Bourgeois and Proletarian Organization

The argument that forms of organization must be adapted to the respective era of development is very often countered by the seemingly logical and common saying: Revolution is not a “question of organization”. This phrase largely stems from the concern for the existence of an existing organization defended by the proponents of this last thesis and refers in the general discussions to the trade unions as well as to all the political parties, which at the same time document with this confession that they themselves pay homage to this principle and apply it practically within their own party. Needless to say, the tendency of such a “standpoint” is exactly the same as the assertion that certain views must not be shaken, that a discussion of them would already contradict the “standpoint” once adopted. However, a revolutionary who defends a “point of view” in this way can never have arrived at it on the basis of a critical examination of the factors that determine this point of view, but has a “point of view”, no matter what else happens. Despite all historical warnings and events, he insists on his “standpoint”, which is valid for him for all time, and defends it all the more as the very organization and organizational principle he defends proves to be increasingly useless, petrifies and becomes a tool of counter-revolution. He becomes the most ardent defender of the point of view that has already been half uprooted and refuted by history, and so one hears today more often than ever it is not always easy to say whether it is obstinacy or despair in view of the attitude of the trade unions and parliamentary parties: “The revolution is not a question of organization.” Of course, an organization is a prerequisite. But the form would not really matter. If not, the necessary organizational changes could also be made within the old organizations. In any case, it would be unwise and short-sighted to break up all existing organizations in order to build new ones.

This home-baked logic in itself characterizes the reactionary petty bourgeoisie; once such a “standpoint” has been adopted, it is difficult to refute. As a rule, the advocates of such a principle also follow their own logic, or rather: the logic of their standpoint, and end up in the ranks of the counter-revolution, not only organizationally, but of course also politically. Among them are the organizational machinists of the reactionary trade unions and parliamentary parties. They push a seemingly harmless organizational question to the fore in order to defend a reactionary principle: Such a dogma, fixed for all time as the standpoint of an organization, excludes all intellectual and principled life within that organization. Within such an organization, everyone can only be an object. From this follows quite naturally the division of labour between the “representatives” resulting from the structure of this organization. This organization forces people to be submissive. Since the political stance is not dependent on pious wishes and petty-bourgeois ideals, but the iron historical facts, the class struggles within society force decisions. However, since the owners of the organization have different economic and social interests from the objects of the organization, the whole body is exposed to ever more severe crises in the increasingly intense struggles between the proletariat and capital. In every struggle, in the entire political stance that corresponds to the interests of the professional leadership, the latter increasingly sets itself in strict opposition to the interests of the proletariat, which has been hurled into the social abyss by bourgeois society. This crisis of capital, which is being transferred to the organizations that have arisen under capitalism, and which must also intensify as it intensifies, has in reality raised the question of whether the revolution is an organizational question or not, and will no longer allow it to disappear from the agenda. Even if the petty-bourgeois organizational bureaucracy does not fit into the “standpoint ”.

What is an organization? An organization is an association for the common pursuit of a common goal by common means. Organization therefore only makes sense if there is agreement in principle with regard to tactics and goal. If opposites in principle arise, the formal organizational break must also follow the breaking of the previous agreement in principle. If it is to be avoided, the fundamental contradictions must be set aside. The latter, however, result in turn from the respective class position of the various class strata united in the organization. The Class Will crystallizing in the brains is the ideological reflection of the social process that is taking place as a result of the economic collapse. The mental grasp of revolutionary necessities, their propagation, and the struggle to overcome the tactics that history has long since marked as harmful and anti-class, is the logical result of a revolutionary ideology. It is the revolutionary process in the positive, in the creative revolutionary sense.

In the period of the last capitalist crisis, reformism and revolutionary class struggle are mutually exclusive. They are irreconcilable opposites, since reformism becomes the mortal enemy of the proletariat and, in order to be able to assert itself politically, openly takes the side of the counter-revolution, the whining about the “preservation” of an organization means in practice practical help for the counter-revolution, because the organizational structures shaken by the crisis due to the intensifying class antagonisms could only be saved at the expense of revolutionary knowledge, ultimately only at the price of the suicide of the proletarian class.

Organization without intellectual activity is the hallmark of bourgeois organization. The bourgeois organization is the bourgeois class state in miniature. The ruling class within the organization “looks after” the “interests” of the dominated. The age of reformism, of unfolding capitalism, did not present the proletariat with practical revolutionary tasks; capitalism fulfilled its social functions poorly. The working class struggled for elbow room within capitalism as a class; its struggle for emancipation within the bourgeois world was, from a historical perspective, revolutionary in the bourgeois sense. But it was not aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system. The question of capitalism and communism was not on the agenda. The struggle of the proletariat for social reforms, for political concessions, was not directed against the bourgeois class state as such, but for the transformation of the bourgeois class state without shaking the capitalist order in principle. Consequently, organization and tactics also had to be bourgeois. In order to push through possible demands within the framework of unfolding capitalism, “pressure” from below was sufficient. The “weight” of the masses was enough. Sufficient were the masses that could be thrown into the fray as objects, sufficient were the much-vaunted discipline and unity. The demands made in each case made no demands on the creative power of the proletariat but were addressed to the bourgeoisie for fulfillment. The capitalist division of labour brought with it the ever-increasing political and organizational dependence of the organization on the leadership, which was conditioned by the intellectual lack of autonomy of the proletariat. The organization became the property of the leadership. However, this fact only had a practical effect when capitalism experienced its twilight and world war broke out. The proletariat was faced with a different task as a class. The proletarian revolution cannot be carried out by the bourgeoisie, communism cannot be introduced by the leaders. The mental and physical strength to overthrow the old and create the new must come from the masses themselves. The class boundary does not run where the last worker stands, and the first capitalist begins but is drawn by the class knowledge slowly born in the class struggles and revolutionary experiences. The revolutionary, the creative principle breaks the old organizational shells and barriers and stands in the struggle against the old world. Thus the new organization with the new content is already born in the revolutionary process. The proletariat recognizes that it is not enough to “want” something, but that action must come first. This action, in turn, is not merely a display of personal courage, but first and foremost the elaboration of the programmatic and tactical path, the realization of the conditions and tasks to be solved in the revolution on the basis of the conditions of the revolution. Those who “want” the revolution must want it for themselves. The ability to seize the right moment in the revolution, in revolutionary struggles, to successfully exploit conquered positions, to keep one's head up in apparent or actual confusion and to act unwaveringly and confidently cannot be “learned” but arises from the respective theoretical stage of the proletariat. The respective Class Consciousness! A communist is not someone who wears a Soviet star on every jacket, but someone who thinks in a revolutionary way. Who always thinks only of the revolution and demands the highest of himself. Who does not shy away from any question but realizes that anyone who wants to be something practical must know what he wants to do. Whoever is content with a commitment to revolution and tries to replace everything else with shouting remains, despite his personal courage, a petty bourgeois, an object in the hands of those who are superior to him.

The revolutionary Class Will born of revolutionary knowledge, which writes a new world on its program, separates itself from bourgeois ideology like fire and water; the flaring up creative Class Consciousness of the revolutionary proletariat is naturally directed against bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology is the content of the old workers' organizations. The old good mole history confronts the reformist forces with reformist impossibilities. In order to preserve themselves, they must side with the capitalist class in the period of the most bitter class struggle in order to save capital and create the conditions for reformist politics. Must march together with the enemies of the proletariat against the proletariat and are condemned to open the eyes of even the stupidest proletarian. In the unspeakable agony and suffering of the exploited class, revolutionary class consciousness creates new forms as weapons against class betrayal. Revolutionary Class Will creates new organizations for struggle and construction at the same time. Between two fronts, however, stand the worshippers of the old barracks, which have long since become guillotines for the proletariat, and affirm that the revolution is not a question of organization. They assert their revolutionary sentiments and do not realize that they themselves are the living proof of stock reactionary petrification. The revolutionary proletariat, however, has no reason to make a distinction between white and “red” apostles of the counter-revolution; it has understood that the difficult work of its own liberation cannot be taken from it, from anyone, that it must accomplish its task entirely on its own. It has given itself the organizational forms in the AAU and KAPD and will continue the struggle with these weapons until victory.