By Livio Maitan of bureaucronin: stator vast phenomenon of bureaucracy, which in its Social Democratic and Communist forms remains the dominant force in the international workers movement. This is the reality we have to start from. We must not let ourselves be diverted by a tendency to forget too quickly -- especially after the French events - ten years of theoretical writing on the integration of the proletariat into the system in the developed capitalist countries. While we always disputed the idea that such tendencies were all-powerful, we never overlooked their temporary strength. And we are by no means inclined to underestimate the means the bourgeoisie still has at its disposal for maintaining its political and ideological hegemony.
Another argument which has been advanced in polemics is that the revolutionary party can only be built in conjunction with the mass movement. What a great discovery! Need it be repeated that the concept of entrism -- whether it was correct or incorrect -- was also based precisely on the assumption that we would risk sterility if we did not seek contacts with the mass movement and that no revolutionary party could be built outside the mass movement?
One formula which has gained a certain resonance was put forward, among others, by Della Mea: Lenin plus Mao.* But even disregarding the fact that the widely adored Mao has had little to do with the episodes of the cultural revolution, what is Mao's specific contribution supposed to be as against Ienin's? Is it his pointing out the need to proceed from the masses in order to return to the
The other form is one that far as to say that the proletariat already has hegemony on the world scale and therefore the spontaneous mechanisms ultimately operate in its favor. A substantially similar conclusion is reached by those who more cautiously stress the fact that a higher level of consciousness exists today than at the time What Is Io Be Done was written. These people advance the thesis of an internal vanguard which would tend to predominate over the external vanguard.
Generally speaking, there is no doubt that the workers' level of consciousness is clearly higher than in 1903. However, we must not overlook the fact that not only is capitalist influence still preponderant but there is the masses and the necessity of the party's having constant links with the masses through bodies of various types? But was not such a line -- and one in practice, not just in propagandistic assertions -- the basis of the work of the Bolshevik party as early as the 1905 revolution? Where, then, is Mao's theoretical innovation?
We do not polemicize on these questions because we are fanatics about theoretical perfection or because we train ourselves to pick out every little "deviation." We argue these questions because of the practical consequences spontaneityworshipping concepts have had and continue to have in the student movement and could have tomorrow for the workers movement. (Let us not forget that the cult of spontaneity is also a disease of the workers movement and not just of the student movement.) If the student movement has gone into a decline and a crisis, one of the reasons is the predominance of spontaneity worship within it and its total lack of leadership bodies or mechanisms -- if not of all forms of organization. In the long run this lack, and the practice of a mythical direct democracy, paralyzes when it does and destroys the movement, not put it at the mercy of individual personalities or personal cliques. This has been the experience not only in Italy. In 'rance, Ior example, the student movement linds itself in grave difficulties today, among other things, precisely because of the appearance of these tendencies and these phenomena.
But let me pose a question here. Is it still true that a revolutionary party. - although of course no group can call itself a revolutionary party unless it is deeply rooted in the masses -- is still, to use an almost provocative formulation, an a priori principle in regard to the mass movement? I believe that revolutionary theory and an organized vanguard represent an a priori necessity. The Bolshevik party came before the Russian revolution; the Yugoslav Communist party came before the Yugoslav revolution; the Chinese Communist party before the Chinese revolution. For us, revolutionary theory and the program of the party are not an ideology, which Marx considered false consciousness. Iheory, rather, is a scientific synthesis of analyses made on the basis of a scientific method. Ihus, the planning of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, seen on a world scale, is in reality a science. Io reach scientific conclusions about the nature of capitalism, the nature of socialism, the character of the transitional phase from capitalism to socialism, etc., it is necessary to learn a whole body of scientific concepts which cannot be generated spontaneously by any mass movement, as they never have been in the past. But it need hardly be added that, especially in the phase we have reached in the historic experience of the proletariat, the concept of a priori is still a relative one. The revolutionary party in Italy will be a priori with respect to the Italian revolution but it will be a posteriori with respect to the Russian revolution, the chinese revolution, the Cuban revolution and even the French May, that is, it will base itself on syntheses of the experience of the entire preceding historical period. The idea that these syntheses are just kind of ideological dead weight obstructing real involvement in the mass movement is a deception. In reality, this notion represents a capitulation to forces that worship spontaneity.
We remain convinced that the primary condition -- which by no means signifies that it is enough in itself -- for the formation of a revolutionary party is convergence on the basis of a comprehensive political theort is a point which on an overall posive political theory, litical program. This must be given primary stress, this is the Leninist and the Marxist conception of the party. The starting point for those who want to succeed in building a revolutionary party is agreement in their basic political positions, on certain basic analyses of contemporary society.
Once this is clarified and confirmed, the fundamental question remaining is that of how to form links with the mass movement. Ihe answers given to this question must be adequate for the new situation. In the past, our basic conception was entrist work in the traditional organizations, with the perspective oi promoting divisions between the ranks and the leadership. In the past year we made a radical turn in this regard, which I think was a fundamentally correct one. The whole experience of 1968 demonstrates that there are considerable forces today -- even though they still represent minorities with respect to the working masses -- that are in motion outside the orbit of the apparatuses and with which we must link up. Moreover, the experience of 1968 also shows that differences subsisting or sharpening in the traditional organizations do not justify any perspective of wide splits developing between the leadership and the ranks. This means that our basic field of work must be in areas where these forces operate or converge -- i.e., the student movement, factory caucuses, eto. But can we replace the general perspective of building a revolutionary party, which we followed in the past, with any other perspective?
No such possibility exists or is conceivable. And I do not think that this reflects any theoretical or political incapacity on our part. It may be that we have not yet understood certain tendencies or certain phenomena. But I think that in the last analysis this subjective failing is a reflection of the objective situation. The difficulties have arisen from the fact that no broad tendencies have emerged in the workers movement showing development toward a revolutionary party. In this area, experimentation is essential and we must follow closely, with the greatest attention, all the processes developing in the mass movements. The essential thing is to have pipelines to all the new ferment that already exists or is developing, in order not to be cut off from any of the possibilities that are developing.
The impossibility thus far of formulating any general perspective other than that of building a revolutionary party is confirmed negatively by the fact that the comrades who left have not been able to formulate any real alternative.
Actually, they have aired various perspectives -- some totally lacking in realism, others already having been proved wrong
(like the one based on a projected split of the Rome section of PSIUP [Partito Socialista Italiana d'Unità Proletaria -- Italian Socialist party of Proletarian Unity - a left Social Democratic party]).
One view that might be credited today is the idea that the factory caucuses already represent the nuclei of the revolutionary party. This view is sometimes openly expressed; other times it is logically implicit in a whole series of attitudes. Ihis is a false perspective, in my opinion, which loses sight of the nature of these groupings and ignores or underestimates certain basic tendencies which operate even in these groups. Ihe experience of the Milan caucus whose bulletin is Avanguardia Operaia [Workers' Vanguard] is significant inasmuch as this formation attained a certain scope and participated in a real way in the ATM struggles LAzienda Tranviaria Municipale -- Municipal Streetcar Company] and in those at Pirelli. Precisely for this reason it is a better example for showing the limitations of this kind of work. First of all, for instance, the rank-andfile committee at Pirelli never adhered to Avanguardia Operaia or even established any ties with it, nor did it do so with any of the other groups that were active around the factory. A particularly noteworthy fact, inasmuch as it exposes a demagogic campaign some comrades conducted at our preceding conference, is that some of the most representative elements in the caucus are still members of the communist party. In the second place.
should not overlook the damage caused by the most motley assortment of groups and grouplets flocking in as soon as the news about the special situation at Pirelli got around. Ihis episode has broader siglilicance. When workers who have escaped from the pattern imposed by the bureaucratic organizations and are beginning to act in a critical spirit find themselves inundated with dozens of little manifestoes from divergent groups which say diverse -- and not infrequently, absurd -- things, their development is far fron promoted. It can be set back or even endangered. The result is that the union is more easily able to regain control of the situation. In the third place, once the struggle was over, the rank-and-file committee began to be emptied of content. No one should be surprised at this. Rank-andfile committees or similar bodies must, of course, be extended and supported. They are vital experiences in this phase. But we absolutely must not overlook their intrinsic limits. They are intimately bound up with the dynamic of the struggle. Once the struggle is over, they change in character. (The experience of the Action Committees in France points in precisely this direction, as can be seen from certain analyses by the French comrades which have appeared in Rouge.) In fact, if they
• inevitably get do not lade away, they caught up in petty trade unionism because they begin to do what the shop committee or the union fails to do. I am not saying that they should not. Of course, in some cases it is useful for them to do so. But let us make no mistake -- these bodies carry out certain elementary functions of caring for the interests of the working class, but they are clearly not the nuclei of a future revolutionary party.
As for the caucuses, they are not identical per se with the rank-and-file committees. But inasmuch as they tend to become like these committees, they become enmeshed in the same logic. Io the extent that the caucuses differ from the rankand-file committees and tend to act according to the logic of new organizations or political groups, they are allected by different kinds of processes -- that Is, by the political differentiation which has afflicted and continues to afflict the revolutionary left and which has deep objective roots. It is illusory to think that there is some kind of magic formula or "new"
solution which would make it possible to escape this logic and these processes, which, I repeat, have profound objective causes both at the national and international levels. Maoism, for example, is a powerful factor introduced by the international situation, and it is absurd to think that we can avoid dealing with it. We must either suffer political attacks from it or wage a political battle against it. No other positions are possible besides Maoist, Trotskyist, or Castroist ones, or those of a new cult of spontaneity. Ihere is no objective basis for positions of any other kind. Alternative positions could emerge only in the form of short-lived, eclectic or opportunist trial balloons. As people develop politically they take a stand on the great national and international questions.
There is not an unlimited gamut of solutions to these questions. There are only certain solutions represented by the great currents in the workers movement and you must choose among them.
l'o sum up, the lactory caucuses can be transitional forms serving to bring together new revolutionary cadres and advance their consciousness. However, it is an error to suppose that they can be the nuclei of a developing revolutionary party.
Here is a final consideration. Ihe difficulties, the vacillations, and the contradictions of these groups have not only become a rather consistent phenomenon; these failings also have objective roots which must be thoroughly understood. In substance, these bodies - with varying success but always in an incipient way -- seek to fill three roles which in themselves are quite distinct. At a lower so to speak, they not infrequently Level, fulfill the function of a factory tradeunion local. Inat is, in the absence of an ellective union, they play a tradeunion role. By setting more well-defined ana advanced objectives, they succeed in promoting limited mobilizations. I repeat, in order to prevent any possibility of ambiguity, but no confusion should be stered on what 1s being done. In the second place, in more positive cases -- for example, ir the case of the Action Committees during the French May - these bodies tend to play the role of soviets. That is, they unite various tendencies that express themselves politically in different ways but that, in mass action, find a common ground in these committees. In the third place, there is a tendency for these groups to act like the nuclei of a revolutionary party, inasmuch as they say certain things or take certain initiatives that the bureaucratic parties do not. These three functions are basic objective functions which must be carried out in a phase of profound social and political crisis such as the one we are passing through. Since these tasks are not done or are done in a totally distorted way by the traditional organizations, the incipient new groupings try to them out. But they are unable to do carry this except in a very incomplete, embryonic, and contradictory way. If we fail to recognize the objective basis of all this, we will find ourselves carrying on Byzantine debates and quarreling over unreal problems.
In conclusion, we are convinced of the need to foster and strengthen the workers' caucuses. But we must clarify what character these groups can have in this period and what they can do. They can and must, first of all, be forces promoting anticapitalist and antibureaucratic workers struggles. Secondly, they can and must serve as meeting places and training grounds for revolutionary cadres. Ihis means that political and theoretical confrontation is not excluded. But such a confrontation of views must be carried on in such a way as to avoid endangering these groups' function of giving impetus to working-class social forces, which is an essential function in this phase. It is clear that as these caucuses increase in strength and numbers, they will create more favorable conditions for the construction of a revolutionary party.
We must orient our work along the lines that have been indicated. We must participate in the student movement on the basis and with the objectives that have been described. We must involve ourselves in the factory caucuses on the basis of the criteria expressed. We must not take a sectarian attitude toward any forces nor reject a priori political confrontation or collaboration with anyone.
After what I have said, I hope that I will not be accused of underestimating the developments in 1968, which are precisely the basis of this report. Ihis shat teo ant love and to forant to Iorget unions controlled by it still exist and have ample room for maneuver. (In the student movement, in particular, the PCI [Partito Comunista Italiano -- Italian Communist party] has more room for maneuver today than a year ago.) In a period of social crisis and an upswing in the struggle, the traditional organizations may even gain members (like the CGI [Confedération Générale du Travail -- General Confederation of Labor -- the CP-controlled union] in France, for example). This occurs because new strata are entering into the struggle, and the initial phase of their developing political consciousness and becoming active involves joining the traditional organizations. (Even the FGCI ¿Federazione Giovanile Comunista d'Italia -- Young Communist Federation of Italy] has undergone expansions at times, although purely ephemeral ones.) At same time, these organizations are undergoing processes of differentiation, and centrifugal forces are manifesting selves in them more strongly than in the past. I repeat, I do not at all believe in the possibility of real national tendencies appearing in the PCI or that any prospects will arise for splits between the leadership and the ranks. (As for the meaning of the congress of Bologna, I refer you to the article published in the
February issue of Bandiera Rossa [see "The Italian Communist Party Congress" by Livio Maitain, Intercontinental Press, the ranks and at the intermediate there nonetheless exists an important area of differentiation, primarily because the great objective surges also affect sectors still under PCI influence. Therefore, while developments at these levels in the PCI or in the organizations under its sway can no longer be the prime consideration in our tactics, they are still not a negligible factor in the formulation of tactios. Ihe essential difference, of course, lies in the fact that there is no longer any sense at all in adjusting to the pattern in the big organizations. Our point of reference must be what is happening among the social forces outside this pattern. Our goal must always be to promote the objective processes and contribute to the struggle of the antibureaucratic forces on the general social level.
There is no need to repeat again, finally, that the primary factor for us is that we belong to an international organization. We are not unaware of its limitations, but we consider its particular Iunction indispensable in this phase. l'urthermore, there is no real possibility today for building a revolutionary party which would not be a part of a wide international tendency. Once again, it is illusory given context, as opposed to all kinds to think that this question can be sideof maneuverism and vague formulas.
stepped and still worse to ignore it. The
[End. l probiem is to make clear choices in a
YAKHIMOVICH ARRESTED IN LATVIA FOR CRITICISM OF CZECH INVASION
The Kremlin bureaucracy has reportedly arrested Ivan Antonovich Yakhimovich, a well-known figure in Soviet dissident circles, at his home outside Riga in the Latvian Soviet republic March 25. Jakhimovich, a former collective farm chairman, had joined former Major General Pyotr Grigorenko in circulating a statement calling for withdrawal of Soviet forces trom czechoslovakia. Lior the text, see Intercontinental Press, March 31, 1969, p. 312.]
Yakhimovich is apparently being charged with spreading "anti-Soviet fabrications." The move against him is doubly ominous because it may presage similar action against Grigorenko.
A man of about 40, Yakhimovich first emerged as an oppositionist spokesman a year ago when he wrote a protest letter to Mikhail Susloy, chief Politburo ideologist. In it he criticized the January 1968 trial of young dissenters in Moscow and called for freedom of opinion and the publication of suppressed writings such as those of Solzhenitsyn.
It was in reprisal for that letter that Jakhimovich was ousted from his farm post, an action that he protested in an open letter last November. (Whether he has yet been expelled from the Communist party, of which he became a member in
1960, is not known.) In his letter to Suslow, Yakhimovich declared, in part:
"I believe that the persecution of young dissenters in a country where more than fifty percent of the population is younger than thirty years of age is an extremely dangerous line - adventurism. It is not toadies, not a public of yesmen (O Lord, now they have multiplied!), not mama's boys who will determine the future, but rather those very rebels, as the most energetic, brave, and high-principled members of our young generation.
"It is stupid to see in them the enemies of soviet power, and more than stupid to let them rot in prisons and make mock of them. For the party, such a line is equivalent to self-strangulation. Too bad for us if we are not capable of reaching an understanding with these young people. Iney will create, inevitably they will create, a new party. Ideas cannot be murdered with bullets, prisons, or exile. He who does not understand this is no politician, no Marxist."
In the weeks of tension preceding the invasion of Czechoslovakia he further irritated the Brezhnev-Kosygin regime by going with Grigorenko to the Czechoslovak embassy in Moscow to express solidarity with the democratization process.
Before he moved into open opposition Jakhimovich was regarded as an exceptionally dedicated and able farm manager. Komsomolskaya Pravda, the organ of the Young Communist League, printed a feature article on him in its October 30, 1964, issue which said the workers at his kolkhoz [collective farm] regarded him as "hard-working, honest and fair, a man who worries more about the kolkhoz than about himself."
Both Ivan Antonovich and his wife graduated from the Latvian State University, he in 1956 and she in 1960. He was rural schoolteacher and inspector before becoming kolkhoz chairman. Komsomolskaya Pravda printed some excerpts from his diary, part of which are as follows:
[August 3, 1961] "Serving the people is a heavy responsibility, but an honorable one. It's horrible when bureaucracy interferes. How tired you get of petty supervision! They figure it out, chew it over, and shove it under your nose: how many nectares to plant with what, what kind of harvest to get, and when. This is called planning from below..."
[March 4, 1963] "Again and again we go back to Lenin, not out of duty like the schoolboy or student, but out of the natural need for advice, ideas, and moral purity."
[April 4, 1963] "It's all very well to be humble, but not in all situations. Io be humble where the truth is concerned is to be a scoundrel."
[june 14, 1963] "There's no doubt that talent has been uncovered and put to work for human society by material incentives. But moral incentives will predominate in the future and will so eclipse the former that any comparison of the two will seem an absurd joke."
[April 16, 1963) "Khikmet, la Soviet poetl is a thousand times right ir saying that in the twentieth century only a genuine Communist can be the happiest of men. I want to be that happy."
Notes
* Sofri is the spokesman of the spontaneist majority in the Pouvoir Ouvrier group in Pisa.
* Della Mea is the spokesman of the spontaneist minority in the Pouvoir Ouvrier group in Pisa.