By Raju Prabath Lankaloka
So-called left activists, even some self-described Marxists, often exclaim with despair and frustration: “look at how terrible things are, why hasn’t there been a revolution yet?” As Alan Woods explains in this article, those who ask such questions have no understanding of the consciousness of the masses, nor of the dialectical method, which Marxists use to penetrate below the superficial surface appearance of society, to the growing tension underneath.
This article, which originally appeared in In Defense of Marxism magazine in March 2022, provides an excellent analysis of the world situation, and the real dynamics of revolution. The subsequent movements in Sri Lanka and Iran etc provided material proof of Alan’s arguments.
As understanding of dynamics of the revolution is quite important for the revolutionaries and activists, we have decided to publish this article, written by Alan Woods of International Marxist Tendency, in three parts. This is the second part of that series.
The link for part one of this article
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=205036215424926&id=100077556467839&mibextid=Nif5oz
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The subjective factor in history
Spontaneous mass revolutionary movements reveal the colossal power of the masses. But only as a potential power, not actual. In the absence of the subjective factor, even the stormiest mass movement cannot resolve the most important problems of the class.
Here we must understand that there is a fundamental difference between the socialist revolution and the bourgeois revolutions of the past. Unlike a bourgeois revolution, a socialist revolution requires the conscious movement of the working class, which must not only take the reins of state power into its hands, but also, from the very beginning, assume conscious control of the productive forces.
Through the mechanism of workers’ control of the factories it prepares the way for a democratically administered socialist planned economy. That was not at all the case with the bourgeois revolutions of the past, since the capitalist market economy does not require any planning or conscious intervention whatsoever.
Capitalism emerged historically spontaneously, as a consequence of the evolution of the productive forces under feudalism. The theories of the bourgeois revolutionary leaders, insofar as they existed, were merely an unconscious reflection of the requirements of the nascent bourgeoisie, its values, religion and morality.
The close relationship between Protestantism (and especially Calvinism) and the values of the nascent bourgeoisie were exposed in great detail by Max Weber, although, as an idealist, he stood the relationship on its head.
A century later, in France, the rationalism of the Enlightenment prepared the ground theoretically for the Great French Revolution, which boldly proclaimed the rule of Reason, while, in practice, preparing the ground for the rule of the bourgeoisie.
Insofar as these theories did not adequately reflect (or even contradicted) the interests of the rising bourgeois class, they were unceremoniously ditched and replaced by other ideas that fitted the new social system more adequately.
In the early stages of the English Revolution, Oliver Cromwell had to push the bourgeois elements to one side in order to complete the overthrow of the old monarchic order by leaning on the most revolutionary plebeian and semi-proletarian elements. He stood for the Kingdom of God on earth in order to arouse the masses.
But having accomplished this task, he turned against the left wing, crushed the Levellers and opened the door to the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie who proceeded to arrive at a compromise with the king and then carried out the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688, which finally established the rule of the bourgeoisie.
An analogous process can be observed in the French Revolution, where the revolutionary dictatorship of the Jacobins, resting on the support of the semi-proletarian masses of the Parisian Sans-culottes was overthrown first by the Thermidorian reaction and the Directory, followed by the Consulate and the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, and finally by the restoration of the Bourbons after the Battle of Waterloo. The final victory of the French bourgeoisie was only ensured after the revolution of 1830 and the defeated proletarian revolution of 1848.
The Russian Revolution
The crucial role of the subjective factor can be shown very clearly in the Russian Revolution. Lenin wrote in 1902:
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.” (V. I. Lenin, What Is to Be Done?, Wellred Books, 2018, p. 26.)
And he added that “the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” (Ibid., p. 27.)
That was not the case with the bourgeois revolution, for the reasons we have already stated. But it was absolutely necessary for the success of the socialist revolution, as we saw in 1917.
The February Revolution took place without any conscious revolutionary leadership. The workers and soldiers (peasants in uniform) showed that they were strong enough to successfully overthrow the tsarist regime that had ruled Russia for centuries. Yet they did not take power into their own hands. Instead, we had the Dual Power that lasted until the soviets finally took power in November, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks.
Why did the workers not take power in February? Of course, one could answer this question with all manner of ‘clever’ arguments. Even some Bolsheviks asserted that the reason lay in the fact that the proletariat had to obey the “iron law of historical stages”, that they could not “skip February” and that they had to “pass through the stage of the bourgeois revolution”. In reality these people were trying to cover up their own cowardice, confusion and impotence by appealing to “objective factors”. To those people Lenin replied scornfully:
“Why don’t they take power? Steklov says: for this reason and that. This is nonsense. The fact is that the proletariat is not organised and class conscious enough. This must be admitted: material strength is in the hands of the proletariat but the bourgeoisie turned out to be prepared and class conscious. This is a monstrous fact, and it should be frankly and openly admitted and the people should be told that they did not take power because they were unorganised and not conscious enough.” (Lenin, ‘Report at a meeting of Bolshevik delegates to the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies’, April 4, 1917, Collected Works, vol. 36, p. 437, my emphasis.)
Let us be clear. Without the presence of the Bolshevik Party – in fact, without the presence of two men, Lenin and Trotsky – the October Revolution would never have taken place, it would have been aborted and ended in counterrevolution and a fascist regime.
In other words, the power of the working class – which is a fact – would remain merely as a potential. And that is never sufficient. That is the colossal importance of the subjective factor in history.
Collapse of the centre
Revolutionary upheavals are implicit in the whole situation today. They will occur, as night follows day, whether a revolutionary party is present or not. But in the war between the classes, just as in wars between nations, the importance of good generals is a decisive factor. And therein lies the problem.
The masses are striving to find a way out of this nightmare. They look at one party and leader after another, discarding one after another into the dustbin of history. This explains the extreme instability of political life in all countries at the present time. The political pendulum swings violently to the right, then to the left.
The main victim is that peculiar animal, the centre. This is a cause of serious concern among the strategists of capital, because the centre represents a kind of fulcrum that balances out the extremes of left and right and neutralises them.
For a very long time, the centre was represented in the United States by two parties, the Republicans and Democrats, and in Britain by the Labour and Conservative Parties, which were more or less indistinguishable. But all this had a material base.
In the post-war period, when capitalism enjoyed an unprecedented economic upswing, Labour and social democratic parties granted important reforms, such as a free national health service in Britain. That period has long ago passed into history.
Nowadays, the ruling class cannot even allow old conquests to continue, let alone give new reforms. The old certainty has gone and with it, the old stability. Everywhere there is turbulence and crises. The crisis of capitalism is the crisis of reformism.
The role of the “Left”
The crisis of reformism and the collapse of Stalinism mean that there is a vacuum on the left. And since nature abhors a vacuum, it must be filled. Since the Marxist tendency lacks the forces to fill it, that space will be occupied by the left reformists.
For historical reasons we cannot deal with here, the genuine forces of Marxism have been thrown back a long way. Given the weakness of the subjective factor, it is inevitable that when the masses awaken to political life, they will turn to the existing organisations and well-known leaders, especially those with ‘left’ credentials.
The present period will therefore see the rise of left-reformist and even centrist tendencies. But these, too, will be put to the test by the masses, and in many cases, will have a merely ephemeral character.
Recognising this fact, the Marxists must have a flexible attitude to the lefts, providing them with support insofar as they are prepared to fight against the right reformists, but always criticising them when they vacillate, make unacceptable concessions and retreat before the pressures of bourgeois public opinion and the right-wing traitors.
The desire to achieve a fundamental change in society cannot be limited to a clear understanding of programme and perspectives. It also involves an element of will power, or the will to power: that is, the conscious will to win, to conquer, to sweep aside all obstacles and change society.
