocritically hiding today)
as well as the cries of alarm against the pretended impossibility of curbing
the lust for power and consequently for material privilege on the part of the
bureaucratic personnel crystallized into a new ruling class or caste, all this
corresponds to the vulgar and metaphysical position which treats society and
the state as abstract entities. Such a position is incapable of finding the key
to problems through an investigation into the facts of production and into the
transformation of all relationships, which the collision between classes will
give birth to.

Thus it is a banal confusion to equate the concept of dictatorship that we
Marxists call for, with the vulgar conception of tyranny, despotism, and
autocracy. The proletarian dictatorship is thus confused with personal power,
and on the basis of the same stupidities, Lenin is condemned just like Hitler,
Mussolini, or Stalin.

We must remember that the Marxist analysis completely disclaims the
assertion that the state machines act under the impulse of the will of these
contemporary “Duces”. These “Duces” are nothing but
chessmen, having only symbolic importance, which are moved on the chessboard of
history by forces from which they cannot escape.

Furthermore we have shown many times that the bourgeois ideologists do not
have the right to be shocked by a Franco, a Tito, or the vigorous methods used
by the states which present them as their leaders, since these ideologists do
not hesitate to justify the dictatorship and terror to which the bourgeoisie
resorted precisely in the period following its conquest of power. Thus no
right-minded historian classifies the dictator of Naples in 1860, Giuseppe
Garibaldi, as a political criminal but on the contrary exalts him as a true
champion of humanity.

The proletarian dictatorship, therefore, is not manifested in the power of a
man, even if he has exceptional personal qualities.

Does this dictatorship then have as its acting agent a political party which
acts in the name and in the interests of the working class? Our current answers
this question, today as well as at the time of the Russian Revolution, with an
unconditional “yes”.

Since it is undeniable that the parties which pretend to represent the
proletarian class have undergone profound crises and have repeatedly broken up
or undergone splits, our decidedly affirmative answer raises the following
question: is it possible to determine which party has in effect such a
revolutionary prerogative, and what criterion is to be used to determine it?
The question is thus transferred to the examination of the relationship between
the broad class base and the more limited and well defined organ which is the
party.

In answering the questions on this point we must not lose sight of the
distinctive characteristic of the dictatorship. As is always the case with our
method, before concrete historical events reveal the positive aspects of this
dictatorship, we shall define it by its negative aspect.

A regime in which the defeated class still exists physically and constitutes
from a statistical viewpoint a significant part of the social agglomerate but
is kept outside of the state by force, is a dictatorship. Moreover this
defeated class is kept in conditions which make it impossible to attempt a
reconquest of power because it is denied the rights of association, propaganda,
and the press.

It is not necessary to determine from the start who maintains the defeated
class in this strict state of subjugation: the very course of the historical
struggle itself will tell us. Provided that the class we fight is reduced to
this state of a social minority, undergoing this social death pending its
statistical one, we will admit for a moment that the acting agent can be either
the entire victorious social majority (an extreme hypothesis which is
unrealizable), or a part of that majority, or a solid vanguard group (even if
it is a statistical minority), or finally, in a brief crisis, even a single man
(another extreme hypothesis, which was close to being realized in only one
historical example – that of Lenin, who in April 1917, alone against the
entire Central Committee and the old Bolsheviks, was able to read in advance in
the march of events and to determine in his theses the new course of the
history of the party and of the revolution, just as in November he had the
Constituent Assembly dissolved by the Red Guard).

As the Marxist method is not a revelation, a prophecy, or a scholasticism,
it achieves first of all the understanding of the way in which the historical
forces act and determines their relationships and their collisions. Then, with
theoretical research and practical struggle continuing, it determines the
characteristics of the manifestation of these forces and the nature of the
means by which they act.

The Paris Commune has confirmed that the proletarian forces must smash the
old state instead of entering it and taking it over; its means must not be
legality but insurrection.

The very defeat of the proletariat in that class battle and the October
victory at Leningrad have shown that it is necessary to organize a new form of
armed state whose “secret” is in the following: it denies political
survival to the members of the defeated class and to all its various
parties.

Once this decisive secret has been drawn from history, we still have not
clarified and studied all the physiology and the dynamics of the new organ that
has been produced. Unfortunately an extremely difficult area, its pathology,
remains open.

Above all else the determining negative characteristic is the exclusion of
the defeated class from the state organ (regardless of whether or not it has
multiple institutions: the representative, executive, judicial and
bureaucratic). This radically distinguishes our state from the bourgeois state
which pretends to welcome all social strata in its bodies.

Yet this change cannot seem absurd to the defeated bourgeoisie. Once it
succeeded in bringing down the old state based on two orders – the
nobility and the clergy – it understood that it had made a mistake by
only demanding to enter as the Third Estate in the new state body. Under the
Convention and under the Terror it chased the aristocrats out of the state. It
was easy for it to historically close up the phase of open dictatorship since
the privileges of the two orders which were based on legal prerogatives rather
than on the productive organization could rapidly be destroyed and thereby the
priest and the noble could rapidly be reduced to simple ordinary citizens.

In this article we have defined what fundamentally distinguishes the
historical form of the proletarian dictatorship. In the next article of this
series we will examine the relationship between the various organs and
institutions through which the proletarian dictatorship is exercised: the class
party, workers councils, unions, and factory councils.

In other words we will conclude by discussing the problem of the so-called
proletarian democracy (an expression utilized by some texts of the Third
International but which it would be good to eliminate) which is supposedly to
be instituted after the dictatorship has historically buried bourgeois
democracy.

V. The Degeneration of the Proletarian Power in Russia and
the Question of the Dictatorship

The difficult problem of the degeneration of the proletarian power can be
summarized briefly. In a large country the working class conquered power
following the program which called for armed insurrection and the annihilation
of all influence of the defeated class through pressure of the proletarian
class dictatorship. In the other countries of the world, however, the working
class either did not have the strength to initiate the revolutionary attack or
else was defeated in the attempt. In these countries, power remained in the
hands of the bourgeoisie, and production and exchange continued according to
the laws of capitalism which dominated all the relationships of the world
market.

In the country where the revolution triumphed, the dictatorship held firm
politically and militarily against every counter-attack. It brought the civil
war to a close in a few short and victorious years, and foreign capitalism did
not engage in a general action to crush it.

A process of internal degeneration of the new political and administrative
apparatus began to develop however. A privileged circle began to form,
monopolizing the advantages and posts in the bureaucratic hierarchy while
continuing to claim to represent the interests of the great laboring
masses.

In the other countries, the revolutionary working class movement, which was
intimately linked to this same political hierarchy, not only did not succeed in
the victorious overthrow of the bourgeois states, but progressively lost and
distorted the whole sense of its own action by pursuing other non-revolutionary
objectives.

* * *

This terrible problem in the history of the class struggle gives rise to a
crucial question: how can such a double catastrophe be prevented? The question
actually is badly posed. For those who follow the determinist method the
question actually is one of determining the true characteristics and laws of
this degenerative process, in order to establish when and how we can recognize
the conditions which would allow us to expect and pursue a revolutionary course
free from this pathological reversion.

Here we will not concern ourselves with refuting those who deny the
existence of such a degeneration and who maintain that in Russia there is a
true revolutionary working class power, an actual evolution of the economic
forms towards communism, and a coordination with the other proletarian parties
of the world which will actually lead to the overthrow of world capitalism.

Nor will we concern ourselves here with a study of the socio-economic
aspects of the problem, for this would necessitate a detailed and careful
analysis of the mechanism of production and distribution in Russia and of the
actual relationships which Russia has with foreign capitalist economies.

Instead, at the end of this historical exposition on the question of
violence and force, we will respond to those who claim that such an oppressive
and bureaucratic degeneration is a direct consequence of infringing and
violating the cannons and principles of elective democracy.

This democratic critique has two aspects, with the less radical being in
fact the more insidious. The first is overtly bourgeois and is directly linked
to the entire world campaign to defame the Russian Revolution. This campaign,
which has been going on since 1917, has been led by all the liberals, democrats
and social democrats of the world who have been terrorized as much by the
magnificent and courageous theoretical proclamation of the method of the
proletarian dictatorship as by its practical application.

After everything that has been said we will consider this first aspect of
the democratic lamentation to have been refuted. The struggle against it,
however, still remains of primary importance today since the conformist demand
of what Lenin called “democracy in general” (and which in the basic
communist works represents the dialectical opposite, the antithesis of the
revolutionary position) is still disgustingly paraded by the very parties who
claim to be linked to the present regime in Russia. This very regime, although
making dangerous and condemnable concessions to the bourgeois democratic
mechanism at home in the area of formal rights, not only continues to be but
becomes increasingly a strictly totalitarian and police state.

Therefore we can never insist enough on our critique of democracy in all the
historical forms in which it has appeared until now. Democracy has always been
an internal method of organization of the oppressor class, whether this class
is old or new. It has always been a technique, whether old or new, that is
utilized in the internal relations among the elements and groups of the
exploiting class. In the bourgeois revolutions it was also the necessary and
vital environment for the emergence of capitalism.

The old democracies were based on electoral principles, assemblies,
parliaments or councils. While deceitfully pretending that their aim was to
realize a well-being for all and the extension of the spiritual or material
conquests to all of society, their actual function was to enforce and maintain
the exploitation of a mass of heathens, slaves and helots, of whole peoples who
had been oppressed because they were less advanced or less war-like, and of a
whole mass who had been excluded from the temple, the senate, the city and the
assemblies.

We can see the reality of the multitude of banal theories based on the
principle of egalitarianism: it is the compromise, agreement, and conspiracy
among the members of the privileged minority to the detriment of the lower
classes. Our appraisal of the modern democratic form, which is based on the
holy charter of the British, French, and American revolutions, is no different.
Modern democracy is a technique which provides the best political conditions
for the capitalist oppression and exploitation of the workers. It replaces the
old network of feudal oppression by which capitalism itself was suffocated, but
only to exploit in a way which is new and different, but no less intense or
extensive.

Our interpretation of the present totalitarian phase of the bourgeois epoch
is fundamental in regard to this point. In this phase the parliamentary forms,
having played out their role, tend to disappear and the atmosphere of modern
capitalism becomes anti-liberal and anti-democratic. The tactical consequence
of this correct evaluation is that any call to return to the old bourgeois
democracy characteristic of rising capitalism is opposed to the interests of
the working class; it is reactionary and even
“anti-progressive”.

* * *

We will now take up the second aspect of the democratic critique. This
aspect is not inspired by the dogmas of an inter-class and above-class
democracy but instead says basically the following: it is well and good to
establish the proletarian dictatorship and to do away with any scruples in the
repression of the rights of the defeated bourgeois minority; however once the
bourgeoisie in Russia was deprived of all rights, the degeneration of the
proletarian state occurred because the rules of representation were violated
“within” the working class. If an elective system truly functioning
according to the majority principle had been established and respected in the
base organizations of the proletariat (the soviets, the unions and the
political party), with every decision made on the basis of the numerical
outcome of a “truly free” vote, then the true revolutionary path
would have been automatically maintained and it would have been possible to
ward off any degeneration and any danger of the abusive, suffocating domination
by the ignoble “Stalinist clique”.

At the heart of this widely accepted viewpoint is the idea that each
individual, solely due to the fact that he or she belongs to an economic class
(i.e. that he finds himself in particular relationships in common with many
others with respect to production) is consequently predisposed to acquire a
clear class “consciousness”, in other words to acquire that body of
ideas and understandings which reflect the interests, the historical path and
the future of his class. This is a false way of understanding Marxist
determinism because the formation of consciousness is something which, although
certainly linked to the basic economic conditions, lags behind them at a great
distance in time and has a field of action that is much more restricted.

For example, many centuries before the development of the historical
consciousness of the bourgeois class, the bourgeois, the tradesman, the banker,
and the small manufacturer existed and fulfilled essential economic functions,
but had the mentality of servants and accomplices of the feudal lords. A
revolutionary tendency and ideology slowly formed among them however and an
audacious minority began to organize itself in order to attempt to conquer
power.

Just as it is true that some members of the aristocracy fought for the
bourgeois revolution, it is also true that there were many members of the
bourgeoisie who, after the conquest of power in the great democratic
revolutions, not only retained a way of thinking but also a course of action
contrary to the general interests of their own class, and militated and fought
with the counter-revolutionary party.

Similarly, while the opinions and consciousness of the worker are formed
under the influence of his or her working and material living conditions, they
are also formed in the environment of the whole traditional conservative
ideology in which the capitalist world envelopes the worker.

This conservative influence is becoming increasingly stronger in the present
period. It is not necessary to list again the resources which are available not
only for the systematic organization of propaganda through modern techniques,
but also for the actual centralized intervention in economic life through the
adoption of numerous reformist measures and state intervention which are
intended to satisfy certain secondary needs of the workers and which in fact
often have a concrete effect on their economic situation.

For the crude and uneducated masses, the old aristocratic and feudal regimes
needed only the church to fabricate servile ideologies. They acted on the
rising bourgeoisie, however, primarily through their monopoly over the school
and culture. The young bourgeoisie was consequently compelled to sustain a
great and complex ideological struggle which the literature presents as a
struggle for the freedom of thought but which in fact concerned the
superstructure and a fierce conflict between two forces who were organized to
defeat one another.

Today world capitalism in addition to the church and schools, disposes of an
endless number of other forms of ideological manipulation and countless methods
for forming a so-called “consciousness”.

It surpasses the old regimes, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the
fabrication of falsehoods and deceits. This is true not only in that it
broadcasts the most absurd doctrines and superstitions but also in that it
informs the masses in a totally false way about the countless events in the
complexity of modern life.

In spite of this tremendous arsenal of our class enemy we have always
maintained that within the oppressed class an antagonistic ideology and
doctrine would form and would achieve a greater and greater clarity as the
economic development itself sharpens the conflict between the productive forces
and the relations of production and as the fierce struggle between different
class interests spreads. This perspective is not founded on the argument that
given the fact that the proletarians outnumber the bourgeois, the sum total of
their individual views and conceptions would prevail over that of the enemy due
to their greater numerical weight.

We have always maintained that this clarity and consciousness is not
realized in an amorphous mass of isolated individuals. It is realized instead
in organizations which emerge from the undifferentiated mass, in resolute
minorities who join together beyond national boundaries following the line of
the general historical continuity of the movement. These minorities assume the
function of leading the struggle of the masses; the greater part of the masses
on the other hand are pushed into this struggle by economic factors well before
they develop the same strength and clarity of ideas that is crystallized in the
guiding party.

This is why a count of the votes cast by the entire working class mass
(supposing such a thing were possible) would not exclude an outcome favorable
to the counter-revolution even in a situation which would be conducive to a
forward advance and a struggle under the leadership of the vanguard minority.
Even a general and widespread political struggle which ends with the victorious
conquest of power is not sufficient for the immediate elimination of the whole
complex of traditional influences of bourgeois ideology. The latter not only
continues to survive throughout the whole social structure within the country
of the victorious revolution itself, but continues to act from outside with a
massive deployment of all the modern means of propaganda of which we have
spoken before.

It is, of course, of great advantage to break the state machinery, to
destroy all the old structures for the systematic fabrication of bourgeois
ideology (such as the church, the school and other countless associations) and
to take control over all the major means of diffusing ideas, such as the press,
the radio, the theater, etc. However all this is not enough. It must be
completed by a socio-economic condition: the rapid and successful eradication
of the bourgeois form of production. Lenin was well aware that the necessity of
permitting the continued existence (and in a certain sense the flourishing) of
the family management of the small peasant farms meant that a whole area would
be left open to the influence of the selfish and mercantile bourgeois
psychology, to the anti-revolutionary propaganda of the priest, and in short to
the play of countless counter-revolutionary superstitions. The unfavorable
relationship of forces, however, left no other choice. Only in conserving the
force, strength and firmness of the armed power of the industrial proletariat
was it possible to make use of the revolutionary impetus of the peasant allies
against the shackles of the agrarian feudal regime and at the same time guard
against the danger of a possible revolt by the middle peasants, such as
occurred during the civil war under Denikin and Kolchak.

The erroneous position of those who want to see the application of
arithmetic democracy within the working class, or within certain class
organizations, can thus be traced back to a false appreciation of Marxist
determinism.

We have already shown that it is incorrect to believe that in each
historical period each of the opposing classes has corresponding groups which
profess theories opposed to the other classes. Instead the correct thesis is
that in each historical epoch the doctrinal system based on the interests of
the ruling class tends to be professed by the oppressed class, much to the
advantage of the former. He who is a slave in the body is also a slave in the
mind. The old bourgeois lie is precisely to pretend that we must begin with the
liberation of the intellect (a method which leads to nothing and costs nothing
for the privileged class), while instead we must start with the physical
liberation of the body.

It is also erroneous to establish the following progression of determinisms
with respect to the famous problem of consciousness: influence of economic
factors, class consciousness, class action. The progression instead is the
reverse: influence of economic factors, class action, class consciousness.
Consciousness comes at the end and, in general, after the decisive victory.
Economic necessity unites and focuses the pressure and energy of all those who
are oppressed and suffocated by the forms of a given productive system. The
oppressed react, they fight, they hurl themselves against these forms. In the
course of this clash and this battle they increasingly develop an understanding
of the general conditions of the struggle as well as its laws and principles,
and a clear comprehension of the program of the class struggle develops.

For decades we have been reproached for wanting a revolution carried out by
those who are unconscious.

We could have responded that provided that the revolution sweeps away the
mass of horrors created by the bourgeois regime and provided that the terrible
encirclement of the productive masses by bourgeois institutions which oppress
and suffocate them is broken, then it would not bother us in the least if the
decisive blows were delivered even by those who are not yet conscious of the
aim of the struggle.

Instead, we left Marxists have always clearly and emphatically insisted on
the importance of theory in the working class movement, and we consequently
have constantly denounced the absence of principles and the betrayal of these
by the right opportunists. We have always maintained the validity of the
Marxist conception which considers the proletariat even as the true inheritor
of modern classical philosophy. Let us explain. The struggle of the bourgeois
usurers, colonial settlers and merchants was paralleled by an attack by the
critical method against the dogmas of the church and the ideology of the
authority of divine right; there was a revolution which appeared to be
completed in natural philosophy before it was completed in society. This
resulted from the fact that, of those forms which had to be destroyed in order
for the capitalist productive forces to develop, not the least difficult to
break down was the scholastic and theocratic ideological system of the middle
ages. However, after its political and social victory, the bourgeoisie became
conservative. It had no interest in directing the weapon of the critique, which
it had used against the lies of Christian cosmology, to the area of the much
more pressing and human problem of the social structure. This second task in
the evolution of the theoretical consciousness of society fell to a new class
which was pushed by its own interests to lay bare the lies of bourgeois
civilization. This new class, in the powerful dialectical vision of Marx, was
the class of the “wretched artisans”, excluded from culture in the
middle ages and supposedly elevated to a position of legal equality by the
liberal revolution; it was the class of manual laborers of big industry,
uneducated and all but illiterate.

The key to our conception lies precisely in the fact that we do not consider
the seat of consciousness to be the narrow area of the individual person and
that we well know that, generally speaking, the elements of the mass who are
pushed into struggle cannot possess in their minds the general theoretical
outlook. To require such a condition would be purely illusory and
counter-revolutionary. Neither does this task of elaborating the theoretical
consciousness fall to a band or group of superior individuals whose mission is
to help humanity. It falls instead to an organism, to a mechanism
differentiated within the mass, utilizing the individual elements as cells that
compose the tissue and elevating them to a function made possible only by this
complex of relationships. This organism, this system, this complex of elements
each with its own function, (analogous to the animal organism with its
extremely complicated systems of tissues, networks, vessels, etc.) is the class
organism, the party, which in a certain way defines the class faced with itself
and gives the class the capacity to make its own history.

This whole process is reflected in the most diverse ways with respect to the
different individuals who statistically belong to the class. To be more
specific, we are not surprised to find side by side in a given situation the
revolutionary and conscious worker, the worker who is still a total victim of
the conservative political influences and who perhaps even marches in the ranks
of the enemy, the worker who follows the opportunist currents of the movement,
etc.

And we would have no conclusions to automatically draw from a vote among the
working class that would indicate the following of each of these various
positions - assuming that such a vote was actually possible.

* * *

It is only too well established that the class party, both before and after
the conquest of power, is susceptible of degeneration in its function as a
revolutionary instrument. It is necessary to search both for the causes of this
serious phenomenon of social pathology and for the means to fight it. However
it only follows from what has been said above that the method of voting cannot
guarantee the correctness of the Party’s orientation and directives,
regardless of whether this voting is done by militants of the party or by a
much wider circle encompassing the workers who belong to the unions, the
factory organizations or even the representative organs of a political nature,
such as the soviets or workers councils.

The history of the working class movement shows concretely that such a
method has never led to any good and has never prevented the disastrous
victories of opportunism. In all the conflicts between tendencies within the
traditional socialist parties before World War I, the right-wing revisionists
always argued against the radical Marxists of the left that they (the right
wing) were much more closely tied to the wide strata of the working class than
the narrow circle of the leadership of the political party. The opportunist
currents had their main support in the parliamentary leaders of the party who
disobeyed the party’s political directives and demanded a free hand to
collaborate with the bourgeois parties. They did so under the pretext that they
had been elected by the mass of proletarian voters who far outnumbered the
proletarians who belonged to the party and elected the party’s political
leadership. The union leaders who belonged to the party practiced the same
collaboration on the union level as the parliamentary leaders did on the
political level. They refused the discipline of the class party, using the
justification that they represented all the unionized workers who greatly
outnumbered the party’s militants. In their haste to ally with capitalism
(something which culminated in their support for the first imperialist war)
neither the parliamentary possibilists nor the union bureaucrats hesitated, in
the name of the workerism and laborism they proudly flaunted, to deride those
groups who brought forwards the true class politics within the party and to
brand these groups as intellectuals and sometimes even as non-proletarians.

The history of Sorelian syndicalism also shows that the method of direct
representation of the rank and file worker does not have left results and does
not lead to the preservation of a truly revolutionary orientation. At a certain
period this school of anarcho-syndicalism had seemed to some to be a true
alternative to the degeneration of the social-democratic party which had taken
the road of renouncing direct action and class violence. The Marxist groups
which later converged in the Leninist reconstruction of the Third International
rightly criticized and condemned this seemingly radical orientation. They
denounced it for abandoning the only unifying class method which could surmount
the narrowness of the individual trade and of the everyday conflicts limited to
economic demands. Even if physically violent means of struggle were used, this
orientation leads to the denial of the position of revolutionary Marxism,
because for Marxism every class struggle is a political struggle and the
indispensable instrument of this struggle is the party.

The justness of this theoretical polemic was confirmed by the fact that even
revolutionary syndicalism sank in the crisis of the war and passed into the
ranks of social patriotism in the various countries.

Now, in regards to the action of the party after the revolutionary victory,
we will turn to the major episodes of the Russian Revolution which shed the
greatest light and provide us with the best experience.

We reject the critique which claims that the disastrous degeneration of
Leninist revolutionary politics into the present Stalinist policies was brought
about in the beginning by the excessive predominance of the party and its
central committee over the other working class organizations. We reject the
illusory viewpoint that the whole degenerative process could have been
contained if a vote among the various base organizations had been used as the
means to decide both the make-up of the hierarchy and the major changes in the
politics of the proletarian state. The problem of the degeneration cannot be
comprehended without connecting it to the question of the socio-economic role
of the various working class organs in the process of the destruction of the
old economy and of the construction of the new.

Unions undoubtedly constitute and for a long period have constituted a basic
area of struggle in the development of the revolutionary energy of the
proletariat. But this has been possible with success only when the class party
has carried on a serious work within the unions in order to shift the
concentration of energy from narrow intermediate objectives to general class
aims. The trade union, even as it evolved into the industrial union, finds
limits to its dynamic because within it there exist different interests between
the various categories and groups of workers. There are even greater limits to
its action as capitalist society and the capitalist state pass through the
three successive historical phases: the prohibition of trade organizations and
strikes; the toleration of autonomous trade organizations; and finally the
conquest of the trade unions and their imprisonment in the bourgeois
system.

Even under a solidly established proletarian dictatorship, the union cannot
be considered as an organ which represents the workers in a fundamental and
stable way. In this social period conflicts between the various trades in the
working class can still exist. The basic point is that the workers only have
reason to make use of the union as long as the working class power is compelled
to tolerate, in certain sections, the temporary presence of employers; with the
disappearance of the latter due to the advance of socialist development, all
content of union action is lost. Our conception of socialism is not the
substitution of the state boss for the private boss. However if the
relationship were such in the transition period, then in the supreme interests
of revolutionary politics it could not be admitted as a principle that the
employer state must always give in to the economic pressure of the
workers’ unions.

We won’t go further in this involved analysis, for at this point we
have already sufficiently explained why we left Communists do not admit that
the unionized mass would be allowed to exert an influence on revolutionary
politics through a majority vote.

Now let us consider the factory councils. We must remember that this form of
economic organization, which at first appeared to be much more radical than the
union, went on to lose always more its pretense of revolutionary dynamism;
today the idea of factory councils is common to all political currents, even
the fascists. The conception of factory councils as an organization which
participates first in the supervising and later the management of production,
and in the end which is capable of taking over, factory by factory, the
management of production in its totality, has proved to be totally
collaborationist. It has proved to be another way, no less effective than the
old syndicalism, of preventing the masses from being channeled in the
direction of the great united and centralized struggle for power. The polemic
surrounding this question caused a great stir in the young Communist parties
when the Russian Bolsheviks were compelled to take firm and even drastic
measures to combat the workers’ tendency towards autonomous technical and
economic management of the factories in which they worked. Such an autonomous
management not only impeded the realization of a true socialist plan but also
had the danger of seriously harming the efficiency of the productive machinery
– something the counter-revolutionaries were counting on. In fact the
factory council, even more so than the union, can act as an exponent of very
narrow interests which can come into conflict with the general class
interests.

Consequently the factory councils also cannot be considered as a basic and
definitive organ of the working class state. When a true communist economy is
established in certain sectors of production and circulation – that is to
say when we have gone far beyond the simple expulsion of the capitalist owner
from industry and the management of the enterprise by the state – then it
will be precisely an economy based on autonomous enterprises which have to have
disappeared. Once we have gone beyond the mercantilist form of production, the
local plant will only be a technical node in the great network guided
rationally by a unitary plan. The firm will no longer have a balance sheet of
income and expenditures; consequently it will no longer be a firm at all and
the producer will no longer be a wage laborer. Thus the factory council, like
the union, has natural limits of functioning which prevent it from being, up to
the end the real field for class preparation where the proletariat can build
its will and capacity to struggle until it completely achieves its final goal.
This is the reason why these economic organizations cannot be a body which
oversees the party holding state power and which judges whether or not the
party has strayed from the basic historical path.

It remains for us to examine the new organizations which were brought to
life by the Russian Revolution. These were the workers, peasants and, at the
beginning, soldiers soviets.

Some claimed that this system represented a new proletarian constitutional
form counterposed to the traditional constitutional forms of the bourgeois
state. The soviet system reached from the smallest village to the highest
bodies of the state through successive horizontal strata. Furthermore it had
the two following characteristics: 1) it excluded all elements of the old
propertied classes, in other words it was the organizational manifestation of
the proletarian dictatorship, and 2) it concentrated all representative,
executive and, in theory, even judicial powers in its nerve centers. It has
been said that because of these characteristics the soviet system is a perfect
mechanism of internal class democracy which, once discovered, would eclipse the
traditional parliaments of bourgeois liberalism.

However, since the emergence of socialism from its utopian phase, every
Marxist has known that the invention of a constitutional form is not enough to
distinguish the great social forms and the great historical epochs. The
constitutional structures are transitory reflections of the relationship of
forces; they are not derived from universal principles from which we could
deduce an inherent mode of state organization.

Soviets in their essence are actual class organizations and are not, as some
believed, conglomerations of trade or craft organizations. Consequently they do
not suffer from the narrowness of the purely economic organization. For us
their importance lies above all in the fact that they are organs of struggle.
We do not try to view them in terms of ideal structural models but in terms of
the history of their real development.

Thus it was a decisive moment in the Russian Revolution when, shortly after
the election of the Constituent Assembly, the soviets rose up against the
latter as its dialectical opposite and Bolshevik power dissolved the
parliamentary assembly by force. This was the realization of the brilliant
historical slogan “All Power to the Soviets”.

However, all this was not sufficient for us to accept the idea that once
such a form of class representation is born (and leaving aside here the
fluctuations, in every sense, of its representative composition which we are
not able to examine here), a majority vote, at whatever moment and turn in the
difficult struggle waged by the revolution both domestically and externally is
a reliable and easy method for solving every question and even avoiding the
counter-revolutionary degeneration.

We must admit that the soviet system, due to the very complexity of its
historical evolutionary cycle (which incidentally must end in the most
optimistic hypothesis with the disappearance of the soviets along with the
withering away of the state), is susceptible of falling under
counter-revolutionary influence just as it is susceptible of being a
revolutionary instrument. In conclusion, we do not believe that there is any
constitutional form which can immunize us against such a danger – the
only guarantee, if any, lies in the development of the domestic and
international relations of social forces.

Since we want to establish the supremacy of the party, which includes only a
minority of the class, over the other forms of organization, it could be
possible for someone to object that we seem to think that the party is eternal,
in other words that it will survive the withering away of the state of which
Engels spoke.

Here we do not want to go into a discussion on the future transformation of
the party. Just as the state, in the Marxist definition, withers away and is
transformed, from a political apparatus of coercion, into a large and always
more rational technical administration, so the party evolves into a simple
organization for social research and study corresponding to the large
institutions for scientific research in the new society.

The distinctive characteristic of the party follows from its organic nature.
One does not join the party because one has a particular position in the
economic or social structure. No one is automatically a party militant because
he is a proletarian, a voter, a citizen, etc.

Jurisprudents would say that one joins the party by free individual
initiative. We Marxists say otherwise: one joins the party always due to
factors born out of relationships of social environment, but these factors can
be linked in a more general way to the characteristics of the class party, to
its presence in all parts of the world, to the fact that it is made up of
workers of all trades and enterprises and, in principle, even of those who are
not workers, and to the continuity of its work through the successive stages of
propaganda, organization, physical combat, seizure of power, and the
construction of a new order.

Out of all the proletarian organizations, it is consequently the political
party which least suffers from those structural and functional limits which
enable the anti-proletarian influences – the germs which cause the
disease of opportunism – to force their way in. We have said many times,
though, that this danger also exists for the party. The conclusion that we draw
is not that it can be warded off by subordinating the party to the other
organizations of that class which the party represents – a subordination
which is often demanded under false pretexts, other times simply out of naivety
with the reason that a greater number of workers belong to other class
organizations.

* * *

Our conception of this question also concerns the supposed necessity of
internal party democracy. We do not deny that there unfortunately have been
numerous and disastrous examples of errors committed by the central leadership
of the communist parties. However can these errors be avoided through computing
the votes of the rank and file militants?

We do not attribute the degeneration which took place in the Communist Party
to the fact that the assemblies and congresses of the militants had little
voice with respect to the initiatives taken by the center.

At many historical turning points we have seen the rank and file smothered
by the center for counter-revolutionary purposes. To this end even the
instruments of the state machine, including the most brutal, have been
employed. But all this is not the origin of the degeneration of the party but
an inevitable manifestation of it, a sign that the party has yielded to
counter-revolutionary influences.

The position of the Italian Communist Left on what we could call “the
question of revolutionary guarantees” was first of all that no
constitutional or contractual provision can protect the party against
degeneration even though the party, as opposed to the other organizations we
have studied, has the characteristics of a contractual organization (and we use
the term not as it is used in jurisprudence nor even as it was used by J.J.
Rousseau). At the base of the relationship between the militant and the party
there is an obligation which, in order to rid ourselves of the undesirable
adjective “contractual”, we can simply call a dialectical
obligation. The relationship is double and flows in two directions: from the
center to the base and from the base to the center. If the action of the center
goes in accordance with the good functioning of the dialectical relationship,
it is met by healthy responses from the base.

The celebrated problem of discipline thus consists in establishing a system
of limits for the base which is the proper reflection of the limits set for the
action of the leadership. Consequently we have always maintained that the
leadership must not have the right, in the great turning points in the
political situation, to discover, invent and impose pretendedly new principles,
new formulations and new guidelines for the action of the party. These sudden
shifts make up the history of opportunism. When such a crisis occurs (and this
can happen precisely because the party is not an immediate and automatic
organization) it is followed by an internal struggle, the formation of
tendencies, and splits. In such a case these are useful developments, just as a
fever, for freeing an organism of disease. Nevertheless,
“constitutionally” they cannot be accepted, encouraged or
tolerated.

There is no rule or recipe for preventing the party from falling into the
crisis of opportunism or for preventing it from necessarily reacting by forming
factions. However we have the experience of many decades of proletarian
struggle which enables us to establish some necessary, optimum conditions of
which the research, the defense and the realization must be the constant task
for our movement. We conclude by laying down the most important of these.

1) The party must defend and advocate all the clarity and
continuity of the communist doctrine throughout its successive historical
applications. It must not tolerate the proclamation of principles which are in
even partial conflict with its theoretical cornerstones.

2) In every historical situation the party must openly
proclaim the complete content of its economic, social, and political program,
above all in regards to the question of power, its conquest by means of armed
force, and its exercise through dictatorship. Those dictatorships which
degenerate into regimes of privileges for a small circle of bureaucrats have
always been accompanied by hypocritical ideological proclamations that are
masked behind basically populist slogans, sometimes democratic, sometimes
nationalist in nature, and by the pretension of having the support of the
popular masses. The revolutionary communist party on the other hand does not
hesitate to declare its intention of attacking the state and its institutions
and of holding the defeated class under the despotic weight of the
dictatorship, even when it admits that only an advanced minority of the
oppressed class has reached the point of understanding these necessities of the
struggle. “Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims” (the
Manifesto). Only renegades pride themselves on a supposed ability to attain
these aims while cleverly hiding them.

3) The party must observe a strict organizational rigor: it
does not accept the idea of increasing its ranks by making compromises with
groups or grouplets, or worse still of bargaining to win over the membership of
the rank and file by making concessions to alleged leaders.

4) The party must work to instill clear historical
understanding of the antagonistic nature of the struggle. Communists demand the
initiative of attack against a whole world of rules and regulations, and
traditions. They know that they constitute a danger for the privileged classes.
They call the masses to the offensive and not to the defensive against the
pretended danger of losing supposed gains and improvements won under
capitalism. Communists do not lend and lease their party for causes not their
own and for non-proletarian objectives such as liberty, country, democracy and
other such lies. “Proletarians have nothing to loose but their
chains”.

5) Communists renounce the whole gamut of tactical
expedients which were advocated under the pretext of hastening the process of
winning over large strata of the masses to the revolutionary program. Such
expedients are the political compromise, the alliance and united front with
other parties, and the various slogans concerning the state which were used as
substitutes for the dictatorship of the proletariat (such as workers’ and
peasants’ government, progressive democracy).

Communists recognize, historically, that the use of these tactical means is
one of the main factors which hastened the decomposition of the proletarian
movement and communist soviet rule. They maintain that those who deplore the
opportunist syphilis of the Stalinist movement but who at the same time
champion the tactical weapons of the opportunist enemy are more dangerous than
the Stalinists themselves.

Postscript

The work Force, Violence, and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle, which we
have published in five parts, deals with the questions of the use of force in
social relationships and the characteristics of the revolutionary dictatorship
according to the correct Marxist interpretation. We did not intentionally go
into the question of the organization of the class and the party, however in
the final part of the discussion on the causes of the degeneration of the
dictatorship, we were led straight to this point since many people have
attributed the degeneration to errors in internal organization and to the
violation of a democratic and elective process within both the party and the
other class organizations.

In refuting this thesis, however, we have neglected to mention an important
polemic which took place in the Communist International in 1925-26 on the
subject of changing the organizational base of the Communist Party to factory
cells or factory nuclei. The Italian Left was practically alone in resolutely
opposing this change and in insisting that the organizational base must remain
territorial.

This position was exhaustively expounded at the time, however the central
point was this: the organic function of the party, a function which no other
organization can fulfill, is to lead the struggle from the level of the
individual economic struggle on the local and trade basis to the united,
general proletarian class struggle which is social and political. Such a task,
consequently, cannot be seriously undertaken by an organizational unit which
includes only workers of the same trade or concern. This milieu will only be
receptive to narrow trade interests, the central directives of the party will
seem as something coming from above, something foreign, and the party officials
will never meet with the rank and file on an equal footing and in a certain
sense they will no longer belong to the party since they are not employed by a
concern.

Territorial groups by nature, however, place workers of every trade and
workers employed by different employers on the same level as the other
militants from social strata which are not strictly proletarian – and the
party openly accepts the latter as rank and file members, and initially only as
rank and file members, if necessary keeping them in quarantine for some time
before calling them, if such a thing is warranted, to organizational
positions.

It had been claimed that the factory cell would provide a closer link
between the party organization and the great masses. However we demonstrated at
the time that the concept of factory cells contained the same opportunist and
demagogic defects as right-wing workerism and Laborism and counterposed the
party officials to the rank and file in a true caricature of Lenin’s
conception of professional revolutionaries.

The Left replaced the idiotic majoritary criterion, which is copied after
bourgeois democracy, with a higher, dialectical criterion which hinges
everything on the solid link of both the rank and file militants and the
leadership to the strict and obligatory continuity of theory, program and
tactics. It rejected any idea of demagogically wooing those wide layers of the
masses which are so easily maneuverable. The Left’s conception of the
organization of the party is, in reality, the only one which can provide
protection against the bureaucratic degeneration of the leading strata of the
party and against the suffocation of the party’s rank and file by the
leadership, both of which lead to a situation where the enemy class gains a
devastating influence.

Notes:

1. The
Christian-Democratic Prime Minister in 1947 – Ed

2. This
expression refers to the left currents headed by Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg who
struggled inside the Second International against revisionism and
social-pacifism. During World War I and after the October revolution they were
violently attacked by the social democrats and the centrists, notably Kautsky
– Ed.

3. This
refers to Engels’ introduction to a reedition of Marx’s
“Class Struggles in France" in 1895. The leadership of the German Social
Democratic Party censored Engels’ introduction so that it appeared as an
apology of legality at all costs and a demonstration that insurrection was
impossible. In spite of the fact that Engels protested this in a letter to
Kautsky, the latter did not publish the original introduction. Engels was to
die some months later. The original text was discovered only in 1925 –
Ed.


     From : Marxists.org

Events :
----------------------------------

     Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle -- Added : March 03, 2021

     Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle -- Updated : January 08, 2022

About This Textfile :
----------------------------------

     Text file generated from : 
http://revoltlib.com/