On the confusions about concepts of organization

The continuing offensive of capitalism-imperialism in the era of globalization has not only
engendered resentment among the toiling people, but, all over the world the intelligentsia, especially its
sensitive section, is also perturbed. They seem restless, pained and indignant at the state of things. It is
getting amply clear to them that capitalism only brings about severe inequality and discrimination
where a few capitalists and imperialists and their lackeys exploit and oppress the majority to make
heaps of wealth; that, to enable huge corporate houses to make profit, to loot, the whole human society
is being pushed to the brink. But the defeat of the first expedition of the international Socialist
movement has dealt such a blinding blow, that it naturally has given rise to a series of doubts, confusion
and disillusionment about Marxism-Leninism and the idea of Socialism among people who are now
skeptical about the road to liberation from capitalism. One of the major areas of perplexity is the
question of organization. As the defeat of the international Socialist movement was effected from
within – through the betrayal of the rotten “Communist” parties at its head, – the concept of the
Communist Party itself is now at stake. It is probably for this reason that confusion runs wild even
among those members of the intelligentsia who are serious about the struggle against capitalism.

But, wherein lies the problem? A good number of intellectual people today holds the opinion that
any political organization of abiding nature begets domination, centralization of power, bureaucracy,
hierarchy, domination of the “majority” over the individual, renunciation of individual opinion, absence
of democracy (going by “democratic centralism”) etc. It is even assumed that such political organizations
do not only betray movements, but are tools for fulfillment of the leaders’ own interests. Hence, though
most people recognize the importance of the Party, they are none the less worried and doubtful about
its functioning. The extreme of such thoughts is expressed by those who wholly negate the importance
of a permanent-natured political organization of the toiling people.

Are all these questions subjective only? Is it not the objective functioning of the so called
Communist Parties in all countries (including ours) that give rise to such questions? Have not the
communist-revolutionaries along with these reformists insist on centralism for practicing “democratic
centralism?”

So, the problem is real and complex. In this essay, we will try to set a perspective for looking at this
tangled reality. But please bear in mind that this is a preliminary effort. We expect the readers to help us
in developing the thought by throwing new lights into it.

It is true that the questions and confusions originate from the way history has moved. But, will
refutation of the necessity of the Communist Party or any organization of enduring nature help forward
the movement? Let us first discuss this aspect.

Does the formation an organization depend on someone’s will?

Let us have a pertinent glance at this history.

The introduction of machines dealt a very big blow to workers’ lives; wages slumped,
unemployment went raging and prices plummeted. To the workers, the villains behind all these were
the machines. They vented out their anger on the machines by breaking them. Throughout late
eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, this was the principal form of movement of the
workers, and was called the Luddite Movement. What is important here is that, though this was a
spontaneous movement, it contained the germ of organization. The secret Luddite societies in England
maintained contact among themselves, organized regular secret meetings, planned their programmes
jointly, submitted petitions to the parliament, and sent representatives to Ireland. The Luddite societies
of Lancashire and Yorkshire, formed in 1812, had even declared their political stand against the
government.

In the early nineteenth century, when practical experience taught them that breaking machines
would not help them out of the miseries of their life, the European workers began to resort to strikes –
the firsts of its kind. In this phase also, we see that, as the strikes spread and developed, spontaneity
made way for the evolution and growth of organisation. In many cases, the workers planned these
strikes, and in some, they even set a common program of action during the strikes.

But, soon the experience of these strikes showed the workers that such action can affect the
capitalists only temporarily and the latter’s aggression is soon revived with more intensity. They realised
that not only temporary unity for strikes, but enduring associations are needed to combat the
capitalists. Thus, the English workers proceeded to form the trade-unions. Though trade unions first
cropped up in small numbers during late eighteenth century, they were of a very preliminary nature. At
this stage, the TUs had to fight for their existence against the suppressive measures of the bourgeois
State along with the capitalists. Trade unions were banned in England from 1799 to 1824. In spite of this,
the TUs led big strikes in 1808, 1810, 1812 & 1818. But real trade-union movement (in the modern
sense) began only in the 1820s.

The development of large-scale industry and the communication system needed for it boosted this
process. Large-scale industry opened the way for wider unity of movement crossing the boundary of
small individual trade unions. This led to the beginning of formation of federative trade unions which
gradually encompassed all the workers; local frontiers of the trade unions were opened to form national
trade unions. Thus, in 1829, the Grand General Union of Spinners – the first such national organization –
came up in England. The decision for its formation was taken in a congress of the TU representatives of
English, Scottish and Irish spinning workers. In 1830 was formed the National Association of United
Traders for the Protection of Labour. Though the initiative for it was taken by cotton workers, it not only
included trade unions of cotton and textile workers, but also those of miners, mechanics and pottery
makers, and the combined membership reached almost 0.1 million. And, the workers took the
leadership and management of these organizations on to themselves.

The above brief narration of history probably makes it clear that, the first organizations of the
working masses which acquired stable nature were formed in the interest of resisting the capitalist
onslaught and taking the movement forward; that, they were not cerebral endeavors or created by
some person or some group from above, but organizations which evolved in the course of the
substantive movement and were shaped by its needs. Now we will try to understand the evolution and
development of the working class’ political organization.

But political organizations result from some person’s or group’s initiative, isn’t it?

We know that the contradiction between capital and labour inevitably drive the workers to resist
the capitalist’s aggression. Initially, the struggle is launched from a defensive stand at the economic level
in the factory or across the trade. Gradually, as the workers gather experience from the struggles all
over the country, see the commonness of attack of all the capitalists, realize how the state function in
the interest of the capitalists and affront the combined assault, the urge for greater unity strikes their
consciousness. It is this urge that lead them to form nation-wide united trade unions on the basis of
common demands. Such unity can actually enable the workers to launch struggles powerful enough to
compel the ruling class to pass laws in favour of the workers. If this happens, the workers’movement
transcends the boundary of economic struggle and becomes a movement of the working class who take
to the street to confront the capitalist class; their independent class character makes it a political
struggle. A known example may explain our recount. When the workers demand an eight-hour day in a
factory, it is an economic struggle and the organization needed for it is a trade union. But the struggle
which compels the government to enact laws for implementation of an eight-hour day in all the
industries across the country is obviously a political struggle of the working class; it presupposes i) trade
union experience in the previous phase, and, ii) existence of a political organization which can contain
such a struggle. The extent to which this political organization is able to contain (lead) the movement,
the latter helps the organization to flourish and mature, thereby furthering it as a suitable vehicle for the
proletariat to move towards the next political movement.

Actually, as the two contra posed classes approach an inevitable class battle, they both have to
reinforce their own strength gradually on higher unity. There is no alternative to this historical
necessity. The objective development of class struggle can not limit it to the stage of economic
struggle; it evolves into political struggle perforce. And the compulsion of political struggle directs that
the proletariat be organized in a steady political organization. The existent political movement, on the
other hand, develops and perfects the political organization. As the character of the movement
changes, according change is also to be expected in the political organization which arose from the
movement.

The history of movement is old, so why is organization so recent?

Our idea of a stable organization generally conforms to a political party. But did not history have
other forms also? During the whole era of feudalism, the only form of organization was small guilds of
the artisans (followed later by the merchants’ guilds). On the rulers’ side, there were no permanent
geographical boundaries to the states; borders frequently changed through wars. The structure of the
state could not acquire a stable character accordingly. The concept of a permanent army started to
develop in the eighteenth century only. Excepting Britain, the West European countries had moving
courts for long. It was the development of modern capitalism that brought in stable institutions and
organizations in society. Uprooting the small establishments of individual petty producers, it built up the
factory – the form of production where many are employed to labor under one shed. And to maximize
the efficiency of production, planning and organization were essential, so was the engagement of
special personnel called managers and supervisors. This way of production, the industrial structure, the
factory was the first stable form of organization in history. We must admit that in spite of the immense
development of the techniques of production, the shooting multiplicity of commodities in the last 200
years, the basic structure of capitalist production has changed little. Notwithstanding the introduction of
pompous discourses about “horizontal management”, “labour participation in management”, etc.,
capitalist organization remains extremely centralized – the actual producers, i.e., the workers have no
option of democratic participation in capitalist execution.

We know that modern capitalism is nothing but production for generation of profit, production for
sale. The capitalist, as the private proprietor of the means of production, appropriates the profit and
invests part of it to generate further profit. Profit is the surplus value generated through surplus labour.
The machinery used in production can not be handled by any individual, a number of workers labour
collectively for the whole operation; so both the labour engaged and the mode of production are social.
And the only target of production is sale because the surplus value is realized as profit only when the
commodity is sold. Hence capitalist economy is synonymous with market economy. And smooth running
of this economy requires organization of the whole society along capitalist lines.

Modern capitalism has not only systematized production, it has also set up financial structures to
match it. Banks had cropped up long ago, but with the centralization of production, evolution of
monopolies and multinational corporations, the whole banking system acquired magnified importance
along with the development of the share market, non-banking financial institutions, etc. Thus, advancing
capitalism has furthered its byproducts – the financial organizations.

In the interest of the security of capitalist private property and of the unhindered and easy
functioning of capitalist production and exchange, it is important to set the State apparatus so as to
serve the economic order. So, the concept of the modern State arose during the early days of capitalism.
The consolidation of the first Nation-State with its well-organized bureaucracy, judiciary and police-
military came into being. The masterstroke of the capitalism was this, that the machinery of exploitation
and that of reign appeared to be completely detached, enticing people to believe that the two have no
relationship between them. Behind such sham, the State structure was put into shape so that capitalist
exploitation can go on with all facility. Bourgeois Democracy is so invincible that allowing people to
exercise all their “rights” actually does no harm to the economic interest, and sometimes cutting on
such rights creates no considerable problem.

And it was modern capitalism itself which posed the need for the creation of the political parties.
As governance became a separate affair, all the classes in society, including the different lobbies of
capitalists, felt that they should be represented in the legislature. This compulsion gave rise to political
parties – which are actually class organizations.

Now let us discuss the rise of the proletarian organizations. Socialized production under capitalism
made the individual labourer one of the collective labour force. A factory is not only organized through
social production, he is a part of a disciplined working regiment. This special unique character imposed
upon the proletariat by modern industry served as the precondition for its natural tendency to organize.
It was impossible for the plebian masses in the pre-capitalist era to gather in a steady organization due
to the absence of this special quality of the modern proletariat.

Capitalism also brought in another phenomenon – the continuous depreciation in the standard of
living of the working class against the spectacular advance of the capitalists as a result of the
contradiction of capital and labour. So, the workers have no other way to better the conditions of their
life except through struggle. On the other hand, since the only source of profit for the capitalist class is
the surplus labour of the workers, their very existence depends on inventing newer and more efficient
ways of appropriation of surplus labour. Struggle between the two classes is therefore unavoidable on
almost daily basis. But at the same time, such struggles are bound to be partial and partial movements
do not serve to liberate the worker from his misery. So, not only organized struggle, but continuous
struggle is the workers’ destiny. And such struggle inevitably brings forth the need an organization of
enduring nature.

But who said that the only political organization of the proletariat is a Communist Party?

From the above discussion, we see that one of the tasks of the political struggle of the working class
is to put pressure on the ruling class and compel them to enact some laws in the interest of the working
masses, to grant some political and economic concessions to them.

But the proletariat’s interest does not end with the achievement of some partial demands under
this system. It aims at ending private ownership over the means of production (and hence over the
products) and establishing social ownership in its place. Being the only force which is engaged in social
production and is expropriated of all means of production, the proletariat is objectively competent to
lead this struggle. Therefore, the proletariat’s political struggle most importantly aims at the extirpation
of the bourgeoisie from political power. But this is not to happen spontaneously; it requires that the
working class be alienated from the bourgeois ideology and be organized on the basis of its own
independent ideology. The Communist Party is nothing but that organization based on working class
ideology. The principal duty of the Communist Party is not to lead every economic and political struggle
of the working class and achieve some demands, but its main task is to link the immediate target of a
movement with the future, to represent the overall interest of the class, to prepare the class by
explaining their experience through the each struggle on the basis of the independent ideology of the
class. Name it whatever you wish, but it is impossible for the proletariat to liberate itself from wage
slavery, the whole miserable humanity from exploitation and end private property without a political
organization with working class ideology.

###

The main problem lies deep. On the centenary of the Russian revolution, the international
Communist movement is all woe. One of the main reasons is that, not only in the countries where
revolutions occurred, but in the rest countries also, the old Communist Parties had become rotten, and,
betraying the working class, had been waiting on the bourgeoisie. No true revolutionary Communist
Party has been formed in any country of the world that has a standing against these double dealers. In
this situation, some are repudiating the Communist Party as such. We have tried to open a preliminary
discussion on the subject. We tried to show that the economic structure of capitalism inevitably breeds
organistions and the Communist Party is a decisive tool for the liberation of the working class. But this
discourse is not enough. There is no excuse why the Parties in all countries went bankrupt. Even those
who recognize the Party, can not deny the reality of its conversion into a bureaucratic establishment, its
shifting towards the “centre” in the name of “democratic centralism”, etc. It is only natural that they
would find fault with the Party structure itself.

In the next issue, we will try to go into these questions and look for the real problems as best as we
can.