Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology
We have therefore seen that the oppressed classes do not always wage a class struggle in the proper sense of the word, which by no means signifies - as we have also seen - that such comparatively peaceful epochs are filled with nothing but peace and harmony. It merely signifies that the class struggle is proceeding in a concealed or incipient farm. It will later become a class struggle in the true sense of the word. Let us not forget that dialectics conceives everything as in course of motion , evolution. Even if the class struggle be absent, it is evolving, it "grows". Such is the case with the oppressed classes. As for the ruling classes, they are waging the class struggle unceasingly. For the existence of the state organization proves that the ruling class has constituted itself as a class for itself, as a state power. This implies a complete consciousness of the fundamental interests of this class, which wages war with the classes whose interests oppose it (war against the immediate danger as well as against possible dangers), for which purpose it makes use of all the instruments of the state machinery.
g. The Class Struggle and the State Power
We have already considered the problem of the state as a superstructure determined by the economic basis (see first part of "The Superstructure and its Outlines," chapter vi, d, of this work). We must now approach this question from another angle, namely, that of the class struggle. We must again emphatically point out that the state organization is exclusively a class organization ; it is the class which "has constituted its state power", it is the "concentrated" and organized social authority of the class (Marx). The oppressed class, the bearer of the new mode of production, in the course of the struggle, as we have seen - becomes transformed from a class in itself into a class for itself; in this struggle, it creates its fighting organizations, which to an increasing degree build up organizations that carry with them the entire mass of the given class. When revolution, civil war, etc., is at hand, these organizations break through the enemy's front and constitute the first cells of the new state mechanism in open or concealed form. For example, in the French Revolution: "The `people's' or Jacobin groups - the former Societies of Friends of the Constitution, were at first bourgeois and now became democratic, Montagnards, Sansculottes, advocates of equality and unity . . . . They were founded for the purpose of popular enlightenment, for propaganda rather than for action; but circumstances forced them into political action, to participate directly in the administration (when the petty bourgeoisie came to the helm. N.B .). By the Decree of 14th Frimaire, the Jacobins in all of France became the electors and the purifiers of the officialdom." 2) "Taking everything into consideration . . . it was precisely the Jacobin clubs that now maintained unity and saved the country." 3) In the English Revolution, the revolutionary "Army Council" provided the men for the State Council. During the Russlan revolution the fighting organizations of the workers and soldiers - the soviets - and the extreme revolutionary party - the communists - became the fundamental organizations of the new state.
Two types of arguments are used in objecting to the class conception of the state authority.
The first type is of the following kind: the peculiarity of the 6tate is its centralized administration; therefore, the anarchists tell us, any centralized administration is a state authority. Therefore, even the most advanced communist society, if it has a systematic economy, will also be a state. This reasoning is based entirely on the naive bourgeois error: bourgeois science, instead of perceiving special relations, perceives relations between things, or technical relations. But it is obvious that the "essence" of the state is not in the thing but in the social relation; not in the centralized administration as such, but in the class envelope of the centralized administration. As capital is not a thing (as is, for instance, a machine), but a social relation between workers and employers, a relation expressed by means of a thing, so centralization per se by no means necessarily signifies a state organization; it does not become a state organization until it expresses a class relation.
The second objection to the class theory of the state has already been considered, in part. This objection is still more ridiculous, being based on the conception that the state discharges a number of generally useful functions (for example, the modern capitalist state builds electrical power stations, hospitals, railroads, etc.). This argument unites most pathetically in one group: the Social-Democrat Cunow, the Right Social-Revolutionary J. Delevsky, the conservative Delbrück, and even the Babylonian king Hammurabi! But this honorable company is much mistaken. For the existence of generally useful functions on the part of the state does not alter the pure class character of the state authority. The ruling class is obliged to resort to all kinds of "generally useful" enterprises in order to maintain its ability to exploit the masses, extend its field of exploitation, and secure the "normal" working of this exploitation. Capitalism can of course not develop properly without an extensive railroad system, without trade schools (if there are no skilled laborers, no scientific institutes, there will be no improvement in capitalist technique, etc., etc.). In all these measures, the state power of the capitalists is guided by its class interests. We have already given the trusts as an example; the trust also guides production, without which society. cannot exist, but it guides production in the direction of its class advantage. Or, to take the example of some ancient despotic state of great landlords, such as that of the Egyptian Pharaohs, whose huge constructions for regulating the course of rivers were of general utility. The Pharaonic state did not, however, maintain these constructions for the purpose of averting hardship for the starving, or subserving the general weal, but merely because they were a necessary condition for the process of production, which was simultaneously a process of exploitation. Class advantage was the basic impulse in activity; such measures may not be taken, therefore, as a proof of the incorrectness of the class point of view.
Another group of generally useful measures is called forth by the oppression of the "lower classes", for example, the labor protection legislation in capitalist countries. Many hair-splitting scholars (like the Russian pseudo-sociologist, Takhtarev) therefore do not consider the state as a pure class organization, for it is based ultimately on a compromise. A moment's thought will correct this view. Does the capitalist, for instance, cease to be "pure capitalist", because his fear of strikes makes him see advantage to himself of making concessions? Likewise, the state may make concessions to other classes, as the employer, in the above example, makes concessions to the workers. But does not signify that the state ceases to be a pure class state, an organization of a class bloc, i.e., becoming a truly and generally useful organization.
Naturally, Herr Cunow does not understand this either. It is a pleasant sight to behold the impudent Professor Hans Delbrück, whom we have already mentioned, poking fun at these crack-brained distorters of Marxism: "The difference between us social-politically thinking persons, and you, is only a difference of degree. You have only to take a few steps more on the path you have begun, gentlemen, and your Marxian nebula will soon be dissipated" (Hans Delbrück; op. cit ., p.172).
h. Class, Party, Leaders
A class is a group of persons connected by reason of their common situation in production, and therefore also by their common situation in distribution, in other words, by common interests l (class interests). But it would be absurd to suppose that every class is a thoroughly unified whole, all parts being of equal importance, with Tom, Dick, and Harry all on the same level. In the modern working class, for instance, there is no doubt much inequality in brain-power and ability. Even the "being" of the various parts of the working class is unequal. This is due to the fact that, first, complete uniformity of the economic units is absent, and second, the working class does not step down full-grown from heaven, but is being constantly recruited, from the peasantry, the artisan class, the urban petty bourgeoisie, i.e., from other groups of capitalist society.
A worker in a huge, splendidly equipped plant is a different person from the worker in a small shop, the cause of the difference in this case being the difference in the establishments, as well as between the entire resulting modes of work. Proletarian "age" must also be considered as an element, for a peasant who has just taken a job in a factory is different from a worker who has been in a factory since childhood.
The difference in "being" is also reflected in consciousness. The proletariat is unequal in its consciousness as it is unequal in its position. It is more or less a unit as compared with the other classes, but not with regard to its own various parts.
The working class, therefore, as to their class consciousness, i.e., their permanent, general, not their personal, not their guild or group interests, but as to the interests of the class as a whole, is divided into a number of groups and sub-groups, as a single chain consists of a number of links of varying strength .
This inequality of the class is the reason for the existence of the party. If the working class were perfectly and absolutely uniform, it could at any moment come out in its full strength; its struggles might be led by persons chosen in rotation; a permanent organization of leadership would be superfluous and unnecessary. As a matter of actual fact, the struggle of the working class is inevitable; this struggle must be guided; this guidance is the more necessary, since the opponent is powerful and cunning, and fighting him is a serious matter. We naturally expect to find the entire class led by that section of it that is most advanced, best schooled, most united: the party .
The party is not the class; in fact, it may be but a small part of the class, as the head is but a small part of the body. But it would be absurd to attempt to find an opposition between the party and the class. The party is simply the thing that best expresses the interests of the class. We may distinguish between class and party, as we distinguish between the head and the entire body, but cannot discuss them as opposites, just as we cannot cut off a man's head, unless we wish to shorten his life.
On what does the result of the struggle depend under these conditions? It depends on a proper relation between the various parts of the working class, particularly on a proper mutual relation between those in the party and those outside of it. On the one hand guidance and leadership are necessary; on the other, instruction and conviction. No leadership is possible which does not instruct and convince. On the one hand, the party must be held together and organized separately as a part of the class, on the other hand, it must secure closer and closer contact with the non-party masses and draw a greater and greater section of these` masses into its organization. The mental growth of the class will therefore find its expression in the growth of the party of this class, and, conversely, the decline of the class will be reflected in the decline of the party, or the decline of its influence on the non-party elements.
We have already seen that the lack of uniformity within the; class makes necessary the existence of the party of this class. But the capitalist conditions of "being" and the low cultural level not only of the working class, but of the other classes also, produce a situation in which even the vanguard of the proletariat, i.e., its party, also lacks internal uniformity. The party is more or less uniform as compared with the other sections of the working class, but not within itself. The same observations may here be made as in the case of the class. Let us assume - as we did before - that the party is entirely uniform in class-consciousness, experience, executive ability, etc., which is the complete reverse of the truth. Leaders would be unnecessary; the functions of the "leaders" might be performed in rotation by all the members, without detriment to the cause.
But in reality no such perfect uniformity exists even in the vanguard, and this makes necessary the formation of more or less stable groups of individual "leaders". Good leaders are leaders because they best express the proper tendencies of the party. And as it is absurd to represent party and class as opposed to each other, so it is absurd to represent the party as opposed to its leaders. To be sure, we have done this, when we opposed the working class to the Social-Democratic leaders, or the masses of organized workers to their leaders. But we did this - and still do it - in order to destroy the Social-Democracy, to destroy the influence of the bourgeoisie, operating through these social-traitor leaders. But it would be absurd to attempt to transfer these methods for the destruction of a hostile organization to ourselves, and represent this process as an expression of our peculiar form of revolution. The same situation may also be found in other classes; when, in modern England, the bourgeoisie ruled through party of Lloyd George, Lloyd George's party was ruling through the persons of its leaders.
The above will show the absurdity, among other things, of all the criticisms raised against the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, a dictatorship which is represented by the enemies of the revolution as opposed to the dictatorship of the working class. It is clear from the above that the class must necessarily rule through its head, i.e., the party; it can rule in no other way. And if its head, i.e., the party, is destroyed, the class itself and the class in itself, is also destroyed, being transformed from a conscious and independent social force into a simple factor of production and nothing more.
Herr Heinrich Cunow regards the matter differently. "A party .does not ask him who wishes to join it: Do you belong to a certain class? Not even the Social-Democratic party. He who accepts the party's principles, demands, and its platform, in all essentials, may become a member. This platform not only includes certain economic planks (interest demands), but also, like the platforms of other parties, certain political and philosophical views lying outside the economic sphere of interests (concluding italics are mine, N.B .). To be sure, the basis of most parties is a certain class grouping; but in its structure each party is simultaneously an ideological formation, the representative of a specific political thought-complex, and many persons join a party not because they have the same special class demands as the party, but because they are attracted by " this thought-complex." ( Die Marx'sche Geschichts-, Gesellschafts- und Staatstheorie, Berlin, 1921, vol. ii, p.68. ) These observations by the now head-theoretician of the Social-Democracy are extremely instructive. Herr Cunow gaily opposes the political and philosophical conceptions in the party platform to the economic demands of this platform. But how could you, Citizen Cunow! What has become of your Marxism? The platform is the highest expression of the consciousness in all the "thought-complexes". The "political and philosophical conceptions" are not made of whole cloth but grow up from the life conditions of these classes. They are not only not opposed to these life conditions, but, on the contrary, are their expression, and insofar as we are discussing the demands of the platform, it is obvious that the philosophical and political portion of this platform serves as the envelope for its economic portion.
We may observe this fact even in Herr Cunow's party, the German Social-Democracy. Absorbing more and more non-workers, receding further and further from the working class, by supporting chiefly the aristocracy of skilled labor in that class, the German Social-Democracy has also changed the mental-political thought-complex of its "platform", which has become much more moderate in its demands; in its ideology, it therefore favors the well - groomed-pardon the word - castrated "Marxism" of Herr Cunow, chooses Herr Bernstein an old betrayer of Marxism) as interpreter of its program, and makes Herr Vorländer (an idealist Kantian) its official philosopher.
i. The Classes as an Instrument of Social Transformation
If we consider society as a certain system developing objectively, we find that transitions from one class system (from one "social formation of classes") to another is accomplished through a bitter class struggle. In this objective process of social changes the classes constitute the basic apparatus of transmission for reshaping the entire body of the living conditions of society. The structure of society changes through men and not outside of men; the production relations are as much a product of human struggle and of human activity as are flax or linen (Marx). But if we seek among; the countless individual wills running in all directions, but ultimately yielding a certain social resultant, to find the basic tendency, we shall obtain certain uniform "bundles of wills": "the class wills". These are most sharply differentiated in revolution, i.e., in an upheaval of society during a transition from one class form to another.
But hidden behind the law of cause and effect in the evolution of the class will and the various permutations and combinations in the clash of the opposed class wills - differing from each other - is the profounder causality of the objective evolution, a causality that determines the phenomena of the will at every stage in evolution.
Furthermore, the phenomena of the will are limited by external conditions, i.e., each alteration in these conditions, proceeding under the reverse influence of the human will, is limited by the preceding stage in these conditions. Thus, the class struggle and the class will constitute an active transmission apparatus in the transition from one social structure to another.
The new class, in this process, serves as the organizer and bearer of the new social and economic order. A class which is not the bearer of a new mode of production cannot "transform" society. On the contrary, the class power which embodies the growing and ever advancing conditions of production, is also the fundamental living lever of social transformation. Thus, the bourgeoisie, when it was the bearer of new conditions of production and a new economic structure, shunted society from its old feudal track to that of bourgeois evolution; similarly, the proletariat, the bearer and organizer of the socialistic class formulation will shift society - no longer capable of living on the basis - from the bourgeois track to that of socialism.
j. The Classless Society of the Future
Here we encounter a question that has been but little discussed in Marxian literature. We have seen that the class rules through the party, the party through its leaders; each class and each party therefore having its staff of officers. This staff is technically necessary, for we have seen that it is the result of the lack of uniformity within the class and the inequality of the party members, Each class therefore has its organizers. Viewing the evolution of society from this point of view, we may reasonably ask the following question. Is - in general - the communist classless society, of which Marxists speak, a possibility?
It is. We know that the classes themselves have risen organically as Engels described, from the division of labor, from the organizational functions that had become technically necessary for the further evolution of society. Obviously, in the society of the future, such organizational work will also be necessary. One might object that the society of the future will not involve private property, or the formation of such private property, and it is precisely this private property that constitutes this basis of the class.
But this argument need not remain unanswered. Professor Robert Michels, in his very interesting book, Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie (Leipzig 1910, p.370) says: "Doubts again arise on this point, however, whose consistent application would lead to an outright denial of the possibility of a classless state (the author should not have said `state' but `society' - N.B .) Their administration of boundless capital ( i.e., means of production - N.B .) assigns at least as much power to the administrators as would possession of their own private property. " Viewed from this point of view, the entire evolution of society seems to be nothing more than a substitution of one group of leaders for another. Accordingly, Vilfredo Pareto speaks of a "theory of the circulation of élites" ( théorie de la circulation des élites ). If this view is a correct one, Michels must also be correct in his conclusion, i.e., socialists may be victorious, but not socialism. An example will show Michels' error. When the bourgeoisie is in power, it is by reason of the power - as we know - not of all the members of the class, but of its leaders. Yet it is evident that this condition does not result in a class stratification within the bourgeoisie. The landlords in Russia ruled their high officials, constituting an entire staff, an entire stratum, but this stratum did not set itself up as a class against the other landlords. The reason was that these other landlords did not have a lower standard of living than that of the former; furthermore, their cultural level was about the same, on the whole, and the rulers were constantly recruited from this class.
Engels was therefore right when he said that the classes up to a certain moment are an outgrowth of the insufficient evolution of the productive forces; administration is necessary, but there is not sufficient bread for all, so to speak. Parallel with the growth, of the socially necessary organizational functions, we therefore have also a growth of private property. But communist society' is a society with highly developed, increased productive forces. Consequently, it can have no economic basis for the creation of its peculiar ruling class. For - even assuming the power of the administrators to be stable, as does Michels - this power will be then power of specialists over machines, not over men. How could they, in fact, realize this power with regard to men? Michels neglects the fundamental decisive fact that each administratively dominant position has hitherto been an envelope for economic exploitation. This economic exploitation may not be subdivided. But there will not even exist a stable, close corporation, dominating the machines, for the fundamental basis for the formation of monopoly groups will disappear; what constitutes an eternal category in Michels presentation, namely, the "incompetence of the masses" will disappear, for this incompetence is by no means a necessary attribute of every system; it likewise is a product of the economic and technical conditions, expressing themselves in the general cultural being and in the educational conditions. We may state that in the society of the future there will be a colossal overproduction of organizers, which will nullify the stability of the ruling groups.
But the question of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, i.e., the period of the proletarian dictatorship, is far more difficult. The working class achieves victory, although it is not and cannot be a unified mass. It attains victory while the productive forces are going down and the great masses are materially insecure. There will inevitably result a tendency to "degeneration", i.e ., the excretion of a leading stratum in the form of a class-germ. This tendency will be retarded by two opposing tendencies; first, by the growth of the productive forces ; second, by the abolition of the educational monopoly . The increasing production of technologists and of organizers in general, out of the working class itself, will undermine this possible new class alignment. The outcome of the struggle will depend on which tendencies turn out to be the stronger.
The working class, having in its possession so fine an instrument as the Marxian theory, must be mindful of this fact: by its hands an order of society will be put through and ultimately established, differing in principle from all the preceding formations; namely, from the primitive communist horde by the fact that it will be a society of highly cultivated persons, conscious of themselves and others; and from the class forms of society by the fact that for he first time the conditions for a human existence will be realized, not only for individual groups, but for the entire aggregate of humanity, a mass which will have ceased to be a mass, and will become a single, harmoniously constructed human society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An exhaustive study of the classes will be found in Professor Solntsev's book, The Social Classes (in Russian); Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto ; Karl Marx: The Poverty of Philosophy ; Karl Marx: Capital ;Karl Marx: historical writings ; Friedrich Engels: The Conditions of the Working Class in England ;Friedrich Engels: Feuerbach (English translation, Chicago, 1906); Friedrich Engels: Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State ; Karl Kautsky: Die Agrarfrage ; Karl Kautsky: Widersprüche der Klasseninteressen während der grossen französischen Revolution; N. Roshkov: Karl Marx and the Class Struggle, in the Collection, To the Memory of Marx (in Russian); A. Bogdanov: Empiriomonism (in Russian), vol. iii; Victor Chernov (Social-Revolutionist): The Peasant and the Worker as Economic Categories (in Russian); J. Delevsky ,.(Social-Revolutionist): Social Antagonisms and the Class Struggle (in Russian); H. Cunow: Die Marxsche Geschichts-, Gesellschafts- und Staatstheorie.
1) Social Classes: The Principal Factors in the Evolution of the Class Problem and the Principal Theories , Tomsk, 1919 (in Russian), pp.268 et seq.
2) Aulard: Histoire politique de la révolution française , Paris, 1901, pp.386, 387.
3) Ibid ., p.350.
Contents | Chapter 7
Bukharin Archive