Library:Fundamental principles of philosophy

This primary source is currently under transcription process using this resource and a physical copy as reference.

Available in our library.

This book features control questions available here.

Foreword

Published in July 1946, republished in January 1947, May 1948 and December 1949, Georges Politzer's Elementary principles of philosophy were greeted with eagerness. They contained, in an accessible form, the main part of the courses given in 1935—1936 at the Workers' University (Université Ouvrière) by one of those who, never separating action from thought, died as a hero so that France might live.

In the "Preface" to the Elementary principles of philosophy, Maurice Le Goas who, a pupil of Politzer, collected his courses and thus allowed their publication, wrote:

Georges Politzer, who began his philosophy course each year by fixing the true meaning of the word materialism and while protesting against the calumnious distortions which some make him undergo, did not fail to point out that the materialist philosopher does not lack ideal and that he is ready to fight to make this ideal triumph. Since then he has been able to prove it by his sacrifice, and his heroic death illustrates this initial course in which he affirmed the union, in Marxism, of theory and practice.

A few months away from a ministerial decision which claimed to refuse Georges Politzer the posthumous title of Resident internee and the mention "Death for France", the tribute due to the memory of Georges Politzer could not, less than ever, separate the French patriot of the communist philosopher.

The Nazi bullets laid Politzer down in the clearing of Mont-Valérien in May 1942; but the Workers' University, which was largely his work, continues in the New University of Paris, which every year grows in scope. In fact, the Fundamental Principles of Philosophy that we publish are based, like the original work, on the experience of the philosophical education given to workers — workers, employees, housewives, scientific researchers, teachers, students, etc. — who attend the New University. It is therefore right that the book bears — before the names of those who wrote it and who, with a few others, teach the course in dialectical materialism — the name of Georges Politzer. Of course, these Principles of philosophy are much more developed than the Elementary principles; they benefit from the contributions which marxist science has enriched in recent years. Their inspiration nonetheless remains the one that animated Politzer.

The Fundamental principles of philosophy aims to help all those who want to learn about the central ideas of Marx and Engels and their most eminent disciples, Lenin and Stalin. The work therefore has the characteristics of a manual, divided into lessons, to be followed one by one ; the Control questions will allow the reader to verify the acquired knowledge and to pursue an effort of personal research. The courses of the New University, to which this book owes its existence, are aimed at workers who ask theoretical reflection to shed light on their militant, political or union action in today's France. We will therefore not be surprised by the abundance of examples taken from the daily life of the French, who fight for bread and freedom, for national independence and peace.

But contrary to a still widely held opinion, when marxists speak of practice, they do not understand it in a narrow sense. Human practice is all activities — sciences, techniques, arts, etc. — of which man is capable and which define him; it is all the experience accumulated over the millennia. Only one can be revolutionary who has been able to assimilate the best of this experience, for the benefit of his present action for the transformation of societies and the improvement of individuals. This is precisely the task of marxist philosophy: conception of the world, it expresses, in their most general form, the fundamental laws of nature and history; method of analysis, it gives every man the means to understand what he is, what he does,and what he can at a given moment to transform his own existence. Entirely devoted to marxist philosophy, the book we are presenting must therefore, it seems to us, be of service to all workers, manual or intellectual. And although it is not written for "specialists", they — economists, engineers, historians, naturalists, doctors, artists, etc. — will undoubtedly find food for thought.

The authors have made an effort to write this work with the maximum of simplicity and clarity; they avoided multiplying technical terms. But in doing so, they have only come half of the way. The reader will have to patiently cross the other half, without forgetting for a moment — as Marx recalled about the French edition of Capital — that "there is no royal road for science". Reading the twenty-four lessons that make up this book will therefore require some work and some perseverance.

If you don't understand a particular page on first reading, don't be discouraged! However, the work will be made easier if the reader confronts what he reads with his personal experience. In this way he will derive the greatest benefit from a study carried out with patience.

The volume contains many quotes, many references to the classics of marxism. It was running the risk of making the presentations heavy; the authors have accepted this risk because it is due to the very nature of the work: it is a manual. Its role is to facilitate access to sources, to encourage the reader, through frequent reminders, to frequent the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Maurice Thorez. The authors of these Fundamental principles have, in particular, emphasized Stalin's Dialectical and historical materialism, from the greatest philosopher of our time along with Lenin. The order of the lessons of this manual purposely reproduces, for the most part, the order of the subjects of Stalin's work, a masterful synthesis of the philosophy of marxism, published in 1938. Reading this writing, which will be found either in Chapter IV of the History of the communist party of the Soviet Union, or in a separate edition, Remains essential for all those who want to master the essential data of Marxism and understand its force of action.

Faithful to their principles, marxists see in criticism a requirement of all fruitful action. This is why the authors of the Fundamental principles of philosophy seek critical input from those, whoever they may be, who will use this book. It cannot fail to improve, to always better fulfill its role in the service of the working class and the people of France.

Guy Besse and Maurice Caveing,
Agrégés de Philosophie.
August 1954

Introduction

"Philosophy", here is a word which, at first glance, hardly inspires confidence in many workers. They say to themselves that a philosopher is a character who does not have his feet on the ground. Inviting good people to "do philosophy" is perhaps, they think, inviting them to an aerobatic session. After which our heads will turn...

This is how philosophy often appears: a game of ideas unrelated to reality; obscure game, privilege of a few initiates; and probably dangerous game, not very profitable for people who live by the sweat of their brow. A great French philosopher, Descartes, long before us condemned the obscure and dangerous game to which some would like to reduce philosophy. He characterized the false philosophers thus:

The obscurity of the distinctions and the principles which they make use of is cause that they can speak of all things as boldly as if they knew them, and support all that they say against the subtlest and the most clever, without any means of convincing them; in which they seem to me like a blind man who, in order to fight without disadvantage against one who sees, would have brought him to the bottom of some very dark cellar.

Our intention is not to lead the reader into a "very dark cellar". We know that darkness is conducive to bad luck. There is an obscure and evil philosophy; but there is also, as Descartes already wanted, a clear and beneficent philosophy, the one of which Gorky spoke:

It would be a mistake to think that I am making fun of philosophy; no, I am for philosophy, but for a philosophy coming from below, from the earth, from the processes of work which, studying the phenomena of nature, subjugates the forces of the latter to the interests of man. I am convinced that thought is indissolubly linked to effort, and I am not a supporter of thought while one is in a state of stillness, sitting, lying.

The purpose of the introduction to these Principles of philosophy is to define philosophy in general, then to show why we should study it and what philosophy we should study.

What is philosophy?

The ancient Greeks, who numbered some of the greatest thinkers that history has known, understood by philosophy the love of knowledge. This is the strict meaning of the word philosophia, where philosophy comes from.

"Knowledge" - that is, "knowledge of the world and of man". This knowledge made it possible to state certain rules of action, to determine a certain attitude towards life. The wise man was the man who acted in all respects in accordance with such rules, themselves based on knowledge of the world and of man.

The word philosophy has continued since that time because it met a need. It is often taken in very different senses which derive from the diversity of views on the world. But the most constant meaning is this: general conception of the world, from which one can deduce a certain way of behaving.

An example, taken from the history of our country, will illustrate this definition:

In the 18th century, bourgeois philosophers in France thought and taught, relying on science, that the world is knowable; they concluded that it is possible to transform it for the good of man. And many, for example Condorcet, the author of the Sketch of a historical table of the progress of the human spirit (1794), considered as a consequence that man is perfectible, that he can become better, than society can get better.

A century later, in France, the bourgeois philosophers in their great majority thought and taught, conversely, that the world is unknowable, that the “bottom of things” escapes us and will always escape us. Hence the conclusion that it is foolish to want to transform the world. Certainly, they agreed, we can act on nature, but it is a superficial action, since the "bottom of things" is out of reach. As for man... he is what he always has been, what he always will be. There is a "human nature" the secret of which escapes us. “What is the use, therefore, of beating one's head to improve society?"

We see that the "conception of the world" (that is, philosophy) is not a trivial matter. Since two opposing conceptions lead to opposite practical conclusions. Indeed, the philosophers of the 18th century want to transform the company, because they express the interests and the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, then revolutionary class, which fights against feudalism.

As for the philosophers of the 19th century, they express (whether they know it or not) the interests of this bourgeoisie become conservative: henceforth dominant class, it fears the revolutionary rise of the proletariat. They believe that there is nothing to change in a world in which they have the better ground. Philosophers "justify" such interests when they turn people away from any endeavor to transform society.

Examples:

• the positivists (their leader, Auguste Comte, passes in the eyes of many for a "social reformer"; in reality, he is deeply convinced that the reign of the bourgeoisie is eternal, and his "sociology" ignores productive forces and relations of production , which condemns it to impotence);
• the eclectics (their leader, Victor Cousin, was the official philosopher of the bourgeoisie; he justified the oppression of the proletariat and in particular the massive shootings of June 1848, in the name of the "true", the "beauty", the "good", "justice ", etc.);
• Bergsonism (Bergson, which the bourgeoisie wore on the shield in the 1900s, that is to say at the time of imperialism, puts all his mind to distract man from concrete reality, from action on the world, of the struggle to transform society; man must devote himself to his "deep self", to his "interior" life; the rest is not of great importance and therefore the profit-riders of the work of others can sleep soundly.)

The same social class, the French bourgeoisie, therefore had two very different philosophies, from one century to another, because, revolutionary in the 18th century, it had become conservative, and even reactionary in the 19th century. Nothing more striking than the confrontation of the two texts here. The first dates from 1789, the year of the bourgeois revolution. It is from a bourgeois revolutionary, Camille Desmoulins, who hails the new times in these terms:

Fiat! Fiat! Yes, this fortunate Revolution, this regeneration will be accomplished; no power on earth can prevent it. Sublime effect of philosophy, freedom and patriotism! We have become invincible.

And here is the other text. It dates from 1848. It is by M. Thiers, a bourgeois statesman, who defends the interests of his class in power against the proletariat:

Ah! if it were as in the old days, if the school were to always be run by the parish priest or his sacristan, I would be far from opposing the development of schools for the children of the people ... I formally ask for something other than these teachers secular people, too many of whom are detestable; I want Brothers, although in the past I might have been distrustful of them, I still want to make the influence of the clergy all-powerful; I ask that the priest's action be strong, much stronger than it is, because I count a lot on him to propagate this good philosophy which teaches man that he is here to suffer, and not this other philosophy which says on the contrary to the man: enjoy, because ... you are here below to make your little happiness (underlined in the text);and if you do not find it in your current situation, strike without fear the rich person whose selfishness refuses you this share of happiness; it is by removing the superfluous from the rich that you will ensure your well-being and that of all those who are in the same position as you.

Thiers, as we can see, is interested in philosophy. Why? Because philosophy has a class character. That philosophers, in general, do not suspect it, that's for sure. But any conception of the world has a practical meaning: it benefits certain classes, it harms others. We will see that marxism is also a class philosophy.

While the bourgeois revolutionary Camille Desmoulins saw in philosophy a weapon in the service of the revolution, the conservative Thiers sees it as a weapon in the service of social reaction: "good philosophy" is that which invites workers to bow down. Thus thought the future Communards gunner.

Why do we need to study philosophy?

Today, the successors of M. Thiers, in France as in the United States, are moving mountains of opinions against marxists. They would like to annihilate not only the marxists, but also their philosophy. The same way M. Thiers wanted to kill, with the Communards, their ideas of social progress. Thus, the duty of the workers is marked out; it is to oppose to the philosophy which serves the exploiters, and to uphold a philosophy capable of helping in the struggle against the exploiters. The study of philosophy is therefore very important to workers. This importance appears moreover when one places oneself on the ground of facts.

The facts are the increasingly harsh situation that the policies of the bourgeoisie, today the ruling class, impose on all workers in our country: unemployment and high cost of living, opportunities denied to young people, infringement of the laws social, the right to strike, democratic freedoms, repression, armed aggressions (in particular on July 14, 1953 in Paris), colonization of the country by American imperialism, bloody and ruinous war of Vietnam, reconstitution of the Wehrmacht, etc. The question that workers ask themselves is therefore this: how to get out? The need to know why things are so becomes more and more general, more and more acute. Where does the danger of war come from? Where does fascism come from? Where does misery come from? The workers of our country want to understand what is happening, want to understand how they can change it.

Is it not clear that, if philosophy is a conception of the world, a conception which has practical consequences, it is very precious for workers who want to change the world to have a correct conception of the world? Besides, you have to aim to hit your target.

Suppose all workers think reality is unknowable. Then they will be defenseless in the face of war, unemployment, hunger. Everything that happens will be unintelligible to them; they will suffer it as a fatality. This is precisely where the bourgeoisie would like to lead the workers. So they will not neglect any means to spread a conception of the world in accordance with her interests. This explains the profusion of ideas like this: “There will always be rich and poor”. Or again: “Society is a jungle and it always will be; so each for himself! Eat others if you don't want others to eat you. Worker, try to win the good graces of the boss to the detriment of your fellow workers, rather than unite with them for the common defense of your wages. Employee,try to become the boss's mistress and you will have a good life. Too bad for the others."

These ideas can be found in abundance in Reader's Digest, in the “free press”... It is the poison with which the bourgeoisie wants to corrupt the conscience of the workers, and with which they must consequently. to defend oneself. This poison is also found in the most diverse forms. Thus the workers who still read Franc-Tireur buy, without knowing it, fifteen francs of poison a day. Without knowing it, because Franc-Tireur is stamping its feet, shouting that it works badly and that we will see this, and that, but Franc-Tireur is careful not to say why it works badly, to show the causes, and especially it works to prevent or destroy the union of workers, this union which is precisely the only way to "get out" from the current state of things.

All these ideas derive, in the final analysis, from a conception of the world, from a philosophy: society is intangible, it must be taken as it is, that is to say, undergo exploitation, or else be exploited.

Oh, goodness! Will we always have to find out the "why" and the "how" of things that happen to us? Injustice is committed every day and force takes precedence over law!

This is what we can read in Super-boy, one of the many newspapers that the bourgeoisie intended for the children of workers. Violence, contempt for man, this is indeed what suits the needs of the aggressive bourgeoisie, for whom the war of conquest is the normal activity.

This is the place to recall what Lenin said in 1920 at the Third Congress of the Federation of Communist Youth of Russia. He described capitalist society thus:

Th old society was based on the principle: rob or be robbed; work for others or make others work for you; be a slave-owner or a slave. Naturally, people brought up in such a society assimilate with their mother's milk, one might say, the psychology, the habit, the concept which says: you are either a slave-owner or a slave, or else, a small owner, a petty employee, a petty official, or an intellectual -- in short, a man who is concerned only with himself, and does not care a rap for anybody else.

If I work this plot of land, I do not care a rap for anybody else; if others starve, all the better, I shall get the more for my grain. If I have a job as a doctor, engineer, teacher, or clerk, I do not care a rap for anybody else. If I toady to and please the powers that be, I may be able to keep my job, and even get on in life and become a bourgeois.

This old philosophy, dear to the reigning bourgeoisie, must be waged a merciless battle, outside of us and within us: for it has on its side, in addition to tradition and prejudices, the mass press, radio, cinema ... We must comply with the invitation of Barbusse who said, evoking this fight step by step against the old ideas-poison:

Do you start over, if necessary, with magnificent honesty?

We must work to form new ideas that bring in them confidence and no longer despair, struggle and no longer resignation. For workers, this is not a secondary issue. It is a question of life and death, because they will be able to free themselves from class oppression only if they have such a conception of the world that they can effectively transform it.

Incidentally, Gorky, in The Mother, tells how in the Russia of the tsars an old woman, until then resigned to everything, without hope, became an indomitable revolutionary because she understood, thanks to her son, heroic fighter of socialism, the source of the suffering of her people, because she understood that it was possible to end it.

For those who are already struggling, who refuse resignation, the study of philosophy will not be useless: only, in fact, an objective conception of the world can give them the reasons for their struggle.

Without a correct theory, there can be no victorious struggle. Some believe that in order to be successful, the conditions for success are sufficient. Error, because it is still necessary to know that these conditions are realized. And the more complicated things are, the more important it is to know how to identify with them.

These remarks are valid when it comes to the revolutionary struggle, the struggle for socialism and communism. "Without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement", said Lenin.

But they also apply in the struggle for other objectives: struggle for democratic freedoms, for bread or for peace.

It is therefore out of practical necessity that we must study philosophy, that we must be interested in the general conception of the world.

Let us now see more closely what is this philosophy which will allow us to understand the world, and therefore to strive for its transformation.

What philosophy should we study?

A scientific philosophy: dialectical materialism

If we want to transform reality (nature and society), we must know it. It is through the various sciences that man knows the world. So only a scientific view of the world can suit workers in their struggle for a better life. This scientific conception is marxist philosophy, it is dialectical materialism.

A question then comes to mind: "what difference do you make between "science" and "philosophy"? Don't you identify the second with the first? Marxist philosophy is in fact inseparable from the sciences, but it is distinguished from them. Each of the sciences (physics, biology, psychology, etc.) proposes the study of the laws specific to a well-determined sector of reality. As for dialectical materialism, it has a double purpose:

1. As dialectics, it studies the most general laws of the universe, laws common to all aspects of reality, from physical nature to thought, including living nature and society. The next few lessons will deal with the study of these laws. But Marx and Engels, founders of dialectical materialism, did not draw dialectics from their fantasy. It is the progress of the sciences which has enabled them to discover and formulate the most general laws, common to all sciences and which philosophy exposes.

1. As materialism, marxist philosophy is a scientific conception of the world, the only scientific one, that is to say the only one consistent with what the sciences teach us. But what do the sciences teach? That the universe is a material reality, that man is no stranger to this reality and that he can know it, and thereby transform it (as shown by the practical results obtained by the various sciences). We will approach the study of philosophical materialism in Study of marxist philosophical materialism. Marxist materialism is not identified with the sciences, because its object is not a certain limited aspect of reality (this is the object of the sciences), but the conception of the world as a whole, a conception that all the sciences implicitly admit, even if the scholars are not marxists.

The materialistic view of the world, says Engels, simply means the view of nature as it is, without extraneous addition. }}

The thesis according to which the spiritual life of society reflects its material life is thus a direct consequence of the philosophical materialism exposed in The spiritual life of the society is a reflection of its material life

The material life of the society is an objective reality existing independently of the conscience and the will not only of individuals, but of man in general

It is precisely this objective reality, independent of conscience, that some thinkers, because they do not understand its laws, call fatality. Existentialists have renewed the vocabulary while keeping the same thing: they speak of "man thrown into the world", of man "in situation". We will see in the fourth part of this work, devoted to historical materialism, that this situation is not a mystery and that it can be studied scientifically.

A few examples will help us understand what is happening to this objective reality, independent of consciousness.

When, under feudalism, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began the construction of the great manufactures, it was unaware of the social consequences of this "innovation" which was to lead to a revolution against the royal power whose benevolence it appreciated at the time (the monarchy encouraged the nascent manufactures) and against the nobility into which it dreamed of entering!

When the Russian capitalists implanted modern large-scale industry in Tsarist Russia, they were not aware that they were preparing the conditions for the future triumph of the socialist revolution.

When the shoemaker, whom Stalin refers to in Anarchism or Socialism?, joined Adelkhanov, he "did not know that the distant consequence of this decision, which he believed to be provisional, would be his adherence to socialist ideas.

Here is the very interesting passage that Stalin devotes to the shoemaker:

Imagine a shoemaker who had a very small workshop, but could not compete with the big bosses, so he had to close his workshop and, let's suppose, he was hired in a shoe factory in Tiflis, at Adelkhanov's house.  He was hired at Adelkhanov's, not to become a permanent salaried worker, but to raise money, build up a small capital and then be able to reopen his workshop. As we can see, the shoemaker's situation is already proletarian, but his conscience is not yet proletarian; it is entirely petty-bourgeois. In other words, the petty-bourgeois situation of this cobbler has already disappeared, it no longer exists, but his petty-bourgeois conscience has not yet disappeared, it is behind his de facto situation. It is obvious that here again, in social life, it is the external conditions, the situation of men, that change first, and then, as a consequence, their consciousness. Let us return, however, to our shoemaker. As we already know, he is thinking of raising money to reopen his workshop, so the proletarian shoemaker is working, and he realizes that it is very difficult to raise money, because his salary is barely enough to provide for his existence. He also notices that it is not very attractive to open a private workshop: the rent of the premises, the whims of the customers, the lack of money, the competition of the big bosses and so many other worries, such are the worries that haunt the spirit of the craftsman. However, the proletarian is relatively free of all these worries; he is not worried about the client or the rent to be paid; in the morning, he goes to the factory; in the evening, he leaves it "the most quietly in the world", and, on Saturdays, he also quietly puts his "pay" in his pocket. It is then that for the first time the petty-bourgeois dreams of our shoemaker have their wings clipped; it is then that, for the first time, proletarian tendencies are born in his soul. Time passes, and our shoemaker realizes that he lacks the money to get the bare necessities, that he is in great need of a wage increase. At the same time, he realizes that his comrades are talking about unions and strikes. From that moment on, our shoemaker becomes aware that in order to improve his situation, it is necessary to fight against the bosses, and not to open a workshop of his own. He joined the trade union, went on strike and soon embraced the socialist ideas... So the change in the shoemaker's material situation ultimately brought about a change in his consciousness: first his material situation changed, and then, some time later, his consciousness changed accordingly. The same has to be said of the classes and the society as a whole.

— Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?

When the U.S. imperialists, and subsequently the Western capitalists, in 1947, on the basis of the Marshall Plan, organized the economic blockade of the U.S.S.R. and the people's democracies, it was far from clear that they would contribute to the formation of a new world market, a socialist market, and to the disintegration of the old single capitalist market.

Such is the "fatality" on which many novelists have embroidered. The struggle for the satisfaction of immediate interests leads, in the more or less long term, to social consequences independent of the will of those who engaged in this struggle. These immediate interests are by no means arbitrary since they respond to the objective situation, at a given moment, of a society, of a given social class. This is a fundamental proposition of historical materialism, as formulated by Marx:

In the social production of their existence, men enter into determined, necessary relations, independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a determined degree of development of their material productive forces

— Marx, Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

For example, the capitalist relations of production have not been chosen by men. The development of the productive forces within feudal society necessarily led to the formation of capitalist relations of production and not to others, whether men wanted it or not. This is how each new generation is forced to start from the objective conditions that are made for it. "Fatality" then? No, because as we shall see, the scientific study of the objective relations of production makes it possible to understand their nature, to foresee their evolution, to accelerate it.

Alleging the 'independence' of the mind, in the manner of the idealists, is quite simply to ignore the objective conditions that impose themselves first and foremost on the mind, even though it knows nothing about them, for such is the unfortunate fate of the idealist thinker: as he starts from his consciousness, without questioning the objective conditions that make it exist and that make it exercise itself, he believes that it is sufficient for itself. Illusion fought by materialism.

Having said that, it is necessary to draw an important practical conclusion from the remarks we have just presented: we have shown that very great material changes have taken place in history without those who participated in the transformation, or who brought it about, being aware of its consequences, without their having wanted it. It is therefore false to claim that there will be no socialist revolution in a country where all the workers have previously acquired revolutionary theory! The millions of people who, in October 1917, made the revolution with their hands did not see as far as Lenin and the Bolsheviks the scientific vanguard of the revolution. But in carrying out this great historical task, they were working on the transformation of their own consciousness, on the victory of the new man, a victory scientifically foreseen by Marx.

The spiritual life of the society is a reflection of the objective reality of the society

It is not the will of men that arbitrarily determines social relations, as we have said, but rather the conscience of men, which is conditioned by the material reality of the society of which they are members.

Now this society-we will return to this at greater length in Part 4 of this manual-is not born of a miracle: it is the totality of relationships that have been formed to assure men a victorious struggle over nature; relationships necessarily conditioned by the level of productive forces available to men and which they had to accommodate (ten thousand years ago, relationships between men could not be those that great industry engendered!).

It is this very complex set of factors that must be taken into account when one wants to understand how social ideas are a reflection of society.

History shows that if, at different times, men have had different ideas and desires, it is because at different times men fought differently against nature to provide for their needs, and that, consequently, their economic relations took on a different character. There was a time when men fought against nature in common, on the basis of primitive communism; at that time their property was also communist, and therefore they hardly distinguished between "mine" and "yours"; their conscience was communist.  The time came when the distinction between "mine" and "yours" became part of production; from then on, property itself took on a private, individualistic character. This is why the feeling of private property entered into the consciousness of men. And this is finally the time - the time of today, when production again takes on a social character; consequently, property will not be long in taking on, in its turn, a social character - and this is why socialism gradually penetrated the consciousness of men.

— Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?

We see the error of vulgar materialism. Noting that there is no thought without a brain, he concluded that social ideas have a purely organic determination: modify the organism of an individual, and you will change his political ideas!

Philosophical materialism certainly states that the brain is the organ of thought. But the brain itself is inseparable from the objective conditions that make men exist: it is the brain of a social being. As Marx wrote, "...man in his reality is the totality of social relations." In the thinking brain is thus reflected "the totality of social relations" (that the individual is unaware of this fact, that such and such a university philosopher has never thought about it, is powerless to change the fact).

One of the most characteristic examples of ideology as a reflection is provided by religion. The idealists, like the theologians, profess that every man spontaneously finds in himself the idea of God, that this idea has existed since the origins of mankind, that it will last as long as it does. In reality, the idea of God is a product of the objective situation of men in ancient societies. According to Engels' formula, religion is born from the limited conceptions of mankind, but in what way? On the one hand, by the almost total impotence of primitive man before a hostile and incomprehensible nature; on the other hand, by their blind dependence on a society they did not understand and which seemed to them the expression of a superior will. Thus the gods, inexplicable and all-powerful beings, masters of nature and society, were the subjective reflection of man's objective impotence before nature and society.

The progress of the natural and social sciences was to reveal the illusory character of religious beliefs. However, as long as the exploitation of man by man persists, objective conditions remain for the belief in a superhuman being who dispenses happiness and misfortune. "Man proposes, God disposes": the peasant of ancient Russia, crushed by misery and with no prospects for the future, entrusts his fate to the divinity. The socialist revolution, by giving the community control over the productive forces, gives mankind the possibility of scientifically directing society, while at the same time increasing his power over nature at an ever-increasing rate. The objective conditions are created so that the religious mystifications which other objective conditions had generated and maintained are gradually erased from human consciousness.

In the same way, moral ideas are a reflection of objective social relations, a reflection of social practice. Idealists see in morals a set of eternal principles, absolutely independent of circumstances: they come to us from God, or they are dictated to us by the infallible "conscience. But we need only beware that, for example, the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" could only have existed and had meaning from the day private property appeared. In communist society, the notion of theft will lose all real basis because the abundance of goods will be such that there will be nothing to steal. How then can one speak of eternal morality? Morality is transformed with and by society. This is why, since society evolves through class struggle, there is a counter-current struggle between the morality of the dominant class and the morality of the exploited class; the first is conservative or reactionary in spirit; the other is more or less revolutionary. But since the ruling class has, for many years, powerful means to impose its ideas, millions of men accept without discussion the morality of the ruling class as the morality. Mystification of which the members of the dominant class are themselves victims.

Let us illustrate this with an example. The revolutionary French bourgeoisie of the 18th century led its leap against feudalism in the name of eternal Liberty, Reason and Justice. It identified its revolutionary class interests with those of mankind in general, and it was sincere. But the victory of the bourgeois revolution gave words their true meaning, their historical meaning. It showed that these universal moral ideas were the expression of class-specific interests. Freedom? yes, freedom for the bourgeoisie to produce and trade for its class profits; freedom to keep political power for itself, etc. But to the proletariat, this bourgeoisie which had made the Revolution under the flag of freedom, refused the freedom to form unions, to fight by strike, etc., and to the proletariat, this bourgeoisie which had made the Revolution under the banner of freedom, refused the freedom to form unions, to fight by strike, etc. It is the name of eternal morality that it guillotined Babeuf, because in fact it wanted to suppress bourgeois property.

Engels said:

We know today that this reign of reason was nothing other than the idealized reign of labour, that eternal justice as it was then proclaimed found its adequacy in bourgeois justice. (Engels. Anti-Dühring)

Does this mean that there will never be universal morality? Not at all. Morality will be the same for all men when the social conditions which will make such a morality effective will be objectively realized, that is, when the world triumph of communism will have abolished forever all opposition of interests among men, abolished all classes. It is therefore the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (and against its supposed universal morality), and not the easy preaching of the idealists, which objectively opens the way to the triumph of a universal morality, that is to say, a fully human morality. Is this universal morality impenetrable to us today? No, its principles of fraternal solidarity find their first realization already in capitalist society in the morality of the revolutionary class, the proletariat. And even more so, of course, in the countries where socialist revolution has already triumphed. Indeed, while the bourgeoisie, liquidating feudalism, substitutes one exploitation for another, the proletariat, breaking capitalism, suppresses all exploitation of man by man.

The suppression of class antagonisms prepares the blossoming of the universal communist morality, of which the class morality of the revolutionary proletariat constitutes the first form.

We see that the opposition of moral ideas in the course of history, and in a general way, the opposition of ideologies, reflects the opposition of the interests of the social classes in presence. It is in this way that we can understand how social and political ideologies evolve. If, for example, the bourgeoisie in France, in one hundred and sixty years, has gone from moral universalism ("All men are brothers") to fascist racism (hatred of the Jews, hunting of North African workers, etc.), this can be explained by the material evolution of this class. Revolutionary, it believed that it could speak for all men. Threatened in its turn in its reign, it justified its domination by a claim of right of blood. This is how the feudal lords used to do it!

How new ideas and social theories emerge

For idealism, ideas arise in the minds of men without knowing why, regardless of their conditions of existence. But then a question arises which idealism is incapable of answering: why has such an idea appeared in our days and not in antiquity?

Dialectical materialism, which never separates ideas from their objective basis, does not believe that new ideas arise by a magical operation. New ideas arise as a solution to an objective contradiction that has developed in society. Indeed, we know that the driving force behind any change is contradiction (see lesson 5). The development of contradictions in a given society poses the task of resolving them when these contradictions become more acute.  New ideas then emerge as an attempt to resolve these contradictions.

It is the objective development of the contradictions peculiar to feudal society-divorce between old and new productive forces-that gave rise to revolutionary ideas in the rising class: hundreds of plans for social and political reform arose, and a similar process took place in capitalist society: socialist ideas were born to resolve the contradictions from which millions of men, women and children suffered.

What distinguishes the great innovators is their ability to solve problems that, as a reflection of the objective contradictions of society, are more or less confused in the consciousness of their contemporaries:

Humanity only ever poses problems that it can solve, because, on closer inspection, it will always be found that the problem itself only arises where the material conditions for solving it already exist or at least are in the process of formation.

— Karl Marx, Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Incomprehensible for those who are not initiated into dialectical materialism, this famous phrase can be explained in this way. Who says "problem" says "contradiction" to be solved. But what is contradiction if not a struggle between the old and the new? If therefore a contradiction appears, it is because the new is already there, even if only partially. For example: feudal society could only be called into question today when, within it, the antagonistic forces that were later to destroy it (industry, the bourgeoisie) began to exercise themselves.  The solution of the problem was the victory of this newcomer who sought Savoy.

The issue of survivorship

The concept we have outlined in this lesson sheds light on an important feature of the history of ideas: the question of survivorship.

Survival occurs when an idea survives in the mind when the objective conditions that founded its existence have disappeared.

An essential thesis of philosophical materialism is that consciousness is posterior to material reality (nature and society). It is posterior to the consciousness of the objective situation. This is how the former shoemaker Stalin talks about leads an objectively proletarian life, but keeps, for a certain time, a petty bourgeois consciousness.

In the same way, in a society whose material base is changing, men only become aware of these changes with a certain delay.  When these appear, then they look for solutions in the arsenal of old ideas they have kept from the past. Survivors (ideas born in old objective conditions) are an obstacle to new ideas, which correspond to the new objective conditions.  Example: at the very beginning of capitalism, the proletarians exploited by the industrial bourgeoisie, were looking for a solution to their misery in an unutopic return to craftsmanship: they therefore destroyed the machines.

But the survivors must inevitably retreat, as the contradictions of objectives develop: then the return to the past appears more and more impossible, while new ideas are reinforced, the only ones adapted to the objective forces that are rising. The past is prolonged in consciousness until the day when the present becomes intolerable to the point that a new one must be found; then the future prevails.

Conclusion

The title of this lesson was justified. It is from the material life of societies that one must start to understand their spiritual life.

From this we will draw some lessons of great practical significance.

1. The only problems that can be solved in a given period of time are those posed by the real needs of society.  Marxists, therefore, base their action on a thorough study of the objective conditions in a given period; that is why this action is fruitful. They thus oppose Blum's idealism which, denying the material character of social facts, especially economic facts, transformed socialism into mysticism; all action was therefore doomed to failure.
2. In his relations with the workers, the revolutionary militant must never stop at what the workers think. Ideas are one thing, material conditions are another. Such a proletarian can have conservative ideas without knowing it, under the ideological pressure of the bourgeoisie. Is that surprising? No, since the ruling class, at the same time as it exploits the workers, does everything possible to persuade them that it is perfect this way (the official morality taught in school does not preach class struggle, but serene acceptance of what is). We must not condemn this proletarian: his misconceptions express the objective reality of a society where the bourgeoisie reigns. Much more!  Beyond the diversity of opinions that share the workers, the revolutionary, proceeding with the materialist analysis of the objective conditions, will highlight the community of interests, thus founding the unity of action: unity of action is possible because in the last resort it is not the ideas that determine the conditions of the class struggle, but the conditions of the class struggle that determine the ideas. That is why in 1936, Maurice Thorez, addressing the Catholic workers or Cross of Fire, said to them: You are workers like us, who are communists. "Let us unite in the common struggle for the good of our people and our country"
3. The transformation of ideas, as we have shown in this lesson, has a material basis. This is of great consequence for the revolutionary education of the workers: the penetration of revolutionary ideas can only take place in and through struggle, in connection with the concrete tasks of life, on the construction site, in the workshop, in the office. It is the social struggle (objective condition) that makes possible the decisive changes in the consciousness of the workers (subjective reflection). It is thus through the united struggle to resolve the objective contradictions of capitalist society that the non-encrusted revolutionary workers make their experience, with the help of the marxist-leninist vanguard, discovering solutions to their ills. In turn, they become revolutionaries.

See: Control questions

The role and importance of ideas in social life

An example

A very widespread prejudice consists in believing that Marxist materialism is indifferent to ideas, that it recognizes no importance or role in them.

This lesson will show that this is not the case, that on the contrary Marxists take ideas and theories quite seriously. The proof was given by Marx himself: if he had refused all power to ideas, would he have devoted his life to the development and dissemination of revolutionary theory? The proof is also given by his disciples, communist militants who, in the harshest hours of the struggle, are the first to set an example, and if necessary make the heroic sacrifice of their lives for the triumph of the great ideals of the world. socialism.

Let us refer to the example by which we introduced the previous lesson: the idea, spread by UNESCO, that wars are born "in the conscience of men" and that, consequently, to destroy war, it is sufficient to pacify the spirits. We have seen that this thesis does not stand up to materialist examination, war - and consequently the idea of ​​war - having its origin in the material reality of societies.

However, UNESCO's thesis, however false it may be, is nonetheless of great importance. In practice, it has a very precise role: under the guise of fighting war, this idealistic thesis distracts from the search for its true causes! Invoking "the conscience of men" in general (as a source of war) this hometown idealism conceals the very real responsibilities of the real culprits, the imperialists. This idealism speaks well, but it hurts the forces of peace while favoring the forces of war. The real "peacekeepers" are not those who hide from the spirits with a veil of idealism the objective causes of war, but those who, materialists, analyze these causes and denounce the imperialist aggressors.

So far, therefore, that Marxism neglects the power of ideas.

... we have said that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material life. But as regards the importance of these social ideas and theories, of these political opinions and institutions, of their role in history, historical materialism, far from denying them, emphasizes, on the contrary, their role and importance. considerable in social life, in the history of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism. P. 15.)

Materialist, Marxist philosophy finds the origin of social ideas in the material life of societies. Dialectical, it shows their objective importance and defines their proper role: this is the subject of our 13 th lesson.

The error of vulgar materialism

Those who reproach Marxism for neglecting ideas, knowingly or not, put it on trial which does not concern it. They impute to him an error which is that of vulgar materialism. To deny the importance of ideas is an anti-scientific position, which dialectical materialism has always fought.

“We think differently in a palace and in a cottage”. This Feuerbach formula is simplistic and equivocal. Indeed, it forgets that, among the conditions which determine the conceptions of an individual, are precisely the existing ideologies. So that the inhabitant of a thatched cottage may very well have pretensions of a prince! The worker can have petty bourgeois pretensions! The Georgian shoemaker, of whom Stalin speaks, would not have come to socialist ideas if these had not already had an existence and a role in society.

In La Musette by Jean Brécot, Gaston Monmousseau illustrates with a living example - read “A Noble Cow”, p. 84, - the truth that such and such individuals can preserve for a long time an ideology in contradiction with the material conditions of their existence.

The mechanistic conceptions of anti-dialectic materialism - we call it “vulgar” materialism as opposed to scientific materialism - are very dangerous. Why ? Because they play the game of idealism. By denying the role of ideas, vulgar materialism gives idealistic philosophers the possibility of occupying the ground thus left free. We then have on the one hand a simplified materialism, which impoverishes reality - and on the other, to "compensate" for these inadequacies, the "supplement of soul" generously provided by idealism. Idealism corrects the mechanism. The error corrects the error.

What then is the position of dialectical materialism?

While, for mechanistic materialism, social consciousness is only a passive reflection (we also say: an "epiphenomenon") of material existence, for dialectical materialism social consciousness is indeed a reflection, but it is an active reflection.

We know indeed that reality is movement (2nd law of dialectics, see the 3rd lesson), that every aspect of reality is movement. Now ideas and theories, although posterior to matter, are nonetheless aspects of total reality. Why then deny them the fundamental property of all that is? Why refuse them movement, activity? The dialectic is universal; it is therefore manifested as well in ideas as in things, in social consciousness as in production.

The thesis which denies all power to ideas is anti-dialectic in a second sense: we know (1st law of dialectic, see the 2nd lesson) that reality is interdependence; the various aspects of reality are connected, act on each other. Hence this consequence: derived from material life, the spiritual life of society is nonetheless inseparable from this material life; it therefore acts in return on the material life of societies.

Thus the application of the laws of dialectics not only gives all their importance to social ideas and theories, but makes it possible to understand how their action is exercised.

This reciprocal relationship, this interaction of society and ideas, Engels expresses it thus:

The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure - the political forms of the class struggle and its results, - the Constitutions established after the battle has been won by the victorious class, etc., - the legal forms, and even the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political, legal, philosophical theories, religious conceptions, and their subsequent development into dogmatic systems, also exert their action on the course of historical struggles and in many cases determine it, predominantly, the form. There is action and reaction of all these factors ... (Engels: “Letter to Joseph Bloch” (September 21, 1890) ”, in Marx-Engels: Etudes philosophiques, p. 128. (We devote the 19th lesson to reports between base and superstructure.) (Except form, all other underlined expressions are by us. (GB-MC))

Engels critic

... this stupid idea of ​​the ideologues [according to which], as we deny the various ideologies which play a role in history, independent historical development, we also deny them any historical effectiveness. It is to start, observes Engels, from a banal, non-dialectical conception of cause and effect as poles rigidly opposed to one another ... (Engels: Letter to Franz Mehring, ( July 14, 1893) ”, idem, p. 140.)

And even

[The fact that] ... an ideological point of view reacts in its turn to the economic base and can modify it, within certain limits, seems to me to be obvious.

... when Barth claims that we would have denied any reaction of the political reflections, etc., of the economic movement on this very movement, he is only fighting against windmills.

... What all these gentlemen lack is dialectics. They always see here only the cause, there only the effect ... That the whole great course of things takes place in the form of action and reaction of forces, no doubt, very unequal, - whose economic movement is by far the most powerful, the most initial, the most decisive force ... that, ... they do not see it. (Engels: “Letter to Conrad Schmidt”, idem, p. 133, 135. (Except ideological point of view, expressions underlined by us. GB-MC))

Starting, with good reason, from the fact that economic laws are the basis of historical development, some popularizers of materialism draw the wrong conclusion: they believe that it is enough to let these laws act by themselves by crossing their arms. They thus doom man to impotence. However, experience shows that the better men know the objective laws of society, the more effective is their struggle against backward social forces which hinder the application of these laws because they injure their class interests.

How then to deny the role of consciousness which knows these laws? How to deny its power when it has such effects? Depending on whether the laws of social development are known or ignored by men, they make them their auxiliaries or are their victims. Scientific knowledge of the causes of imperialist war thus makes it possible to fight effectively against it. When Marxists say, with Stalin, that wars are "inevitable" between capitalist countries, vulgar materialism concludes that they are fatal; in which it joins the idealism of the theologian, for whom war is divine punishment. To say that capitalism makes wars inevitable [See Stalin: “The economic problems of socialism in the USSR”. Latest writings, p. 122.], c 'is to say that by its nature capitalism engenders imperialist war. But, if capitalism is the necessary cause of wars, its existence is not enough to start war; Why ? Because the people still have to agree to wage this war. The capitalists need soldiers. Hence their policy of war, their ideology of war which tends to persuade the peoples that it is necessary to wage war: thereby they work to ensure that the law of capitalism - the law which impels it to war - is carried out. freely, in their interest. But the peoples, by fighting step by step, and without delay, the war policy and the ideology of war, prevent the capitalists from realizing the conditions favorable to war. We see the importance of ideas. The idea, in particular,that peaceful coexistence is possible between different social regimes is becoming a decisive obstacle to the anti-Soviet crusade. Why ? Because the masses are taking hold of this idea more and more strongly. But capitalism which needs war (it is in the sense that it is necessary for it) will not be able to satisfy this need if the masses say: "no"! (it is in this sense that war is not fatal).is in the sense that war is not fatal).is in the sense that war is not fatal).

The dialectical materialist thesis

It is the material origin of the ideas which founds their power

At the same time as it affirms the objective character of the laws of society - in the first place economic laws -, dialectical materialism therefore affirms the objective role of ideas (which allows men to accelerate or delay, to favor or obstruct the exercise of the laws of society). Some, prisoners of vulgar materialism, will say: “Inconsistency! Or it's one or the other! Either you admit the power of the "objective factor" or you admit the power of the "subjective factor". It's necessary to choose ". Metaphysical position.

Dialectical materialism does not make matter and thought two isolated, unrelated principles. These are two aspects just as real as the other

... of one and the same nature or of one and the same company; we cannot represent them one without the other, they coexist, develop together, and therefore we have no reason to believe that they are mutually exclusive.

And Stalin said again:

Nature, one and indivisible, expressed in two different forms, material and ideal; social life, one and indivisible, expressed in two different forms, material and ideal: this is how we must consider the development of nature and of social life. (Stalin: “Anarchism or socialism?”, Works, t. I, p. 261-262.)

It being understood that the material aspect is prior to the spiritual aspect.

Therefore dialectical materialism not only admits the power of ideas over the world, but it makes this power intelligible. On the contrary, by separating ideas from the whole of reality, idealism turns them into mysterious beings: one wonders how they can act on a world (nature, society) with which they have nothing in common. The superb isolation of ideas paralyzes them.

The merit of dialectical materialism is that, having rediscovered the material origin of social ideas, it is thereby able to understand their effectiveness on this world from which they emerge. We see it: not only does the material origin of ideas and theories harm neither their importance nor their role, but it gives them all their effectiveness.

It is not dialectical materialism that despises ideas. Rather, it is idealism, which transforms them into empty words, which turns them into powerless phantoms. Dialectical materialism recognizes in them a concrete force, just as material in its consequences as the forces of nature.

This force - although it becomes unintelligible as soon as one wants to consider it apart, unrelated to the rest - can, however, and to a certain point, develop by its own movement. Example: religion was born on the basis of the material, historical conditions of society. May ”this set of ideas which is religion is not passive. It has a life of its own, which develops in the brains of men. And all the more so since they, ignoring the objective causes of religion, believe that it is God who makes everything work. Ideas can therefore be transmitted to generations, and be maintained, while the objective conditions which had given rise to them have changed. But in the long run the whole of the real acts on this aspect of the real which is religious ideology. Theidea has relatively independent development; but when the contradiction is too acute between the idea and the objective world, it is resolved in favor of the objective world, in favor of the ideas which reflect this objective world. It is thus the true theories which, ultimately, clear the way and impose themselves on the masses against mystifications and lies.

Old and new ideas

Studying the origin of ideas, we have seen (lesson 12, point III, c) that the contradiction in ideas and theories reflects an objective contradiction in society.

Consider, for example, the economic crises engendered by capitalism. Their objective cause is the contradiction between the private character of the ownership of the means of production and the social character of the production process. [We will study this question more specifically in Part IV, Lesson 18 (point II b).] How to resolve this contradiction?

The revolutionary proletariat responds: with the socialization of the means of production, with socialism; then there will be no more crisis, the productive forces will resume their development, for the happiness of all. The bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production, from which it derives maximum profit, answers: Let us limit the productive forces since they put our regime in danger; thus we will safeguard the capitalist relations of production which guarantee our privileges. And the same class that once sang the praises of science, curses it today, considering that it's science to blame if there is - as it says - "overproduction". On the contrary, the proletariat praises science. He considers that crises are not attributable to scientific progress, but to the social system, to capitalism;in a socialist regime, science will bring prosperity.

We see that there is a struggle of ideas on the basis of an objective contradiction, that of capitalism in crisis.

On the one hand, the idea widely spread by ideologues and bourgeois journalists: science is bad; we must keep an eye on it, its progress is a calamity, it is time to subordinate it to religion. And it is not for nothing that in magazines and digests, magic, witchcraft, the "occult sciences" take the good part, in the company of anti-communism and pin-ups. It is not for nothing either that, in an official document [Circular of September 29, 1952 published by the National Education, October 2, 1952.], the Minister of National Education advocated the return to empiricism, that is to say, to the investigative processes that science has long passed. This rowdy or sly propaganda against science, with a return to medieval mystics,does she come by chance? Is it coincidence that the bourgeoisie of today recounts in a hundred ways that there are no objective laws, and that consequently one should not "seek to understand"? Is it coincidence that the project of "reform" of education due to Minister André Marie, taking the example of Franco, tends to degrade general culture? All this (which must be compared with the themes developed under the fascist Vichy regime) is in fact the ideological expression of the interests of a class condemned by the development of societies and which would like history to reverse.and that consequently one should not "seek to understand"? Is it coincidence that the project of "reform" of education due to Minister André Marie, taking the example of Franco, tends to degrade general culture? All this (which must be compared with the themes developed under the fascist Vichy regime) is in fact the ideological expression of the interests of a class condemned by the development of societies and which would like history to reverse.and that consequently one should not "seek to understand"? Is it coincidence that the project of "reform" of education due to Minister André Marie, taking the example of Franco, tends to degrade general culture? All this (which must be compared with the themes developed under the fascist Vichy regime) is in fact the ideological expression of the interests of a class condemned by the development of societies and which would like history to reverse.a class condemned by the development of societies and which would like history to reverse.a class condemned by the development of societies and which would like history to reverse.

There are old ideas and theories, which have had their day and which serve the interests of the withering forces of society. Their importance is that they slow down the development of society, its progress. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 16.)

It is obvious that hatred or contempt for the sciences currently benefits the bourgeoisie, since their peaceful development would jeopardize its regime. [This does not prevent the bourgeoisie from using science and technology for its war industries, to the detriment of works of peace. But at the same time it reinforces the idea that science can give nothing good.]

But in contrast, the idea that we must encourage the progress of science is spread by the proletariat, the revolutionary class. It is an idea which, in fact, is in full agreement with the development of the productive forces; now only the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat can ensure this development.

There are new, avant-garde ideas and theories which serve the interests of the avant-garde forces of society. Their importance is that they facilitate the development of society, its progress; and, what is more, they acquire all the more importance the more faithfully they reflect the needs for the development of the material life of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 16.)

This is why, when the working class seizes power, it creates the material conditions most conducive to the development of science. It promotes in all ways the idea that science is necessary for the happiness of men. Thus, in the USSR, the development of Michurinian biology became the concern of collective farm farmers, who take part in the formation of new species. The march towards communism is thereby accelerated. (See the film Un Eté prodigieux.)

Ideas are therefore forces. Old ideas are forces of reaction, and that is why reactionary classes cultivate them. Avant-garde ideas are forces which contribute to the progress of societies, and that is why the rising classes favor them to the maximum.

We must not conclude, by an excessive simplification, that the present classes spontaneously create, as classes, the ideologies appropriate to their needs. Ideas are products of the knowledge process; in a society where the division of labor reigns (this is the case of societies divided into classes), ideas are developed as theories by individuals more particularly reserved for this task: priests, philosophers, scientists, technicians, educators, artists, writers, etc. But they are used by the class as a whole.

On the other hand, when we speak of new ideas, it should not be understood in a schematic way. It happens in fact that an idea abandoned by one class is later taken up in other forms by another class. Thus the idea that science is beneficial was cultivated by the revolutionary bourgeoisie (Diderot, Condorcet). It is taken up and renewed by the revolutionary proletariat, which, however, can draw all the practical consequences (in the construction of socialism), while the bourgeoisie could not follow this idea to the end. Classes can then use ideas that have already been used. There is nothing surprising about this: men having learned by experience the power of ideas, one class does not neglect, among all the pre-existing ideas,those which (in whole or in part) favor his reign or his ascension. Conversely, a class can expel from its ideology such idea which no longer suits it: the fascist bourgeoisie, today, tramples underfoot "the flag of bourgeois democratic freedoms" which once won it, against feudalism, the alliance of the oppressed masses. .

In addition, it strives to pass off as "new" ideas that serve it and which are only old ideas dressed in new: for example, Hitler wanted to pass as the last word of science the old obscurantist theory and medieval race and "blood". And there were "scholars" to believe it. Mussolini declared that proletarian socialism was an "old myth" and fascism a "new myth"! "New" is not measured by the date, but by the ability to solve problems that arise at any given time. Marx's Capital is newer than anything more recent to be taught in bourgeois faculties as political economy.

Another remark: from the fact that ideas are always at the service of such and such a historically determined class or society, we should not conclude that all ideas are equal. The idea that science is evil is a false idea, that is to say contrary to reality, since the progress of human societies is impossible without the sciences. The idea that science is beneficial is a correct idea, in accordance with the reality of the facts. The proletariat, the rising class, needs the truth just as the bourgeoisie, a bankrupt class, needs the lie. [That the reactionary classes want, through repression, to kill ideas, that's what history teaches. “We hunted down the innocent Like animals We looked for the eyes That saw clearly in the darkness. To burst them. "(Paul Eluard.)] But misconceptions are an active force, no less than true ideas. They must be combated with the help of correct, avant-garde ideas which, reflecting more faithfully the needs of social development, are assured of the final victory and acquire every day more importance to the point of becoming indispensable; which explains why their influence is spreading.

New ideas have an organizing, mobilizing and transforming action

New ideas and social theories do not arise until the development of the material life of society has posed new tasks for society. But once they arise, they become a force of the highest importance which facilitates the accomplishment of the new tasks posed by the development of the material life of society; they facilitate the progress of society. It is then that the importance of the organizing, mobilizing and transforming role of new ideas and theories, of new political opinions and institutions, appears precisely. To tell the truth, if new ideas and social theories arise, it is precisely because they are necessary for society, because without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action,the solution of the pressing problems involved in the development of the material life of society is impossible. Aroused by the new tasks posed by the development of the material life of society, new ideas and theories make their way, become the heritage of the popular masses that they mobilize and organize against the wasting forces of society, thereby facilitating the reversal of those forces which slow down the development of the material life of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 16.)become the patrimony of the popular masses which they mobilize and organize against the wasting forces of society, thereby facilitating the reversal of these forces which slow down the development of the material life of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 16.)become the patrimony of the popular masses which they mobilize and organize against the wasting forces of society, thereby facilitating the reversal of these forces which slow down the development of the material life of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 16.)

This text is of the utmost importance, because it sheds light on the forms in which new ideas act:

- they mobilize, that is to say they arouse energies, arouse enthusiasm, put the masses in. Movement [Idealist affirmation? No, because an idea can only set the masses in motion if it reflects material conditions, only if it proceeds from a study of the objective situation.];

- they organize, that is to say they give this movement unity and lasting cohesion (example: the idea of ​​the united struggle for peace gave birth to peace committees, which organize the movement for peace);

- they transform, that is to say that they not only act on the conscience, raise them, but they allow the effective solution of the problems posed to the company.

"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it penetrates the masses" [Marx: Critique of the Philosophy of Law of Hegel.], History illustrates abundantly this triple role of new ideas.

In 1789, the avant-garde idea: the nation is sovereign, it must give itself a Constitution which will make all French people equal before the law and will suppress privileges - this idea mobilized the broadest masses because it responded to the historical problem of the time. It aroused, against the old feudal order, the organized and transforming impetus of the people.

In October 1917, the idea of ​​the avant-garde, - to end the war, to conquer the land, to ensure the liberation of oppressed nationalities, etc., it was necessary to liquidate the bourgeois government of Kerensky and give all power to the Soviets - this idea allowed the organization and mobilization of the masses, and thereby the transformation of society.

One could multiply such examples. But isn't there one which, for French workers, is the most current, the most convincing?

Analyzing the situation at the Central Committee of the French Communist Party (June 1953), Maurice Thorez observed:

"The decisive fact of the hour is the progress of the idea of ​​unity among the popular masses." Unity for what? To "make triumph in our country a policy of peace and national independence, a policy of freedom and social progress". How did the workers, more and more numerous, come to this idea? Because “all the contradictions of the policy resulting from the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic Pact” burst, a ruinous policy of war and enslavement, a policy of fascization and social reaction. The workers understand that to change this “there is no other way than union and action through union”. The idea of ​​unity is therefore taking hold of the masses more and more strongly. She mobilizes and organizes them, whetheract strike committees, peace committees, or committees for the defense of freedoms. Thus are being prepared - by the increasingly conscious action of the masses more and more widely mobilized, better and better organized - the material transformations which the situation has made inevitable.

Thus, aroused by the tasks posed by history, new ideas take on their full weight when the masses, who make history, take hold of them. They then act with as much power as material forces. It is so true that the enemies of progress are obliged to cunning with these 1 ideas which have become formidable in the hands of good people. This is the case with the bourgeoisie and its servants, the socialist leaders: these, observes Maurice Thorez in the text cited above, are so frightened by the magnitude of the unitary current that they "try to seize the slogan of unity to fight against unity ”. "Homage of vice to virtue"! But no more than police violence, demagogic ruses cannot resist the omnipotence of the masses who,become aware, know where they are going, what they want and what is needed. [One will find in volume II, p. 178, from the Selected Works of Lenin, an example which shows with great force the organizing and transforming role of new ideas when they take hold of the masses. Lenin commented (in October 1917) on the decree which abolished large landholdings and gave the land to the working peasants. The decree refers to a mandate drawn up in the countryside by the Social Revolutionaries (who still had a great influence in the peasantry), a mandate which is not similar in all respects to that of the Bolsheviks. On behalf of the revolutionary government led by the Bolsheviks, Lenin declared: “Voices are being heard here,saying that the decree itself and the mandate were drawn up by the Social Revolutionaries. Is. It doesn't matter who wrote them. But as a democratic government, we cannot override the decision of the deep popular masses, even if we disagree with them. In the fire of life, by practically applying it, by implementing it on the spot, the peasants themselves will understand where the truth is. And if even the peasants continue to follow the Socialist-Revolutionaries, if they even give this party the majority in the Constituent Assembly, we will still say: So be it. Life is the best teacher; it will show who is right. Let the peasants work to solve the problem from one end to the other; we will do the same on the other end. Life will force us to come closer in the common torrent ofrevolutionary initiative, in the elaboration of new forms of State. We have to follow life; we must leave full freedom to the creative genius of the popular masses. The old government (Kerensky), overthrown by the armed insurrection, intended to resolve the agrarian question with old Tsarist officials who were not dismissed. But instead of settling the question, the bureaucracy was only fighting the peasants. The peasants have learned many things in these eight months of our Revolution; they intend to resolve all questions concerning the land themselves. That is why we are voting against any amendment to this bill. We don't want to go into details, because we are writing a decree, not a program of action. Russia is great,local conditions are diverse. We have no doubt that the peasantry itself will know better than we do; resolve the issue correctly, as it should. Will it do so in the spirit of our program or that of the Socialist Revolutionaries? This is not the point. The essential thing is that the peasantry acquire the firm certainty that there are no longer any landowners in the countryside, that it is up to the peasants themselves to decide all the questions, to organize their lives. "]is that the peasantry acquires the firm certainty that there are no longer any landowners in the countryside, that it is up to the peasants themselves to decide all the questions, to organize their lives. "]is that the peasantry acquires the firm certainty that there are no longer any landowners in the countryside, that it is up to the peasants themselves to decide all the questions, to organize their lives. "]

Conclusion

The importance and role of social ideas and theories are considerable.

We will draw some conclusions from this:

1. Ideas are active forces. So the revolutionary who neglects to fight the mistaken views prevalent among the workers is damaging the whole movement. He is on the wrong ground of vulgar materialism; it is not on the solid ground of dialectical materialism, the theoretical basis of scientific socialism. Example: letting the bourgeois press (including Franc-Tireur) operate among the workers is to leave the latter prey to the old ideas of capitulation, which are so many obstacles to social progress. In the 1900s, it was a newspaper, Iskra, which, written by Lenin, threw the grain of new ideas into the consciousness of workers: this grain has germinated. Ideas of Iskra, taken in hand by revolutionaries,in 1903 came out the Party which was later to lead the socialist revolution. The struggle of ideas is a necessary aspect of the class struggle. Not to fight against ideas useful to bourgeois domination is to tie the hands of the proletariat.

2. Social existence determines social consciousness. But this acts in return on society. However, not only is this feedback action necessary for material changes to take place, but at some point it is the idea that plays the decisive role. The correctness of the slogans is then the determining element.

Example: At the moment, the interests of workers, peasants, officials, etc., etc. are harmed by the same enemy, the reactionary big bourgeoisie. So unity of action is materially possible. It is still necessary that those concerned understand it! Therefore, the decisive element is the idea that unity is possible. It is because this is the decisive element that, on the one hand, the socialist leaders, who divide the movement, repeat to the socialist workers: do not go with the Communists! - and that on the other hand the communist militants, champions of unity, increase their efforts to train the socialist workers in common action. The success of joint action gives birth to them the idea that unity is possible and beneficial;this idea facilitates new common actions, and so on, until common victory.

Another example. The strengthening of the material forces of peace (Soviet Union, people's democracies, World Peace Movement) and the weakening of the material forces of war (imperialism) create objective conditions more and more favorable to the triumph of international negotiation. But it is precisely then that the will for peace of millions and millions of ordinary people becomes the determining factor. For, if this will is fully exercised, it must necessarily succeed, since the objective conditions for its success are met.

This example shows very clearly that the idea is all the more powerful the better it reflects the objective situation of the moment, the more rigorously it is appropriate to the objective possibilities of the moment. The subjective element is all the more decisive the better it reflects the objective element. It just goes to show that dialectical materialism not only does not suppress consciousness, but gives it all its value. Unlike the simplistic materialist who, conceiving the “ideological reflection” as an inert and uninteresting product, will say: “The objective conditions are good. Perfect ! Let us go, everything will be fine! », The true materialist never lets himself be carried away.

This decisive force of the idea at the moment when the best objective conditions are met, Stalin expressed it in a well-known sentence:

Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples take up the cause of peacekeeping and if they defend it to the end. War can become inevitable if the warmongers succeed in enveloping the popular masses in lies, deceiving them and dragging them into a new world war. (Stalin: "Statements on the problems of peace [to an editor of Pravda] (February 17, 1951)", Latest writings, p. 67. (Expression underlined by us. GB-MC))

3. The active role of social ideas and theories obliges us to have a theory rigorously suited to the material needs of society, to the needs of the working masses who make history and who alone have the strength capable of breaking down the resistance of society. the exploiting bourgeoisie. To despise theory, as the opportunists do - from the Russian Mensheviks to Leon Blum and Jules Moch - is to deprive the working class of the compass which guides the revolutionary movement.

Without revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement. (Lenin: What to do? P. 26, quoted in History of the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of the USSR, p. 45.)

One of the merits of scientific socialism, which we will discuss in the next lesson, is that, relying on dialectical materialism, it correctly appreciates the importance and role of ideas. he

therefore places theory in the high rank that it deserves, and considers it its duty to make full use of its mobilizing, organizing and transforming force. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 17.)

See: Control questions

The formation, importance and role of scientific socialism

While idealism is incapable of understanding the origin and role of social ideas and theories, dialectical materialism can. But he does not himself escape the laws which govern the appearance of ideas and their action. This is why, while idealism does not understand itself (for it could only do so by ceasing to be idealist, by becoming materialist), Marxist theory is able to objectively study its own history. , to objectively appreciate its importance.

This fourteenth lesson is devoted to the more properly social and political aspect of Marxist theory: scientific socialism. We will study its formation and its role.

The three sources of marxism

Considered as a whole (dialectical materialism, historical materialism, scientific socialism), Marxism is not a spontaneous product of the human mind. On the one hand it was born on the basis of the objective contradictions of capitalist society; he resolves them in innovative ways. On the other hand, and inseparably, it proceeds from a movement of ideas which had been formed under older objective conditions, a movement which sought there an answer to the problems posed by the development of societies.

The history of philosophy and the history of social science show quite clearly that Marxism has nothing resembling "sectarianism" in the sense of a doctrine folded in on itself and ossified, arisen in deviation from the main road of the development of universal civilization. On the contrary, Marx is brilliant in that he answered questions that advanced humanity had already raised. His doctrine was born as the direct and immediate continuation of the doctrines of the most eminent representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism. (Lenin: "The three sources and the three constituent parts of Marxism", in Karl Marx and his doctrine, p. 37. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1953.)

This text indicates three theoretical sources of Marxism considered as a whole; we must quickly characterize their importance.

I. German philosophy

German philosophy at the start of the 19th century is a source of Marxism; we have already had the opportunity to deal with it (see Introduction and first lesson).

We know that Hegel, admirer of the Revolution of 1789, wanted to accomplish on the level of ideas a revolution analogous to that which the French Revolution had accomplished in practice. Hence the dialectic: just as the revolution put an end to the feudal regime that was believed to be eternal, so the dialectic discourages the truths that believed themselves to be eternal: it sees in history a process which has as its motor the struggle of the contrary ideas. In this way the aspirations of the German bourgeoisie were expressed ideologically at the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of the 19th century. Germany, fragmented, was still under feudal rule and the young German bourgeoisie dreamed of doing for itself what the French bourgeoisie had masterfully accomplished on the other side of the Rhine. But, too weak, she doeswas unable to fulfill this historic task; and this explains Hegel's radical insufficiency: his idealism. Idealism is always a reflection of objective helplessness. Theoretical expression of a bourgeoisie which would like to throw down feudalism, but is not capable of doing so, Hegel's philosophy was, to use Engels' expression, a "colossal abortion". [On the historical significance of Hegelianism, see Engels: Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Part 1.] Dialectical development thus remains purely ideal. Much more ! Allying with the Prussian feudal state [Its leader Frederick William II had indeed promised a “representative monarchy”, which could not change the feudal character of the state.],he comes to regard this State as the necessary historical expression of the Idea. The dialectic is thus silted up in the idealization of what is ... Its movement is blocked by the impotence of a class which can only make the revolution ... only in spirit.

However, the bourgeois philosophers of the generation which immediately followed Hegel (died in 1831) had to be led, by their struggle against clerical feudalism, to find in the atheistic materialism of the 18th century in France theoretical weapons against the class enemy. This stage is embodied in Ludwig Feuerbach. His book L'Essence du Christianisme (1841) replaced "materialism on its throne". He exerted a strong influence on Marx (born in 1818) and Engels (born in 1820), both from the German liberal bourgeoisie. But Feuerbach's materialism remained mechanistic (see lesson 9). Feuerbach rightly sees man as a product of nature. But he does not see that man is also a producer, who transforms nature, and that this is the origin of society. Devoid ofFeuerbach replaces a scientific conception of history with a vague religion of love, that is, by a return to idealism. Powerlessness which reflected that of the German bourgeoisie: in 1848, it could not successfully lead its revolution against the feudal lords.

We know that, through the elaboration of dialectical materialism, Marx brought to light an entirely scientific philosophy which went beyond both the idealist dialectic of Hegel and the mechanistic materialism of Feuerbach. [See the first lesson. We have shown from this first lesson how Marx was able to give a materialist content to the dialectic because he relied on the decisive progress of the natural sciences. We will not come back to it.] The first exposition of dialectical materialism is given by the Theses on Feuerbach, which Marx wrote in the spring of 1845. The eleventh thesis expresses the passage from classical German philosophy to Marxism:

Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, but it is about transforming it. (Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 53; Etudes ..., p. 64.)

II. English political economy

At the beginning of the 19th century, England was the most advanced country, economically. At the end of the 18th century, the English bourgeoisie had been the first to pass from manufacture to manufacture, that is to say to the use of machines; thus was born great industrial production, the technical basis of capitalist society. Objectively favorable condition for the development of political economy,

science of the laws that govern the production and exchange of material means of subsistence in human society. (Engels: Anti-Dühring, p. 179.)

The great English economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo initiated the theory of labor value. But they did not know how to grasp, beyond the exchange of commodities, the objective relations between men. They could not therefore show that the value of any commodity is determined by the labor time socially necessary for its production. Marx's merit was precisely to identify the true nature of exchange value, as the crystallization of social work. In doing so, Marx overstepped the bounds of English political economy, which had been unable to carry the analysis of capitalism to its limits because powerful class interests opposed it. Economists believed capitalism to be eternal. Marx made a decisive leap to thepolitical economy through the discovery of surplus value.

The appropriation of unpaid labor has been proven to be the fundamental form of capitalist production and of the exploitation of workers which is inseparable from it; that the capitalist, even though he pays the labor-power of the worker at the real value which, as a commodity, it has on the market, nevertheless extracts from it more value than he has given for acquire it; and that this surplus value constitutes, in the final analysis, the sum of the values ​​from which comes the ever-increasing mass of capital, accumulated in the hands of the possessing classes. The way of proceeding of capitalist production as well as the production of capital were explained. (Engels: Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism, p. 57.)

Capital (the first volume of which dates from 1867 and on which Marx worked until his death, 1883) was to constitute the masterpiece of Marxist political economy.

III. French socialism

It is in the materialism of the French philosophers of the 18th century that we must look for the germ of modern socialism, of which scientific socialism is the flourishing. The Helvetiuses, the d'Holbachs, etc., were by no means socialists. But by its main theses - natural goodness of man; omnipotence of experience, habit, education; determining influence of the physical and social environment on character and manners; etc. - their materialism

... is necessarily linked to communism and socialism ... If man is shaped by circumstances, circumstances must be shaped humanly. (Marx: “Contribution to the history of French materialism” in Marx-Engels: Etudes philosophiques, p. 116.)

Gracchus Babeuf, who gave his life for communism (he was guillotined in 1797 by the Thermidorian bourgeoisie), was the disciple of the philosophers of the 18th century. [See Babeuf: Selected texts, presented by G. and C. Willard. (Classics of the people). Editions Sociales, Paris, 1950.] As for Marx's predecessors, the three great Utopians, the French Saint-Simon and Fourier, the Englishman Owen, they had deeply assimilated the materialism of the 18th century.

This is how Engels' assessment of modern socialism is justified:

Like any new theory, it had to relate to the ideas of its immediate predecessors, although in reality it had its roots in the field of economic facts. (Engels: Utopian socialism and scientific socialism, p. 39. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1948.)

But the socialism prior to Marx was not yet scientific. It was utopian socialism. French socialism constitutes the largest part of it; but it also encompasses certain German thinkers and the great English theorist Owen.

Utopian socialism

It was formed under the conditions created by capitalist society. The bourgeoisie had fought against the feudal regime in the name of liberty, of fraternity. However, his reign in France and England turned society into a jungle. The development of industry within the framework of capitalism having as a condition the exploitation of the workers, one saw the constitution of new feudalities, the feudalities of money, ensuring to the bourgeoisie possessing opulence and power, while in the Another pole of society, the misery of the working masses assumed appalling proportions.

The starting point of utopian socialism was the generous denunciation of this situation, which bourgeois economists presented as "natural" since it ensured the development of industry. Utopians are ruthless criticism of a regime where, as Fourier put it, "poverty is born of superabundance itself."

Saint-Simon (1760-1825) noted that within capitalism, production developed in an anarchic manner, in an implacable struggle between industrialists, which generated the greatest suffering for the masses. Convinced that the development of industry will bring happiness to humanity, he describes the benefits of a rational organization of production in the hands of men associated to jointly exploit nature. Thus will be suppressed the exploitation of man by man; we will pass "from the government of men to the administration of things." [See Saint-Simon: Selected texts, presented by J. Dautry. (Classics of the people). Social Editions, Paris, 1951.]

Charles Fourier (1772-1837) studies the crises of capitalism and condemns the disastrous effects of competition. He denounces in particular the misdeeds of speculation and trade. A supporter of the equality of men and women, he developed an acute critique of the exploitation of women by the bourgeoisie. He identifies the state as the defender of the interests of the ruling class and shows how the bourgeoisie, converted to the Christian religion that it had once fought against, spreads the “moral” ideas of resignation which are favorable to it. He advocates the Association as a remedy for these ills. The owners, associating their goods, their work, their talents, will organize themselves in small communities of production (the phalansteries), which will ensure to theindefinitely perfectible humanity the possibility of a harmonious development. Wage earning will be excluded; education will be polytechnic; emulation in attractive work will work for the common good; major projects will be opened, highlighting the planet. [See Fourier: Selected texts, presented by F. Armand. (Classics of the people). Social Editions, Paris, 1953.]

Deeply convinced, as a disciple of the materialists of the 18th century, that the character of men (vices or virtues) is the product of circumstances, the young manufacturer Robert Owen (1771-1858) considers that the industrial revolution accomplished in England created the favorable conditions to everyone's happiness. First a philanthropic patron, he made the New-Lanark spinning mill

a model colony where drunkenness, police, prison, trials, public assistance, and the need for private charity were unknown. (Engels: Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism, p. 47.)

Then it came to communism: the productive forces developed by big industry must be collective property, and all members of the community must also be beneficiaries. He thought he could prepare the communist organization of society through production and consumption cooperatives (islands in the capitalist ocean, they were on the verge of disappearance).

The great Utopians had high merits, which Marx and Engels like to point out. They saw, described, denounced the flaws of burgeoning capitalism and predicted its end in a time when it could believe itself to be eternal. They wanted to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Champions of a progressive education, they trusted humanity, convinced that its happiness is possible on this earth. They thus occupy a place of primary importance in the history of socialism.

However, they have not been able to transform society. Why ?

The great utopians are located in the first period of capitalism: its contradictions begin to develop, generating anarchy in production and the misery of the masses. But capitalism is still too young for the force objectively capable of fighting capitalism, of defeating it and of founding socialist society, to be able to manifest itself within the regime. This force is the proletariat, which the development of the capitalist bourgeoisie necessarily generates since its power rests entirely on the exploitation of the proletariat.

However, at the beginning of the 19th century, the proletariat was still few in number, weak, crumbled by competition. Its class struggle against the bourgeoisie exists, but in a rudimentary state: unorganized, it cannot at this stage have any other goal than immediate demands, in particular the reduction of the working day. He is in too much pain to have any prospects for the future. On the political level, the proletariat is still under the tutelage of the bourgeoisie (which, in France in particular, uses it in its struggle against the vestiges of feudalism: thus in 1830 the proletarians helped the bourgeoisie to drive out the Bourbons to put in their place a bourgeois king, Louis-Philippe).

The great utopians, from the bourgeoisie, observe with pain the suffering of the exploited proletariat. But this even prevents them from seeing the enormous strength it conceals and which makes it the class of the future, at a time when the bourgeoisie believes itself to be eternal. [Let us note in passing an excellent example for the study of contradiction. We know (lesson 7) that every contradiction has a main aspect and a secondary aspect. From the outset, the situation of the proletariat presented an internal contradiction: on the one hand extreme poverty under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, on the other the force which one day was to break this yoke. The first aspect of the contradiction being, in their time, the main aspect, the utopians did not see the other aspect. But'secondary aspect of the contradiction (the revolutionary force of the proletariat) would in turn become the main aspect. This is what Marx understood.]

Consequence: not finding in the society of their time the objective means to suppress it, they have no other resource than to develop an ideal plan. They draw from their brains the completed description of a perfect society, which they contrast with sad reality. But ignoring the law of the development of capitalist society, they cannot discover the objective link between the society they criticize and the one they dream of. Hence the qualification of their socialism: "utopian". So they behave like idealists, disciples of 18th century philosophers who believed that "Reason" has the power to create a just society. They invoke Justice, Morality.

And what means do they propose to achieve the new society? Not suspecting the creative force of the class struggle - they fear, moreover, the political action of the masses, which they identify with anarchy - they have only one resource: preaching. They therefore try through their writings or through witness communities, to convince men of the excellence of their system.

Saint-Simon affirms that the workers' party [He means by that, not a revolutionary formation, but an economic and social association grouping both capitalists and workers.] "Will be created forty-eight hours after the publication of its manifesto" , or that we must not "reject religion, because socialism is one of them."

They are working to convert the bourgeoisie to their ideas, in the hope that, possessing power, it will want to realize them. Utopia, since the class interests of the bourgeoisie are in absolute contradiction with socialism.

That is why Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen could not succeed. What radically differentiates Marx from the great Utopians is that instead of imagining a plan for an ideal society, he founded socialism on scientific bases. The great Utopians, although their criticism of capitalism was in general acute, did not yet possess the historical materialism, the science of societies, which was to ensure to Marx a decisive superiority. From then on, while noting the effects of capitalist exploitation, they were unable to grasp its mechanism. On the other hand, they could not discover the role that the proletariat would necessarily play in the destruction of capitalism. Their theoretical helplessness translates into practical helplessness. [The great French revolutionary Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) understood,unlike utopians, the importance of political action. But he did not know how to make a scientific study of capitalist society any more than they did. Blanqui, in fact, while denouncing the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, has not detected its true origin. For him, the essential form of exploitation is taxes and interest-bearing loans (in which he is similar to Proudhon). Marx showed that the support of capitalist exploitation is unpaid labor (surplus value). These serious theoretical insufficiencies did not allow Blanqui to have a correct conception of the revolutionary struggle. Instead of seeing in it a mass struggle, that of the proletarian class as a whole, he stuck to the thesis (inherited from Babeuf) of an “active minority”,a thesis dear to petty-bourgeois anarchists, incompatible with scientific socialism.]

Thanks to Marx, science takes the place of utopia. Thanks to Marx, socialism, the dream of the Utopians, has come true.

Scientific socialism

Its evolution

Younger than the great Utopians, Marx and Engels benefit from better objective conditions: when their thought comes to maturity, the contradictions of capitalism are more apparent, and above all the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is in full swing.

In 1825 the first great economic crisis of capitalism broke out, and from now on the crises appear periodically: the productive forces set in motion by the regime are turned against it.

On this basis, the proletariat, more and more numerous, concentrated by big industry, deploys a more intense, better organized struggle. In 1831: first workers' uprising in Lyon. 1838-1842: in England, Chartism, the first national workers' movement, reaches its peak.

The class war between proletarians and bourgeois burst onto the foreground of the history of the peoples who decide the fate of humanity. (Engels: Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism, p. 56.)

And June 1848, in France, was to see the barricades rise up against the bourgeoisie where the working class defended its right to life, arms in hand.

Marx and Engels were not only the witnesses of this struggle. Revolutionary activists, unlike the Utopians, they participated in it personally - in Germany, France, England. They work for the organization of the workers' movement, founding in 1864 the first International Association of Workers.

These are the conditions from which their genius was able to extract the maximum.

Its traits

The falsifiers of Marxism present it as a myth, conceived by the feverish imagination of an inspired prophet. At the same time, they believe they can give themselves the right to make Marxism their fashion, for the greater benefit of the bourgeoisie.

We must therefore assert with intransigence the eminent character of Marxist socialism; it is neither a myth, nor an act of faith, - nor one "system" among others and worth neither better nor worse. It's a science.

Science is objective knowledge of reality, which it provides the means to transform. So it is with scientific socialism.

It is based on two great discoveries.

These two great discoveries: the materialist conception of history and the revelation of the mystery of capitalist production by means of surplus value, we owe them to Karl Marx. They made socialism a science ... (Engels: Utopian socialism and scientific socialism, p. 57.)

We know that Marx finds in the study of philosophy and the natural sciences a conception of the world, dialectical materialism - the application of which to societies gives rise to historical materialism.

Darwin had discovered the law of development of organic nature, Marx, he discovered the law of development of human society. (Engels: “Extract from the speech delivered on Marx's tomb” (March 17, 1883), in Marx et le marxisme, p. 52. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1953.)

Objective law, external and anterior to the conscience and the will of men. It is production - that is to say the activity by which men ensure their means of existence - which constitutes the fundamental fact of societies and conditions their history. Social relations, political institutions, ideologies are in the final analysis determined by the production of material goods.

With this scientific conception of societies, Marx was able to approach the study of the society of his time: capitalism. He wrote in the preface to Capital:

[...] Our ultimate goal is to unveil the economic law of motion of modern society. (Quoted by Lenin in "What are the Friends of the People", Selected Works, t. I, p. 87; Le Capital, L. I, t. I, p. 19. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1946.)

It is therefore objective analysis - and not an unfavorable prejudice! - which leads him to discover the contradiction which germinates and develops in capitalism, until it bursts into crisis and from which it will inevitably perish: contradiction between the social character of the productive forces (large industry) developed by capitalism and the private character of appropriation (capitalist profit). It is not favorable prejudice, it is not "sentiment" which leads him to see the proletariat as the class called upon to succeed the bourgeoisie; it is the objective analysis of capitalism: Marx discovers that capitalism can only exist through surplus value, that is to say through the exploitation of the proletariat. So the contradiction between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is inherent in capitalism,their struggle is a necessary product of capitalism. We see that it is absurd to reproach Marx for "inventing the class struggle". [Class struggle (without s) means struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Class struggle ”means struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.] Marx quite simply notes that it exists [He is not the first to note the existence of the class struggle, and he says so in particular in a letter to Weydemeyer (1852): “As far as I am concerned, the credit for having discovered neither the existence of classes in modern society, nor their struggle between them, belongs to me. Long before me, bourgeois historians [those of the Restoration: Thierry, Guizot ...] had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists had expressed its economic anatomy. What I did again was: 1 ° to demonstrate that the existence of classes is linked only to phases of determined historical development of production; 2 ° that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3 ° that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. Quoted in Marx-Engels: Philosophical Studies, p. 126. Editions Sociales.], As it has always existed since the dissolution of the primitive commune: it is the engine of history because it is through it that the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is resolved.So it will be with capitalism: the struggle of the proletariat, the exploited class, against the exploiting class, the bourgeoisie, will resolve the contradiction between productive forces and capitalist relations of production. How? 'Or' What ? By the adaptation of these to those, by the socialization of the means of production, by socialism, a necessary stage of historical development (like capitalism in the past).

Marx concludes that the inevitable transformation of capitalist society into socialist society is based entirely, exclusively, on the economic laws of the movement of modern society. (Lenin: "Karl Marx" in Marx, Engels, Marxism, p. 34, Foreign Language Editions, Moscow, 1947.)

It is absurd to believe that Marx, himself a bourgeois by origin, has "hatred" of the bourgeoisie, and that "everything comes from there". Marx, studying the history of the capitalist bourgeoisie, notes that, against feudalism, it waged an objectively revolutionary struggle. It was this which allowed the development of large-scale production, a condition for the progress of societies. But the role of the revolutionary class now falls to the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie which is slowing down social development. If Marx condemns the capitalist bourgeoisie, it is to the extent that, putting its class interests above all else, it is capable of the worst misdeeds to safeguard them.

As for the proletariat, if it is henceforth the only revolutionary class, it is not because Marx would have sentimentally decided that it should be. It is objectively so because of its historical position within capitalism. [This does not mean that the consciousness of the proletariat is too. In order for the proletariat to become aware of its historical role, it needs the help of Marxist science. See point IV of this lesson.] Why is he revolutionary?

Because, as a specific product of bourgeois society (unlike other classes: artisans, peasants, petty bourgeois ...), it can only ensure its life by waging battle against the ruling class, the capitalist bourgeoisie. Because the concentration of capitalism inevitably strengthens that of the proletariat and raises it in numbers. Because, stripped of everything, he has nothing to lose, only his chains. Because, linked to the most advanced productive forces, the only way he has to free himself is precisely to suppress the capitalist relations of production which cause these productive forces to turn against the proletariat; its interest is thus to wrest the great means of production and exchange from the bourgeoisie to make them the property of all, in a society where all exploitation will have disappeared.In other words, the proletariat necessarily has only one perspective, only one: the socialist revolution.

Factual situation, studied by Marx, who draws the consequences. If, then, he calls the proletariat to struggle for socialism, it is on the basis of the laws of history. It is not in the name of a preconceived idea, Justice or Liberty, although socialism must objectively liberate men and found social justice. Marx "does not lecture men", although the struggle for communism and its advent gave rise to a new moral. He is a scientist who draws practical conclusions from the study of societies, independent of his mood.

Such is the incomparable merit of scientific socialism. He puts an end to utopias because, through him, socialism descends from heaven to earth. [On the formation of scientific socialism and the history of the Communist Manifesto, we refer to the beautiful book by Jean Fréville: Les Breakers de chains. Social Editions, Paris, 1948.]

This explains the worldwide and still current significance of the work in which Marx and Engels first exposed scientific socialism: The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1847).

The role of scientific socialism

The fusion of socialism and the labor movement

Marx did not create the workers' movement, an objective reality independent of him, brought about by the existence of capitalism. But he gave him, along with scientific socialism, the compass that would light his way and make him invincible.

Through him the fusion of socialism and the workers' movement took place. The oppressed proletariat, monopolized by the urgent struggle for bread, then had neither the time nor the means to develop social science, political economy itself. It is from outside that this science came to it, thanks to Marx, who had previously had to assimilate the best achievements of human thought, which scientific socialism crowns. Scientific socialism was thus the work of advanced bourgeois intellectuals.

But they could not succeed in their business unless they broke with their class. Why ? The bourgeoisie, which had supported the impetus of the natural sciences - necessary for technical innovations, which benefited it - could not, once feudalism was conquered, encourage the science of societies without harming its exploiting class interests, since this science concludes in the inevitable destruction of capitalism! The bourgeoisie declared war on the science of societies, a fierce war which led it to bring Marxism to the courts, in the person of its adepts, the Communists, - as in the past clerical feudalism condemned Galileo, because it demonstrated that the earth revolves around the sun.

From now on, it is no longer a question of knowing whether this or that theorem is true, but whether it sounds good or bad, agreeable or not to the police, useful or harmful to capital. Disinterested research gives way to paid boxing, conscientious investigation to bad conscience, to the miserable subterfuge of apologetics. (Marx: “Afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital”. Capital, Book I, t. I, p. 25, Editions Sociales.)

Breaking with their class, Marx and Engels took the point of view of the proletariat. Unlike the bourgeoisie, the proletariat not only could not be hostile to social science, but its class interest objectively coincided with that of scientific socialism. An oppressed class, it found in scientific socialism the explanation of its ills and the possibility of overcoming them.

Any theory must be confirmed by experience, and it is experience that has shown workers the incomparable merits of Marxism. For a century, and more and more, Marxist theory has been confirmed as the only scientific expression of the interests of the proletariat.

Necessity of the communist party: criticism of "spontaneity"

How did the fusion between the workers' movement and scientific socialism come about? By the constitution of a party which groups and organizes the vanguard of the proletariat and which, armed with scientific socialism, leads the revolutionary struggle of the whole working class and its allies.

It is the party of the Communists, the task of which Marx and Engels specify in the Manifesto. The communists, internationally and in each country, bring to the proletariat a clear understanding of the conditions, the course and the general ends of the proletarian movement. (Marx-Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party (II: "Proletarians and Communists", p. 41.))

The need for such a party is a fundamental fact of scientific socialism. It conforms to the teachings of dialectical and historical materialism. Why ? Because if it is true that the proletariat exploited by the bourgeoisie is materially led to fight against it, this in no way means that its conscience is spontaneously socialist. The thesis of spontaneity is contrary to Marxism; revolutionary theory is a science, and there is no spontaneous science. [It is because of its scientific character that Marxism has universal value, Marxist theory is not reserved for the proletariat. It is accessible to any man who seriously wants to make an effort to understand the history of societies. The Marxist Party therefore groups, alongside the militant workers,workers belonging to other classes and social categories.]

In What to do? Lenin developed a classic critique of spontaneity. It should be remembered, because many, believing themselves to be Marxists, say that Marxism is at one with "the class instinct". This leads to putting on the same level the educated proletarian and the proletarian who, while wanting to fight, does not strike where it should be because he does not have a fair awareness of his interest.

Why is socialism not a spontaneous product of the proletariat? Because, in capitalist society, the ideology which spontaneously offers itself to the proletariat is bourgeois ideology. It is, for example, religion, or even morality taught at school, which invites him to "be patient", virtue being "always rewarded". Bourgeois ideology has on its side, in addition to the strength of tradition, the powerful material means at the disposal of the ruling bourgeoisie.

It is often said: the working class goes spontaneously to socialism. This is perfectly correct in the sense that, more deeply and more exactly than all the others, socialist theory determines the causes of the evils of the working class: this is why the workers assimilate it so easily, if however this theory does not itself does not capitulate to spontaneity, if however it submits to this spontaneity ... The working class is spontaneously attracted to socialism, but the most widespread bourgeois ideology (and constantly resuscitated in the most varied forms) does not it is none the less that which, spontaneously, imposes itself above all on the worker. (Lenin: What to do?, P. 44, note. Ed. Sociales, 1947.)

And Lenin observes that the spontaneous movement of the proletariat cannot take it beyond trade unionism, that is to say the formation of unions which, grouping workers of all political convictions, have as their goal the struggle for standard of living, for wages. But no union, as such, can bring to the workers what makes the originality of the Marxist political party: the revolutionary perspective and the science of the Revolution. Only in this way are the roots of capitalist exploitation uncovered.

So it is through a stubborn struggle against the everywhere diffuse bourgeois ideology that scientific socialism can find its way to the working class. An impossible task to achieve without a party which, formed in revolutionary science and linked to the working masses (where it is recruited), brings them socialist consciousness. The revolutionary interest of the proletariat thus commands it to defend against any attack, to strengthen the Communist Party, whose existence is necessary for its victory. As for the theory of spontaneity, it places the proletariat under the control of the bourgeoisie.

The theory of spontaneity ... is ... the logical basis of all opportunism. (Stalin: Des Principes du léninisme, p. 20. Editions Sociales. [This fatal theory is at the bottom of all the anti-communist reasoning of certain union leaders. By recommending that workers not "play politics" on the pretext of saving their " independence ", by claiming that unionism is enough for everything, they divert the workers from seeking and combating the causes of exploitation (and its political instrument: the bourgeois state). By doing so, they prolong the reign of the bourgeoisie. It is characteristic of opportunism which, of course, takes on “left airs” (notably in Franc-Tireur).])

The scientific role of the revolutionary party explains its characteristics, defined by Lenin fifty years ago. Characters whose necessity escapes the workers whom bourgeois ideology influences. Here are a few:

a) Error has a thousand forms, but for a given object science is one. Hence the unity of principles which characterizes communist militants. This is not the "sheep" spirit. All physicists agree to recognize the laws of nature. We would find absurd anyone who prides himself on having his own little physique. Likewise, the science of societies does not depend on the mood of one or another. [On the objectivity of the laws of society, see Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, Social Editions, 1951.] His conclusions, drawn from experience, are objective truths, valid for all . This explains the “monolithic unity” of the Marxist Party.

b) The criticism and self-criticism to which communist militants unceasingly submit their action is an absolute condition for the progress of science. Any science - that of societies like any other - must control its methods and results. This matters greatly to the success of the revolutionary struggle, and therefore to the interests of the workers. When the People's editors joke heavily about self-criticism, claiming that it “dishonors” those who use it, they are doing nothing but flaunt their contempt for the interests of workers.

c) Collective leadership is likewise a scientific necessity, at all levels of the revolutionary party. A decision, a slogan can only correctly reflect the needs of the movement if they are worked out in a collective discussion, in which all the militants participate, each bringing the experience he has from his contact with the masses. All these contributions, the Party as a whole generalizes them:

Theory is the experience of the labor movement of all countries, taken in its general form. (Stalin: On the Principles of Leninism, p. 18.)

Is it not normal that this generalization, which reflects the various aspects of the movement for a given period, should be law for every militant?

Conclusion

For a hundred years, the working class has been able to measure the clairvoyance of scientific socialism, its capacity for forecasting. In return, the workers, assimilating this science more and more deeply, have enriched it with their experience. This constant exchange between theory and practice ensures scientific socialism against all aging: and here again its quality of science is recognized, because true science is always progressing.

The picture of the progress of scientific socialism, in theory and in practice, is, a century after the Manifesto, truly stupendous. This is true of Marx's sentence:

Theory becomes a material force as soon as it penetrates the masses. (Marx: Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law.)

The great followers of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin knew how to arm scientific socialism with new generalizations, and to reject the theses which were no longer appropriate to the historical situation.

Example: when capitalism entered its imperialist phase at the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin, relying on the principles of socialism, analyzed the objective conditions that imperialism created for the workers' movement. He discovered the law of unequal development of imperialist countries. He thus arrives at this new conclusion: the possibility for the revolution to overcome the world front of capitalism at its weakest point, socialism thus triumphing, first of all, in one or a few countries. [Marxists hitherto believed that socialism would triumph in all capitalist countries at once.] So it was for Russia in 1917, and later for other countries.

The building of socialism in the USSR, then the march to communism, under the leadership of Stalin; the resounding successes of popular democracies, a new form of the dictatorship of the proletariat - all of this was carried out in the light of scientific socialism. A light that makes the profiteers of the old world tremble.

Faced with this record of struggles and victories, take stock of those who, within the workers' movement, fought scientific socialism.

In this lesson, we started with utopian socialism: we showed that Marx had rejected utopian jumble in order to collect socialist inspiration. How? 'Or' What ? By bringing to the fore the class struggle, the driving force behind the transition to socialism.

Well, the enemies of Marxism, from Proudhon to Blum, have done exactly the opposite. Enslaved to the bourgeoisie, they have never ceased to call on the proletariat for class collaboration, while offering it, to put it to sleep, the drug of utopia. Thus, at the start of imperialism, the leaders of the Second International, who posed as revisers of scientific socialism (hence the name "revisionists"), wanted to persuade the workers that the class struggle could cease since capitalism was itself going to transform into socialism! Thereafter, Blum was to present his submission to US imperialism as the first step of socialism!

In truth, from the day when scientific socialism was established, all utopia thereby became reactionary. The role of such an ideology could only be a diversionary role, tending to detach the proletariat from the class struggle. The only revolutionary path is that of scientific socialism. As for utopian reveries, they can henceforth only be counter-revolutionary poisons.

Suddenly a major truth emerges: the immense victories won thanks to scientific socialism were also victories over its enemies in the workers' movement. The intransigent struggle against anti-Marxist ideologies is therefore not a secondary, episodic aspect of the world struggle of the proletariat. This is a necessary aspect. Not to struggle to snatch workers from the deadly influence of Proudhonism, anarchism, revisionism, blumism ... is to put the future in the tomb. Marx and Engels have also shown the example: they have waged an implacable war for their entire lives against false socialists, who are capitalism's best allies.

See: Control questions

Historical materialism

Production: productive forces and relations of production

The conditions of the material life of society

We saw in the third part of this treatise what are the consequences of dialectical materialism applied to the history of societies; we have studied in particular how the spiritual life of society reflects the conditions of its material life.

But a question arises: "What should we understand, from the point of view of historical materialism, by these" conditions of the material life of society "? The material conditions, that is to say existing independently of the will of men, required for a society to develop are numerous and in interaction.

What then, in the system of the conditions of the material life of society, is the main force which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one regime to another? (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3, a, p. 19.)

Some argued that it was the geographic environment, others that it was population growth. Geographical fatality or demographic fatality therefore.

In order to live, society would therefore have, in case of need, only two solutions: either to change territory, as nomadic tribes do, to conquer new lands, or to reduce the number of the population, by practicing eugenics following the example of the ancient Spartans [They abandoned ill-conformed or puny newborns in the mountains.], or by letting useless mouths perish, old people, infirm, sick, mad, as certain primitive tribes did.

The war of conquest and the mass extermination of populations combine the two solutions. Eugenics and the extermination of the mentally ill, in particular, accompanied the Hitlerites, in theory as in practice, with the doctrine of "living space". The same barbaric theses are now flourishing in the United States. [See Vogt's book: World Hunger, which claims that there are "too many men on earth" and openly advocates war as a remedy: in fact at the imperialist stage, capitalism needs war to survive. to survive. “They do their best to be alone on earth,” said P. Eluard.]

These theses reduce man to the rank of animal. When an animal species lives in a territory of a given area with given food resources, “population laws” are established which make it possible to predict the fluctuations of the species. The lack of food, the obligation to consume a different food, can lead either to the disappearance or to the transformation of the species.

But man is not the animal: he works, he fights against nature. Let us not forget the dialectic: there is not on one side nature, on the other men: here geography, there biology, each having a fatal effect.

This idea is belied by the millennial practice of humanity which transformed the Earth for its use.

The geographical environment

The geographical environment, the nature that surrounds society, with its climate, its natural resources, its communication facilities, its soils, is undoubtedly a necessary and permanent condition of the material life of society. It is obvious that it influences its development: it favors it or slows it down. The ease of coal mining in England favored the development of industry in this country. On the contrary, the presence of a marshy area which requires drainage works, or of a desert area which requires irrigation, or even the absence of oil are circumstances which can slow down the development of a region.

But the influence of the geographic environment is not decisive. The proof is that changes in society take place much faster than changes in geographic environment. If the geographical environment exerted a determining influence on the history of societies, these should keep the same features as long as the geographical environment remained essentially the same. However, in three thousand years Europe has known four and even five different social regimes: the primitive commune, slavery, the feudal system, capitalism, and socialism. During this time the geographical conditions of Europe have hardly changed.

On the contrary, it is the social system which is determining for the modification of the geographical environment. Ancient slavery exhausted the lands of the Mediterranean basin and pushed for the conquest and the clearing of Gaul. The Dutch merchant bourgeoisie conquered at the dawn of modern times part of its country from the sea. Free trade capitalism transformed the English wheat fields into pastures for breeding; capitalism has deforested entire regions of Europe, thus promoting flooding; it impoverishes cultivable soils and turns entire regions of the United States into deserts. On the contrary, the great works of communism in the USSR fertilize the deserts, divert the course of rivers, improve the climate; avant-garde science, studying the laws of soil development,created polar agriculture, regenerated the famous “black soils” and discovered the laws of landscape evolution. [See Saponov: The Earth in Bloom. Part Three: "The Creation of Life". Editeurs Français Réunis.] In China, People's Democracy has put an end to the catastrophic flooding of major rivers.

The reactionary classes invoke the "geographical environment" to discharge their responsibilities in public calamities. But if Holland's dykes broke in 1953, it was because the reactionary bourgeoisie refused to distract a penny from the war budget in order to maintain them; If, in Greece, entire populations are left without aid against earthquakes, and in Italy against floods, it is the class politics of the bourgeoisie and not the "geographical environment" that is the determining cause.

Social democratic historians who want to cover up the real engine of social development claim to explain history by "geographic background." This crude materialism has no other aim than to make people believe in the immutability of a so-called Western or Atlantic "civilization", in the opposition of "East" and "West", and in short to justify the Cold War.

The population

The population, its growth, its density are undoubtedly essential elements among the conditions of the material life of society. Without a minimum of men, no society can ensure its material life, stand up to the forces of nature. The number of the active population is one of the elements which must be taken into account in order to assess the productive forces. Population growth influences social development: it facilitates or slows it down. The influx of immigrant labor to the United States fostered the rapid development of a large industry that is barely a century old. Conversely, the partial extermination of the Indian peoples of North America by the Anglo-Saxon colonizers contributed to the technical and economic stagnation of the surviving tribes.

But this influence, again, cannot be decisive. The proof is that the growth of the population, even itself, cannot explain why a given social regime succeeds precisely this new regime and not another, to slavery, feudalism, to the latter the bourgeois regime. , etc. If population growth were to have a decisive influence, the countries with the highest density should automatically enjoy the most advanced social systems. Absurd thesis: before 1939, the population density in Belgium was 26 times higher than in the USSR; however Belgium is still in capitalism when the USSR is done with this regime.

On the contrary, it is the social system which is decisive in explaining the movement of the population. It is not difficult to understand that capitalism by decreasing the purchasing power of the masses, by exhausting the workers, by imposing a miserable life on them increases mortality (especially among children.) In the USSR, on the contrary, where the Socialist living conditions are opposed to each other, the population increased from 1949 to 1952 by nearly 10 million, that is to say Belgium and the North department taken together.

The bourgeois economists who, in their analyzes, start from the movement of the population, without seeing that it is in reality only a resultant, thus commit a gross error.

Therefore, it is neither the geographic environment nor the growth of the population that determines the character of the social system and the development of society from one system to another.

Historical materialism considers that among the conditions of the material life of society there is another force, the existence of which is independent of the will of men, and which is the main force of social development. This force is constituted by the way in which men obtain their means of existence, the material goods necessary for life. This is called the mode of production of material goods.

The mode of production

Apart from nature and men there is nothing, and we have just seen that neither of these two elements taken apart can explain the development of societies. Only their dialectical unity can provide the answer, and their dialectical unity is work, it is production. Without work, without production, society can neither live nor develop: it is not a divine curse, it is the objective condition of all human existence.

But there are many ways that society can obtain the necessary means of existence: it can do so, for example, by using artisan tools or by using machines, by using animals or by using slaves, etc. We must therefore study closely the way in which production is carried out, the mode of production.

When we speak of how to obtain material goods essential to existence, the petty bourgeoisie means the conditions under which they can be bought on the market. But this is about distribution and consumption, not production at all. It is obvious that without production there would be neither distribution nor consumption.

Productive forces

To live you need food, clothes, shoes, shelter, fuel, etc. In order to have these material goods, society must produce them. To produce them you need appropriate instruments, you have to know how to make these instruments and know how to use them.

The analysis of the forces which allow us to derive the subsistence of society from nature therefore leads us to distinguish:

- the instruments of production, with the help of which material goods are produced (it being understood that, among material goods, we must classify not only consumer goods but also the instruments of production themselves);

- the men who handle these instruments (their number in particular), and without whom these instruments cannot be set in motion;

- production experience, acquired by successive generations: trades traditions, technical and scientific knowledge; it is difficult, for example, to replace in a short time the experience accumulated in the Lyon silk industry;

- the work habits specific to each worker, his qualification, his skill, the fact that he is familiar with the trade.

So many material forces which, taken all together, in their interaction, constitute the productive forces.

In this whole, what is the determining element which makes it possible to define the state of the productive forces? These are the instruments of production. It is their nature in fact which determines the number of men necessary for a given job, the essential technical knowledge, as well as the working habits that the producer acquires by using them. The manual aspect of work as well as its intellectual aspect depend on the nature of the instruments of production.

The development of the productive forces is conditioned by that of the instruments of production: coarse primitive stone tools; then bow and arrows, which allows the passage from hunting to the domestication of animals and to primitive breeding; then metal tools, which allows the transition to agriculture; then new improvements allowing the work of materials, pottery, work in the forge, and consequently the development of trades and their separation from agriculture; subsequently, the appearance of factories characterized by the division of labor into partial tasks with a view to the manufacture of a single given product ["It is the collective worker formed by the combination of a large number of plot workers who constitutes the specific mechanism of the manufacturing period.(K. Marx: Le Capital, L. 1er, t. II, p. 39.)]; then passage from artisanal production instruments to the machine allowing the passage from the manufacture to the mechanized factory, to the factory, to the large modern mechanical industry with machine systems; appearance of the steam engine, then of electrical energy. This is roughly the picture of the development of the productive forces throughout the history of humanity.This is roughly the picture of the development of the productive forces throughout the history of humanity.This is roughly the picture of the development of the productive forces throughout the history of humanity.

We note that this development is at the origin of the division of labor between men, in particular the first major division of labor: between the primitive hunters and fishermen and on the other hand the tribes practicing breeding, then agriculture. - and the second major division of labor: between trades and agriculture. This second division of labor necessarily entails the obligation to exchange products between farmers and craftsmen, to find a form of distribution other than domestic distribution: this is how it will appear, under specific conditions which we will specify, the merchandise. [See the next lesson, point II.] It is also this second division of labor which is at theorigin of the progressive differentiation between the countryside and the city (the latter necessary both as a center of artisanal production and as a center of exchange.)

Finally, the development of the instruments of production has not remained without effect on the other aspects of the productive forces:

It goes without saying that the development and improvement of the instruments of production have been carried out by men, who relate to production, and not independently of men. Consequently, at the same time as the instruments of production change and develop, men - an essential element of the productive forces - also change and develop; their production experience, their working habits, their ability to handle the instruments of production have changed and developed. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.c .; p. 23.24.)

Thus, for the needs of large modern industry, the capitalist bourgeoisie had to resign itself to teaching workers to read, write and count: it had to organize free and compulsory primary education as well as some schools. professional.

Leon Blum tried to reintroduce idealism here by arguing that tools could only be perfected thanks to the inventions of the human mind, and that therefore it is the spirit that is found at the origin of the progress of productive forces. But we know how ideas arise from practice itself: it is under the stimulation of the needs of material life that ideas for improvement arise; they arise in the practice of this or that tool.

The tool is the intermediary between man and nature; its function is to allow the transformation of natural objects into objects usable by man. This is why the tool reflects both the requirements specific to the material to be worked (copper is not worked with the same tools as steel) and the vital requirements of man. that is to say the properties of the object which must be used and which must be manufactured (different tools for different tasks).

Under the first aspect, the tool expresses man's submission to natural necessity; under the second it expresses the subordination of nature to the needs and action of man, hence man's freedom. The tool thus expresses in a deeply dialectical way the struggle between man and nature, and the productive forces express

human behavior towards objects and the forces of nature which they use to produce material goods. (Stalin: op. Cited, 3.a, p. 20.)

What do men produce with? with the primitive plow or with the towed plow with multiple coulters? This is basically, to take an example, the first question raised by the analysis of the mode of production: the question of the level of the productive forces.

Relations of production

However, far from it that we are at the end of our analysis. Production is the struggle of man against nature. But never and nowhere does man struggle in isolation, on pain of succumbing or reverting to the animal state. Men fight against nature together. Whatever the conditions, production is always social production. It is society which made man what he is, it is social production which drew him out of animality.

One of the basic errors of bourgeois political economy is to reason from the outset on the economic activity of an isolated man, a sort of Robinson or economic Adam who never existed: it is there pure metaphysical fiction. This is why we did not start from material goods necessary for the individual, but from those which are necessary for society as a whole. If production always and everywhere has a social character, it is inevitable that on the occasion of production, within production, certain relationships between men will be established. These are not platonic relations, they are relations which closely concern production, which are controlled by it.Not only do the relationships of men with nature (productive forces) exist, but also the relationships of men with each other in the process of production; these relations between men, we call them relations of production.

The relations of production between men can be of various types:

- men can associate freely to carry out in common, by helping each other, by collaborating, a common work: for example building a house; these are then relations of collaboration and mutual aid between men free from any exploitation;

- but a man can also, under certain conditions, oblige his fellow man to produce for him: from then on the relations of production change radically in character; they become relations of domination and submission, there is exploitation of the work of others;

- finally in the course of history, we can meet societies where these two types coexist, one being in the process of withering away, the other of reinforcement: there are relations of transition from one form to another.

But whatever the type of production relations, they are always an indispensable element of production. Taking for the moment a simple example, let us say that the man who works for himself never works like the one who works for others: this is so true that the exploiters always seek to mask exploitation under a pretended collaboration, to pass off exploitation relationships in the eyes of the exploited as “family” collaboration relationships; it is paternalism: “defend the interests of the boss, you will be rewarded in the other world. "

But if the character of the relations of production is an essential element of production, they cannot be reduced, with all due respect to the paternalistic employers, to the idea that one can have them. Leon Blum said hypocritically that he did not see what the economic relations between men have more "material" than the others. But we know that materiality is the fact of existing independently of the will and consciousness of men. Production is an objective necessity for men and it can only be accomplished within the no less objective framework of society as it exists. For example, the one who does not have any of the material goods necessary for life is materially constrained to work for others, in relationships of submission. Thus the operation does notis not an "idea", it is an objective fact, which weighs with all its weight on the production.

In production, people not only act on nature, but also on each other. They only produce by collaborating in a determined way and by exchanging their activities among themselves. In order to produce, they enter into relations and determined relations with one another, and it is only within the limits of these relations and these social relations that their action on nature, on production, is established. (K. Marx. Wage labor and capital, followed by Wage, price and profit, P. 31.)

We cannot therefore separate the action of the productive forces from the character of the relations of production. Productive forces and relations of production are two indissolubly linked aspects of the mode of production which "embodies", to use Stalin's expression, their dialectical unity in the process of production of material goods.

It is a fundamental error to reduce the study of production to the study of the productive forces only. Yet this is the error made by those who believe that Marxism consists in explaining the development of societies by the only development of the productive forces and who ignore the nature of the relations of production. To explain the modern world through the steam engine while omitting the analysis of capitalist relations of production is not to be materialist, it is to falsify Marxism. To explain to school children the historical progress of techniques while failing to teach them what capitalist exploitation is is to deceive them, to give them a false image of the past, the present, the future.

The same error is made by those who, forgetting social progress and the progress of the relations of production, see in "progress" only technical progress. It was the bourgeois utopia of the 19th century. In this way, bitter disillusions were prepared because technical and scientific progress can be used as well for works of peace as for works of war, the machine can either crush the worker or emancipate him. When, in the imperialist era, the decline of capitalism revealed its incurable wounds, misery, oppression, war, the use of the most modern technique for works of death, the utopians of "technique" cried out for the bankruptcy of progress, they made the machine responsible for the evils that only Capital generates! VS'is to the same mystification that certain bourgeois sociologists, apostles of "industrial sociology" devote themselves, and in particular their leader, Georges Friedmann: adopting the "point of view" of the bosses, they pretend to seek in machinery the cause of the "negative" attitude of the worker in capitalist countries towards labor, when the real cause is the capitalist use of machines for output, for capitalist productivity, for over-exploitation. The productive forces, says Marx, exercise their action only within the limits of the relations of production. This is why in the Soviet Union, where reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.and in particular their leader, Georges Friedmann: adopting the "point of view" of the bosses, they pretend to seek in machinery the cause of the "negative" attitude of the worker in capitalist countries towards work, while the the real cause is the capitalist use of machines for output, for capitalist productivity, for over-exploitation. The productive forces, says Marx, exercise their action only within the limits of the relations of production. This is why in the Soviet Union, where reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.and in particular their leader, Georges Friedmann: adopting the "point of view" of the bosses, they pretend to seek in machinery the cause of the "negative" attitude of the worker in capitalist countries towards work, while the the real cause is the capitalist use of machines for output, for capitalist productivity, for over-exploitation. The productive forces, says Marx, exercise their action only within the limits of the relations of production. This is why in the Soviet Union, where reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.worker in capitalist countries before labor, while the real cause is the capitalist use of machines for output, for capitalist productivity, for overexploitation. The productive forces, says Marx, exercise their action only within the limits of the relations of production. This is why in the Soviet Union, where reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.worker in capitalist countries before labor, while the real cause is the capitalist use of machines for output, for capitalist productivity, for overexploitation. The productive forces, says Marx, exercise their action only within the limits of the relations of production. This is why in the Soviet Union, where reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.where the reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.where the reports of exploitation have disappeared, the use of the machine can have only happy effects for the worker.

In the USSR, machines not only save labor, but at the same time facilitate the labor of workers; consequently, under the conditions of the socialist economy, unlike what happens under the conditions of capitalism, the workers very willingly use machines in their work. (G. Malenkov: “Report to the XIXth Congress of the CPSU.” Cahiers du communisme (Special issue), Nov. 1952, p. 113.)

Historical materialism therefore considers the mode of production as a whole, in its unity: relations of production and productive forces. However, as the productive forces act only within the limits of the relations of production, we usually designate the various modes of production by the character of the relations of production which are dominant there: when we speak of the feudal mode of production, we mean that feudal production relations were dominant there, and left their mark on all social life; we don't necessarily mean that they were the only ones. Conversely, it is not scientific to designate a historical epoch by the state of the productive forces, as in the expressions: the stone age, the age of metals, the era of the steam engine or the era atomic.

Ownership of the means of production

Studying the productive forces (point II, a), we have seen that the instruments of production constitute the determining element. It is in fact the nature of the instruments of production which determines the level of the productive forces.

Let us now see what is most important in the relations of production. What is the element that determines their character?

It is the property of the means of production.

It is clear, in fact, that the one who is deprived of these means can only live on condition of accepting the domination of the one who possesses them.

The means of production should not be confused with consumer goods (furniture, dwelling house, family automobile, etc.). By means of production we mean everything that is necessary to produce.

What, for example, are the means of production in a modern society? First, natural goods (land, forests, water, subsoil, raw materials); then the instruments of production, which allow the transformation of these natural goods; then the installations necessary for the productive activity: factory buildings, mining installations, etc .; the means of transport, communication. We must add the means of exchange between members of society: facilities necessary for distribution, trade (warehouses, sales stores) and credit organizations (bank).

The question to ask when we want to define the character of the relations of production is therefore this: who owns the means of production?

Is it the whole society? Or individuals or groups, who use it to exploit other individuals and groups?

To answer this question is to indicate the state of production relations, the state of economic and social relations between men.

It is therefore understood that, if the means of production are in the possession of the whole of society, relations between men can be relations of collaboration and mutual aid.

Otherwise, those who are deprived of all means of production will not be able to live without making themselves available to those who have them. Some work, others exploit this work. The interests of some are opposed to the interests of others. Solidarity only exists between those who play the same role in production: it is class solidarity.

Society is then divided into antagonistic social classes. There is private ownership of the means of production.

By social class is meant a set of people who, in production, play a similar role, are in relation to other men in identical relations. (Lenin). [We will come back to the notion of social class at greater length in lesson 17.]

The expression social class therefore only has meaning at the level of production relations. It is a notion that is defined by the type of property, or by the absence of property, and which should not be confused with social categories, which are defined by the techniques, trades, social activities necessary for life of society, for example: metallurgist, miner or railway worker. To be a "peasant" is to belong to a social category, but that does not define the class to which one belongs: one can be a large capitalist landowner (a "white-handed peasant"), or owner-operator with help. farm workers, or owner of a family farm, or farm worker, etc. [In the expression: "alliance of workers and peasants",we want to designate the working peasants (small landowners, farmers, sharecroppers) and, of course, agricultural workers.]

Likewise in the factory, the “boss” is not the manager, the engineer, but the capitalist or the group of capitalists (“society”) who own the means of production.

When a social class owns the means of production, it personifies, so to speak, the production relations that are favorable to it: we will therefore speak indifferently of “capitalist” production relations or of “bourgeois” production relations. When these relations of production are dominant in a given mode of production, the same expressions are also used to designate the mode of production: we say thus: the “feudal” class, the “feudal” relations of production, the “feudal” mode of production », Because the bourgeoisie is not then the dominant class.

We can now specify the notion of relations of production:

These relationships include: a) forms of ownership of the means of production; b) the situation of different social groups in production and their reciprocal relations or, to use Marx's expression, “the exchange of their activities”, which flow from these forms; c) the forms of distribution of products, which depend entirely on them. It is all this which, taken as a whole, constitutes the object of political economy. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 162.)

It is therefore the forms of property that constitute the decisive element in the relations of production. It goes without saying that the exploiting classes take all the necessary measures to safeguard the forms of property which ensure their privileges. The relations of production, characterized by the system of ownership of the means of production, form the economic basis of the entire social system. We now have all the notions necessary to understand that the mode of production constitutes the main force of social development.

The change in modes of production, a key to the history of society

The production has this particularity of being always in process of change and development, of never stopping at the same point for a long period, while the geographical environment remains roughly the same. Humans are in fact constantly seeking to make the most of what nature offers them, they are constantly trying to improve production which is therefore always in motion.

If man did not seek to satisfy his material needs always better, he would not be a conscious being, but an animal subjected to blind necessity. But man finds in production the means of utilizing natural necessity for his own benefit, which is why production never stops at the same point for long.

This truth is, for the idealist, a subject of scandal: he denounces the insatiable thirst for material goods; Christianity sees in it the work of the devil, of evil. But we also know that these themes are for the exclusive use of the working masses; fasting and abstinence are preached to them, while the exploiting classes wallow in a sickening profusion of material goods. In reality the increase of production is an objective requirement of human societies, and only the exploitation of man by man prevents this requirement from having its natural and beneficial effects.

It is the change in the mode of production which alone makes it possible to explain why such and such a regime succeeds another, why social ideas, opinions and political institutions change, why it becomes necessary at a given moment to overhaul the entire social system and Politics.

Aristotle had already glimpsed the link between slavery and the level of the productive forces.

If each tool, such was the dream of Aristotle, the greatest thinker of Antiquity, if each tool could perform on summons, or on its own, its own function, like Daedalus' masterpieces. moved on their own, or as Vulcan's tripods spontaneously set about their sacred work; if, for example, the weavers' shuttles were to weave on their own, the foreman would no longer need help, nor the slave master. (K. Marx: Le Capital, L. I, t. II, p, 91. Editions Sociales.)

In the Middle Ages, Christian metaphysics, considering society as an immutable reflection of the divine plan, justified the existence of corporations which, by limiting the growth of the productive forces, contributed to the stability of the feudal regime. But if, at the origin, this system was intended to guarantee society against scarcity, in the long run this fear of movement, of change turned out to be nothing other than the fear of the feudal lords in the face of the rise of the bourgeoisie. The latter, once in power, removed restrictions on production and banned corporations.

Thus political power was necessary to impose the new law, reflecting the new mode of production. And new ideas were needed to justify this new power and this new right. Philosophy was an ideological weapon against the old order of things. The triumphant bourgeoisie inscribed the right of bourgeois property in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, it organized bourgeois parliamentary assemblies, it made its morality prevail, it created a new teaching from which it banished the philosophy of the Middle Ages, - and at the same time it prohibits workers' associations, to protect themselves against the struggle of the exploited proletariat.

Thus she imposed on the whole nation the bourgeois "kind of life" and the ideas which were appropriate to her: "Such kind of life, such kind of thought. "[Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3. b. This formula therefore does not have the same meaning at all as Feuerbach's mechanistic formula: “We think differently in a palace and in a cottage. "]

Let us reread the immortal pages of the first part of the Communist Party Manifesto:

Wherever it [the bourgeoisie] has gained power, it has trampled on feudal, patriarchal and idyllic relations. All the complex and varied links which unite feudal man to his natural superiors, she broke them mercilessly, to leave no other link, between man and man, than cold interest, harsh demands. cash payment. It drowned the sacred shivers of religious ecstasy, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of petty-bourgeois sentimentality in the icy waters of selfish calculation. She made personal dignity a simple exchange value; it substituted for the many freedoms, so dearly won, the unique and pitiless freedom of commerce. In short, instead ofan exploitation masked by religious and political illusions, it has introduced an open, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of their halo all the activities which until then passed for venerable and which were regarded with holy respect. The doctor, the jurist, the priest, the poet, the scientist, she has made employees in her wages.

The bourgeoisie has torn the veil of sentimentality which covered family relations and reduced them to being nothing more than mere money relations. (Manifesto, p. 31.)

Failing to understand that the bourgeoisie wanted to consolidate by all means the mode of production of which it is itself the product, we refrain from any understanding of the historical events which take place, for example, between 1789 and 1815.

Bourgeois historians themselves distinguish between a primitive period, antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. Now, what is the difference between these eras? In this for the most part: originally there was common ownership of goods; the dawn of history and civilization saw the establishment of the slavery mode of production which dominated in antiquity; while the Middle Ages are dominated by feudal land ownership, and modern times see the development of mercantile bourgeois property, then the triumph and decline of the capitalist bourgeoisie. But, say anti-Marxist historians, there are features common to antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times: the thought of

Plato or Cicero's speeches for example are not foreign to us. That's right; and here is how these common traits are explained, at least with regard to institutions and ideologies:

1. Slavery, feudalism, capitalism have a common character, whatever the extent of their differences: they are relations of production based on the exploitation of one class by another, on the private ownership of the means of production. So the class struggle is found in these three types of societies, with all its consequences on the level of institutions and ideas.

2. Under these three modes of production exist layers of the petty bourgeoisie (merchant, artisanal, rural, intellectual). This lasting historical fact has the effect of forming and maintaining a psychology of the "average man", individualistic, attached to private property, full of contradictions, for, as a passive witness of the class struggle, he constantly capitulates. in front of the exploiting dominant class.

But, at the same time that they resemble each other, these three regimes differ, qualitatively, by their economic basis. They constitute distinct social formations. The object of historical science is precisely to study both their specific differences and their similarities.

Conclusion

Historical materialism is the general theory of modes of production.

Political economy is the specific science of the objective laws which govern the relations of production between men.

The specific object of historical science is the reciprocal relations between the classes which personify these relations of production, and in particular their political relations.

There is no historical science if we do not constantly ask the question of the character of the relations of production, of the character of property, of social classes, of class interest.

True historical science cannot therefore confine itself to studying the acts of kings, heads of armies, and conquerors, for history is, in the final analysis, the history of peoples.

The history of social development is ... the history of the producers of material goods, the history of the toiling masses who are the fundamental forces of the production process and produce the material goods necessary for the existence of society. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.b, p. 21.)

Indeed, the profound law of history is the necessary correspondence between relations of production and productive forces: this law expresses the vital interests of the great masses of humanity.

So Marxism is, to use Stalin's expression, "the science ... of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses ..."

But if men make their own history, they do it "under given conditions which determine them" (Marx). The key to history should not be sought in the brains of men, in their opinions and ideas, but in the relations of production and objective economic laws, which are exercised independently of the will of the people. men, as soon as they produce socially, and who depend on the form of ownership of the means of production, that is to say on the economic base.

True historical science cannot do without knowledge of these laws.

This is why the party of the proletariat, if it wants to lead the working class to its historic mission, must not only call it to mass action for its interests, but establish its program and its practical activity on knowledge. laws of economic development. [The establishment of the new program of the Communist Party of the USSR and the practical guidelines for the transition to communism was not scientifically possible without the discovery of the laws of socialist economy, without the study of socialist relations of production and conditions for their transformation into communist production relations. It is this requirement that Yaroshenko ignored and to which Stalin responded in his latest work: The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR;see Latest Writings, in particular p. 146 and following.]

See: Control questions

The law of necessary correspondence between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces

We saw in the previous lesson that production methods change over the course of history. Like all reality they undergo quantitative changes, an evolution, followed by qualitative changes which can take a revolutionary form when the declining and privileged classes oppose the necessary changes.

As with all reality, these changes are driven by an internal contradiction. What is the specific contradiction between modes of production in general? It is the contradiction between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces. It is the subject of this lesson.

Productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary element of production

We said the production was always changing. But which aspect changes first? The productive forces or the relations of production? Tools or forms of ownership? It is obvious that while the economic base of a social formation lasts, there is progress in technique. It is therefore the forces of production which first and foremost change the instruments of production. This is the second peculiarity of the production. [The first peculiarity was studied in lesson 15: it is the change in the mode of production that modifies the physiognomy of the whole society.]

Here is a very simple example. Everyone knows the process which consists, when one wants to move a block of stone, to place it on a train of logs. The more one uses these logs, the better they are polished by their very use; they tend to become perfect cylinders, before any geometric idea of ​​the cylinder has entered the brain of men. [Mathematical ideas therefore arise from practice.] At the same time the displacement becomes faster and easier, giving man the idea of ​​carrying out this polishing himself by appropriate means. Helping need, man's imagination kicks in and he discovers that the work would be made even easier if the logs, while being able to turn on themselves, along their axis, were integral with the block of stone during the movement.It would then no longer be necessary to constantly bring back in front of the block the logs abandoned behind. Let ten, a hundred, a thousand years pass: you will have the axle, the wheel, the cart.

Thus the productive forces never remain in place, they improve themselves by anticipating, by training the will of man. At the same time, man's needs develop: as soon as he gets to know the cart, he will no longer be satisfied with logs, at least whenever the use of a dumpster is possible.

The relations of production in turn are modified according to the modifications which have taken place in the productive forces. They are not suspended in the air, but are linked to the character of the productive forces.

Let's take an example. In the period of decline of the slave society there are new productive forces which have experienced a long development in the previous period. Ceaseless improvement of the work of the cast iron and the treatment of iron, use of the hand loom; widespread use of the plow; progress in agriculture, gardening, the production of wine, oil, honey; discovery of the watermill (340 years after J.-C.) But these new techniques, (which the Romans often observe among the peoples they call Barbarians and that they try to introduce into their homes) enter into contradiction with the slave system: the slave has no interest in work; whatever he does, he is always treated the same. Also he shows neither initiative nor taste for work. It is froma very low yield. However, it is no longer just a matter of heavy work that can be accomplished by herds of slaves using a whip. The new productive forces require the worker to show some interest in work, otherwise they are wasted.

The master realizes this, especially since the slaves, often themselves barbarians taken prisoner, organize revolts or even desert the domain and become pirates, taking advantage of techniques, such as the manufacture of weapons and the navigation.

In short, the new productive forces imperatively demand new relations of production. This is why the owner of the means of production, renouncing a slave of very low productivity, prefers to deal with a serf. The serf, in fact, has his own exploitation, his instruments of production; he therefore has some personal interest in the work, although he is attached to the seigneurial land. This interest is essential for him to raise his productivity in all agricultural work and to pay a royalty in kind to the feudal lord on his harvest. Instead of feeding a slave who does next to nothing, even under the whip of the stewards, the lord will demand a royalty in kind from a serf free to work as he sees fit,subject to grinding his grain at the lord's mill and baking his bread in his oven.

Thus the very development of new productive forces within the slave production relations gave rise to the birth of new production relations: feudal relations.

Social relations are intimately linked to the productive forces. By acquiring new productive forces, men change their mode of production, and by changing the mode of production, the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand mill will give you society with the suzerain, [the feudal lord], the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist ... (K. Marx: Misère de la Philosophie, p. 88. Editions Sociales.)

The correspondent action of relations of production on the productive forces

If we were to confine ourselves to noting that the productive forces are the most mobile and the most revolutionary element of production, we would fall into metaphysics and mechanism. The mode of production embodies the dialectical unity of the productive forces and the relations of production: in this internal contradiction each of the opposites acts on the other, even if one of the two changes the first. We must therefore study the return action of the relations of production on the productive forces.

If we take the example of the transition from slave society to feudal society, we see that the feudal relations of production, after their appearance, favored the development of the productive forces which were hampered by the old relations of production. The serf had, in fact, although exploited, more interest than the slave in producing. Thus was gradually liquidated the heavy legacy of misery and desolation bequeathed by the end of antiquity and the early Middle Ages.

Another example: we saw in the previous lesson (II, a) that the progress of metalworking and pottery had led to the division of labor between agriculture and the trades. Under the conditions of private ownership of the means of production, required both by artisanal work and by the employment of slaves in the countryside, this division of labor inevitably resulted in the sale and purchase of artisanal and agricultural products. on the market, that is, the appearance of the commodity. At the same time, a new class was born, that of merchants, specializing in the transport and distribution of goods. But as this class found an interest of its own in trade, it had to be led to promote commodity production, to extend this trade. This was theorigin of the Phoenician and Greek colonies, trading posts all around the Mediterranean. It is obvious that commodity production has favored the development of productive forces, techniques and the arts, as well as navigation; Athenian pottery was sold all over the Mediterranean, and there were armory workshops in Athens with more than a hundred slaves.

Another example: the wealth of the feudal lords was essentially the land and the royalties in kind of the serfs; on the other hand, the wealth of the bourgeoisie, based on commerce and nascent capitalist production, consisted mainly of money. The feudal lord who, out of a taste for luxury and a desire to compete with the wealthy bourgeoisie, wanted to provide himself with market products, was quickly ruined. He had no other protection than feudal privileges and the strengthening of feudal rights. The growth of commodity production threatened its economic power. So he tried to regulate it tightly through the corporate system. Thus the feudal system slowed down the development of new productive forces. But these imperatively demanded that the new (capitalist) production relations be generalized.Therefore, we must remember this: the productive forces, which change first, are not however independent of the relations of production. The relations of production, the development of which depends on that of the productive forces, in turn act on the development of these forces. They slow it down or they speed it up.

The relations of production play a role of hindering the development of the productive forces, when they no longer correspond to the development of the productive forces.

On the contrary, they play a stimulating role when they correspond, essentially, to the state of the productive forces.

And, by reason of the very priority which belongs to the productive forces in development, the new relations of production, when they correspond to them, are the main force which pushes them forward. It is because they correspond to them that they are their main driving force.

It is false ... that the role of the relations of production in the history of society is limited to that of hindering paralyzing the development of the productive forces. When Marxists say that the relations of production play the role of hindrance, they do not envisage just any relations of production, but only the old relations of production, which no longer correspond to the rise of the productive forces, and , consequently hamper their development. But, in addition to the old relations of production, there are, as we know, new ones which replace the old ones. Can we say that the role of the new relations of production is reduced to that of hindering the productive forces? Obviously no. The new relations of production are, on the contrary, the main and decisive force which determines, strictly speaking,the subsequent and, moreover, vigorous development of the productive forces; and, without them, the productive forces are condemned to vegetate ... (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 150.)

The law of necessary correspondence

We now grasp the internal dialectic of the mode of production.

As a given economic base has a more or less long duration, the productive forces make progress during this time. The relations of production which were new at the beginning of the history of this mode of production thus become obsolete. In the beginning they were the main force determining the development of the productive forces. But as soon as they cease to correspond to their rise, they hinder it.

Of course, the new relations of production cannot and do not remain eternally new; they begin to age and enter into contradiction with the subsequent development of the productive forces; they gradually lose their role as the main motor of the productive forces for which they become a hindrance. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 151.)

How, for example, does capitalism behave vis-à-vis advanced technology? The capitalists pride themselves on being the champions of technical progress, revolutionaries in technical matters. And it is true that capitalism has given an impetuous rise to technology. This is because the new technique, by reducing the working time necessary for production, makes it possible to increase surplus value [During the first hours of the working day, the worker creates a value equal to that of the products that the salary allows him to procure; during the rest of the day it creates additional value, or surplus value, which goes to the capitalist.], and therefore profit, provided that the market outlook allows to foresee good conditions for depreciation of the market. new equipment.

But we also know that capitalism presents phenomena of technical stagnation; the capitalists then act as reactionaries in the technical field; they no longer want to hear about new enhancements and often even resort to hand-made or home-based work. In fact, the installation of new equipment results in the immediate immobilization of capital; this increase in immobilized capital would decrease the rate of profit and consequently would not allow obtaining the maximum profit which capitalism, in a period when the relative stability of capitalist markets has ceased to exist, can no longer do without.

It is therefore the fundamental economic law of current capitalism, the need to achieve maximum profits, in short the character of obsolete production relations, which explains the phenomenon of stagnation. Capitalism is no longer in its ascending period.

Capitalism is for the new technique when it gives it a glimpse of greater profits. He is against the new technique and for a return to manual work, when the new technique no longer gives him a glimpse of higher profits. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, pp. 129-130.)

However, the delay of the relations of production on the rise of the productive forces cannot last indefinitely. Whatever measures are taken by the classes which personify the obsolete production relations, condemned by history, to prolong their economic base at all costs, they cannot turn the wheel of history backwards. The development of productive forces, the development of production is a material requirement of humanity, against which "the mind" in the long run can do nothing. It is therefore necessary that obsolete production relations give way. The measures taken by the reactionary classes can only ultimately lead to the destruction of the productive forces, to a violent contradiction in thewhole production which only precipitates the ruin of the entire mode of production.

Therefore, whatever the delay in the relations of production, they must, sooner or later, end up corresponding to the new character of the productive forces. How is this harmonization done? By the upheaval of the forms of ownership of the means of production, forms of ownership which, as we have seen, are the essential element of the relations of production. The establishment of a new property regime is equivalent to the establishment of new relations of production.

It is clear that the peaceful use of atomic energy, in the national interest, cannot be achieved by private capitalists; the maximum profit, they cannot obtain, in the case of a technique as expensive, as the orders of war of the State. The same can be said of the large-scale use of hydroelectric power, as well as the electrification of agricultural work.

Only social ownership of the means of production, because it is not subject to the law of profit, can achieve them. Thus, we can say that the productive forces give rise to the relations of production which they need to achieve their subsequent development. In this sense, the productive forces are the determining element in the development of production. It is the law of correspondence necessary between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces:

Such are the productive forces, such must be the relations of production. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.c, p. 23.)

In place of outdated production relations, new production relations appear, the role of which is to be the main engine of the subsequent development of the productive forces.

And Stalin adds:

This peculiarity of the development of the relations of production - passing from the role of hindrance of the productive forces to that of the main motor that pushes them forward, and from the role of the main motor to that of the hindrance of the productive forces - constitutes one of the main elements of the materialist Marxist dialectic. This is what all novice Marxists know today. (Stalin: “The economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, in Latest writings, p. 151.)

Let us add that this law is universal, that is to say valid for all modes of production, whatever their specific economic laws: it is the basis of all the development of human societies.

The role of human action

The necessary law of correspondence is an objective law. No one chooses the mode of production in which he lives. We did not choose to be born in the era of big industry, nor in the era of imperialist capitalism. Production as a whole imposes itself on men with the internal dialectic of its demands. The productive forces can only progress within the limits of certain relations of production and this necessary correspondence is the effect of the very nature of the productive forces, and not of the will of men. There is nothing we can do about it. No capitalist can erase the objective fact that present capitalism leads to the arrest of the development of the productive forces. And no one can do anything against the fact that only socialism is able to establish the necessary correspondence.

However, this does not at all mean that the action of men cannot and does not play any role in social development. This action appears with the feeling, or, depending on the case, the exact knowledge that they have of the objective necessities of production, of the necessary law of correspondence. To take an example cited above, the feudal lord, who prefers to deal with a serf rather than a slave because it favors production, has a certain feeling of the law of necessary correspondence and it is on it that he leans, in his own class interest, when he turns his slave into a serf. Does this human action mean that there is no objective law? Not at all. On the contrary, it presupposes the objectivity of the law. The proof is that, by its decision,the feudal one achieves the results which he envisaged. Quite simply, he uses the law for his own sake.

The capitalist who realizes that advanced technology compromises his maximum profit and who, therefore, takes measures against the development of the productive forces, against science, has a certain feeling of the necessary law of correspondence. He feels awe at the development of the productive forces which are driving private ownership of the means of production to the grave. To try to rule out this possibility, it can only try to destroy the productive forces which are revolutionizing production. In short, in its class interest, it relies on the law of correspondence necessary to try to curb its objective effects; it slows down the play of this law.

The point where the human will appears and can manifest itself is therefore the more or less exact and complete knowledge that men take from this law. Knowing it, they can try to slow down its action, to delay the moment when it will play inexorably; but they can also promote this action, hasten this moment, take measures in accordance with objective necessities, adapt the relations of production to the character of the productive forces.

We therefore understand that the objective character of the law of necessary correspondence in no way removes the responsibility of men. These can, by their conscious action, create conditions unfavorable or favorable to the play of the law. If, for example, the American magnates pursue a systematic policy of war, it is not innocently: they want to restore the capitalist relations of production wherever these have given way to socialist relations, and they want, by deliberate destruction productive forces, curb the growth of these forces which is detrimental to their interests.

But it is understood that the will of men can only be deployed within the objective limits of their time. They do not have the power to bring the productive forces back to the level of the time of the caves, despite the reactionary reasoning which consists in saying that "the people of the time were perhaps not worse off"! It is also understood that the effective power to change the relations of production does not always exist, but depends on the state and the nature of the productive forces. The capitalists would repeat that the construction of socialism would be impossible, that the experiment would end in famine, etc. This may have been true in 1848, but it was no longer so as soon as society could harness the colossal forces of 20th century energy and industry. TheExperience has shown this and the capitalists trembled for good when they saw that it was now possible to build socialism. Finally, this power of men also depends on the character of the relations of production: in a society divided into hostile classes, the action of the classes which have an interest in adapting the relations of production to the productive forces comes up against numerous obstacles. It is not the same when society does not have a declining class within it capable of organizing resistance. The will of men - the subjective factor - can therefore only be effective if it is specifically aimed at facilitating the application of the objective law. A will which refuses to rely on objective reality is the very reverse of the will. Wanting is onlya word if he ignores his power.

Stalin insists on the importance of this human action:

At the time of the bourgeois revolution, in France for example, the bourgeoisie used against feudalism the law of the necessary correspondence between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces, it overturned the feudal relations of production, it created new, bourgeois relations of production, and made them agree with the character of the productive forces, which had developed within the feudal system. The bourgeoisie did so not by virtue of its particular faculties, but because it was keenly interested in it. The feudal lords opposed it, not out of stupidity, but because they were keenly interested in preventing the application of this law. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", work cited, pp. 137-138.)

Elsewhere he observes that if the power of the Soviets carried out with honor the task of socialist construction, a difficult and complex task, it is not

because he supposedly abolished the existing economic laws and "formed new ones", but only because he relied on the economic law of the necessary correspondence between the relations of production and the character of the forces productive. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", cited work, p. 97.)

If the bourgeoisie resisted the application of this law by all means, it was because it was keenly interested in its non-application. Let us therefore underline, in conclusion, that the action of men using economic laws in the interest of social development takes place, to a greater or lesser extent and depending on the circumstances, in all social formations. But the results are obviously much faster when this use is scientific and when no class is opposed to it, which is precisely the case in a socialist regime.

Note, in the second place, that in a class society, the use of economic laws always and everywhere has class motives, and that it is always and everywhere the avant-garde class that is championing the use of economic laws in the interest of social development, while declining classes oppose it, whatever the consequences for the rest of society. They thus become the enemies of society and fall back on their class egoism. What differentiates the proletariat from other classes which in the past revolutionized the relations of production is that, by its nature, it cannot apply the necessary law of correspondence without at the same time eliminating private ownership of the means of production. 'that is to say any form ofoperation. Its class interests are therefore identified with those of working humanity, of all the exploited and oppressed.

We will draw from our study a great Marxist idea, capital for our action: men make their own history, but under given conditions which determine them and which must be taken into account. It is an all-time truth. To make history is to overcome the resistance of the reactionary classes which oppose the necessary changes in the mode of production. Making history is therefore the task of the exploited and the oppressed. History is the history of the producers of material goods and it is the oppressed and exploited masses who make it: the people are the true creator of history. But this all-time truth takes on startling relief under capitalism. By expanding to the whole world, by exploiting the majority of a country's population,by enslaving the peoples of other countries, capitalism in its last phase sets in motion masses incomparably larger than previous regimes. The era of proletarian revolution and the liberation of colonial peoples is a time when the world masses burst onto the stage of history. Only the action of the masses can overcome the resistance of the capitalists. The masses triumphed in 1917 in Petrograd and Moscow, in 1949 in Nanjing and Shanghai. Unlike reactionaries who fear the masses, unlike the petty bourgeoisie who oppose "reason" and "reflection" to the action of masses, a Marxist cannot dread the action of the masses. On the contrary, it works at their head because proletarian socialism does notis not simply a philosophical doctrine, but, in Stalin's words, the doctrine of the proletarian masses, their "banner". He has an unshakeable confidence in the masses and their action, because he knows that, when they set in motion, the history which marched begins to march at full steam, he knows that the class struggle is the engine of the story.

See: Control questions

The class struggle before capitalism

We have just explained the law of correspondence necessary between relations of production and productive forces. We know on the other hand that the relations of production, when they are based on private property, are characterized by class exploitation, and therefore by class struggle. It is in this form that the action of men in history manifests itself spontaneously.

Two errors must now be avoided: believing that, since there is a necessary law common to all societies, human action is useless and ineffective in history, in changing the economic base of societies; - or conversely believe that the class struggle can do anything, at any time.

The exploited classes want to suppress exploitation. But this is only possible at a certain level of development of the productive forces. Until the proletarian revolution, the struggle of the oppressed classes only resulted in the modification of the regime of private property, in the replacement of one form of exploitation by another.

The class struggle reflects the fundamental contradiction that exists in the relations of production between exploiters and exploited. But its results cannot go beyond what is authorized at a given moment by the law of correspondence necessary between these relations and the productive forces.

However, the class struggle is of great importance, when there is exploitation, as a method of applying this law of necessary correspondence. It is in this sense - and in this sense only - that it is the motor of history.

In this lesson we will study this dialectic at the major stages of the development of societies.

The origins of the society

[For a detailed study of economics from its origins to capitalism, see J. Baby: Fundamental Principles of Political Economy, Part 1. Social Editions, Paris, 1949.]

Nothing is more confused and incoherent than the explanations of the idealists concerning the first social formations. Without speaking of the myth of Adam and Eve, one of the most widespread theses considers the family as the primitive cell of society. In reality, the family is a social institution, the type of which depends closely on the prevailing relations of production. As for bourgeois sociologists, they are only interested in techniques and primitive beliefs and oscillate between mechanistic materialism and idealism. In addition, they consider social development from the angle of the extension of the “volume” of society: they see it as a passage “from clans to empires”. Only Marxism gives a scientific definition of primitive societies by showing that they have, like any society,an economic basis.

The productive forces of this period were very weakly developed. The stone tools, and even the bow and arrows which subsequently appeared and became the decisive weapon, were not powerful enough for man to be able to fight in isolation against the forces of nature and the beasts of prey. . The men therefore sought to face their precarious condition by joining forces.

To pick fruit in the forests, to catch fish, to build any habitation, men were obliged to work together if they did not want to starve or fall prey to ferocious beasts or neighboring tribes. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3c, p. 24.)

The consequence of this state of affairs is that the ownership of the means of production, of hunting grounds for example, as well as of products, is also common to all of society. Only a few instruments of production which are at the same time weapons of defense against beasts of prey are the individual property of those who made them.

Thus collective ownership of the means of production essentially corresponds to the character of the productive forces and forms the economic basis of this social formation, which is called the primitive commune.

In turn, this economic basis generates interesting ideological peculiarities: the feeling and the notion of private property do not yet exist. Since there are no classes, no class exploitation, there is no class hatred. So we see that, contrary to what idealists say, the feeling of "mine" and "yours", hatred and selfishness are not eternal feelings of human nature. These are historical products from private property. Primitive man is characterized by dedication to the interests of the clan, loyalty and trust in other members of the clan. Hence the legend of the “lost paradise”, but these “virtues” were not the effect of the “natural goodness” dear to Rousseau: they reflected the economic base,they were an imperative condition for victory over the hostile forces which surrounded the clan. At the same time, primitive man lived in terror and ignorance of these hostile forces and therefore in superstition.

Another peculiarity of primitive communism was the great role accorded to women; the inequality of man and woman consisted only in the division of labor between them, but descent by woman alone was recognized. The woman therefore directed education and the advice of the grandmother was law: it was matriarchy.

The emergence of classes

What brought about the decline of the primitive commune, the appearance of classes? It is not the wickedness of man as maintained by idealism, it is the development of productive forces as taught by Marxism.

In fact, in order for man to be able to monopolize property privately, it was absolutely necessary for society to have more material goods than the precarious resources available to the original commune. These barely allowed the company to survive. To monopolize under these conditions is to condemn one's fellow human beings to death: there is no interest in it since only the common struggle makes it possible to face multiple dangers. For the possibility of monopolizing to exist, the other members of society must have something to survive on, and there must also be a surplus, and therefore the productive forces must have progressed.

This progress of the productive forces (see lesson 15, point II. A) took place within the primitive commune which then facilitated the struggle against nature as much as possible. The main stages were: the domestication of animals thanks to the bow and arrows and the division of labor between herders and primitive hunters; then the transition to agriculture thanks to metal tools (iron ax, ploughshare); and then the differentiation of trades and agriculture; let us add that the pottery made it possible to make reserves.

These advances have far-reaching consequences. First the breeding, then agriculture provide much more regular and abundant resources than the hazards of hunting.

The domestication of animals gave man a privileged economic position. He was thus able to reverse hereditary rights and establish paternal filiation.

The reversal of maternal rights was the great historical defeat of the female sex. Even at home, it was the man who took control of the rudder; the woman was degraded, enslaved, she became the slave of the pleasure of the man and simple instrument of reproduction. This degraded condition of woman as it appears in particular among the Greeks of the heroic period and even more so of the classical period, it is gradually painted, it is adorned with pretenses, it is sometimes dressed in softened forms; but it is not at all suppressed. (Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, p. 57. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1954.)

The legend of the Amazons has transmitted to us the memory of the heroic struggles supported by matriarchal tribes who succeeded in taming the horse against the tribes where men now reigned.

With breeding, then with agriculture, work no longer simply has immediate need as its goal, it produces a surplus: exchange becomes necessary and possible at the same time, and with exchange, the possibility of accumulate wealth.

Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools; instead of an economy reduced to a primitive and miserable hunting, which ignores breeding and agriculture, we see the appearance of breeding, agriculture, trades, the division of labor between these different branches of production ; we see the possibility of exchanging products between individuals and groups, the possibility of an accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small number ... (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism. 3.c, p. 24 .)

Human labor now supplying a surplus over minimum consumption, there was an interest in including new labor forces. In the previous period prisoners of war were useless mouths since the work hardly ensured the conservation of the one who carried it out; therefore there was no interest in taking prisoners, but in eliminating the rival tribe from the hunting ground. Now the work of the prisoner could leave a surplus, it was natural to use it, he became a slave.

The increase in production in all branches - cattle ranching, agriculture, domestic crafts - gave the human labor force the capacity to produce more than was needed for its subsistence. [Underlined by us. (GB and MC)] At the same time, it increased the daily amount of work that fell on each member of the people [Patriarchal family.], Of the domestic community or of the conjugal family. It became desirable to resort to new labor forces. War provides them: prisoners of war were turned into slaves. By increasing the productivity of labor, hence wealth, and by expanding the field of production, the first great social division of labor under the given historical conditions necessarily entailed slavery.From the first great social division of labor was born the first great division of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited ... We have now reached the threshold of civilization ... At the lowest stage, men produced only directly for their personal needs; the exchanges which took place on occasion were isolated, only concerned the superfluous which one had by chance ... (Engels: op. cited p. 147. 148, 151.)dealt only with the superfluous that was available by chance ... (Engels: op. cited p. 147. 148, 151.)dealt only with the superfluous that was available by chance ... (Engels: op. cited p. 147. 148, 151.)

Henceforth the production of the surplus became, on the contrary, more and more systematic. Some slaves were the collective property of their conquerors, others individual property, but in any case the slaves had nothing: private ownership of the means of production was born, society was now divided into classes, primitive communism had gone, the economic base of the company had changed. All this had been done in accordance with the requirements of the new productive forces, with the improvement of techniques, and, without men wanting it, even within the primitive commune.

When some members of the primitive commune began little by little and as if groped, to switch from stone tools to iron tools, they were obviously unaware of the social results to which this innovation would lead; they didn't think about it; they were not aware, they did not understand that the adoption of metal tools meant a revolution in production, that it would ultimately lead to the regime of slavery. What they wanted was just to make their jobs easier and gain an immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious activity was confined within the narrow framework of this personal, daily advantage. (Stalin: Dialectical materialism and historical materialism, 3 dp 29.)

The end of the primitive era and the beginnings of slavery left deep traces in the memory of men. Not understanding its objective necessity, they saw in it a divine vengeance, the loss of primitive "innocence", the fruit of "wickedness", of "selfishness", of the devil. The "virtues" of old were idealized and provided many moral themes. The memory of the ancient precedence of women was preserved in the myth of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. The Bible deplored the "fall" of man and the poets of Antiquity: Hesiod, Ovid, celebrated "the golden age" whose tradition predicted the inevitable return.

In reality, if the primitive period did not know the class struggles which tore society apart in the later periods, it knew the miserable state of humanity in the grip of natural perils of all kinds. It would be ridiculous not to want to recognize that slavery, which appeared on the basis of the development of the productive forces, drew the most technically backward tribes out of the state in which they were vegetating and constituted a step forward.

It is therefore not appropriate to idealize the primitive era. The appearance of classes was inevitable since it made possible the increase in production. However, it should not be concealed that it inaugurates this era of humanity where, according to Engels' words, every step forward has as a condition a step back, since each increase in production, well-being and of the civilization of a fraction of the society has as a condition the increased exploitation, the misery and the brutalization of the greatest number.

Class society has profoundly transformed human psychology and, in this sense, Rousseau was not wrong to hold "society" responsible for the "corruption" of "human nature". The exploitation of man by man has the effect of brutally preventing the exploited from disposing of the fruit of his labor. Man is thus separated from his work. His work is "alienated" in the hands of the exploiter who "appropriates" it. Separated from his work, man is separate from himself, since the productive activity, the creative initiative are precisely the peculiarity of man, which makes him truly human and distinguishes him from animals. And while the exploited is dispossessed of what he has produced, the exploiter appropriates what he has not produced.Thus the consciousness of the exploited is separated from itself because it is mutilated, because it cannot freely achieve its ends, that of the exploiter is separated from itself because the lie is there. permanently installed, because it cannot freely confess its ends. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.exploited is separated from itself because it is mutilated, because it cannot freely achieve its ends, that of the exploiter is separated from itself because the lie is permanently installed there, because 'she cannot freely confess her ends. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.exploited is separated from itself because it is mutilated, because it cannot freely achieve its ends, that of the exploiter is separated from itself because the lie is permanently installed there, because 'she cannot freely confess her ends. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.it is mutilated, because it cannot freely achieve its ends, that of the exploiter is separated from itself because the lie is permanently installed there, because it cannot freely avow its ends to itself. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.it is mutilated, because it cannot freely achieve its ends, that of the exploiter is separated from itself because the lie is permanently installed there, because it cannot freely avow its ends to itself. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.the exploiter is separated from herself because the lie is permanently installed there, because she cannot freely confess her ends. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.the exploiter is separated from herself because the lie is permanently installed there, because she cannot freely confess her ends. Each reflects in its own way the fact of exploitation. This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.This division of consciousness against itself is in what consists either the loss of "primitive innocence", or what Hegel could call the "misfortune of consciousness". Thus the appearance of classes and of exploitation, the fundamental split of humanity into antagonistic groups, is reflected in this deep, fundamental split of human consciousness, spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.spontaneously torn into violently contradictory tendencies.

Instead of man himself being the end of his productive activity, we see on the contrary the end and the means separated from each other: the part of society which is the means of production (the majority) is not the end of it; the one who is the end (the minority) is not the means.

This contradiction explains the degeneration and moral decadence of the exploiting classes as soon as their system of exploitation no longer corresponds to the needs for the development of the productive forces. As exploitation becomes more intolerable, scandal and decay more and more take hold in the world of exploiters. It is then that the corrupting character of class society appears more clearly, as well as the need for regeneration.

For example, at the end of the Ancien Régime, the philosophers as a whole - and not Rousseau alone - opposed "virtue" to the vices of the decadent aristocracy. Robespierre declares that he is putting Terror at the service of Virtue. Condorcet and others await the regeneration of mankind from the Revolution. The Directory first of all, then the bourgeois regime in general soon created bitter disappointments which, in contrast, legitimized the utopianism of a Fourier.

Only Marx had to show that regeneration can come neither from moral or philosophical propaganda, nor from draconian and Spartan legislation, nor from a revolution in general, but from the abolition of class exploitation. Only the end of the class struggle, of the division of humanity against itself, will be able to reconcile man with himself, mark the advent of a happy conscience. But the abolition of the class struggle can only be achieved by carrying out the class struggle itself. It is the proletarian revolution and no other that will restore its unity to humanity, prefigured in the proletariat and the popular masses. Within their victorious fight against the inhumanity and the decadence of the exploiting classes,the proletarians and their allies are reconquering humanity for themselves and achieving precisely the end of man. The way is already the same at the end. It is in the action of the popular masses that the only hopes for regeneration lie, because it is precisely the struggle that transforms those who struggle.

The Socialist Revolution is therefore the dawn of true humanism, but it is precisely because it is the work of men that the revolutionary struggle has restored to the fullness of humanity. The metaphysical opposition that bourgeois ideologues try to establish between the end and the means of revolution is nothing but a fallacy. The process of revolutionary transformation of society is a unique process in which all moments are united. Under the conditions of the revolutionary struggle of the masses, the thousand-year-old features of the alienation of man, of divided consciousness, of perverted humanity have already been abolished; It is under the conditions of this struggle that the traits of the future man are affirmed, freed from the defects of class society. Theself-sacrifice of revolutionaries is living proof of this.

Slave and feudal societies

By studying the origin of the exploitation of man by man, we have shown its nature: the owner of the means of production appropriates the surplus that can be created, at a certain level of their development, by productive forces in relation to the minimum necessary for the life of the worker, deprived of ownership of the means of production.

History recognizes three forms of the exploitation of man by man: slavery, feudal, capitalist. We will quickly characterize the first two here. The next lesson will be devoted to the third.

The specific contradiction of slavery production relations is the contradiction between the class of masters, owners of slaves, and the class of slaves. The slavery regime, created by struggle and war to procure slaves, is nothing other than the forced labor of prisoners of war. From the beginning to the end it has been the scene of a bitter class struggle.

The ownership of the master of slaves over the means of production as well as over the worker forms the basis of the relations of production and corresponds, essentially, to the state of the productive forces. The slave, a former prisoner of war, can be bought, sold, killed like cattle. The means of production are accumulated in the hands of a minority, the majority of the members of society are subject to the minority. Common and free work has ended; the only thing that exists, on the one hand, is the forced labor of exploited slaves and, on the other, the idleness of the masters who take no interest in production and see no other way to increase it than to increase the number of slaves. . The master of slaves is the first and principal owner, the absolute owner.

The slave has no rights. Idleness is considered the perfection of the free man. Manual, servile labor is despised. With the antagonistic classes inevitably appear the special organs necessary to keep the slaves in obedience: this is the beginning of the state. Law, morality, religion, idealistic philosophy play their role in the service of the ruling class, and are themselves a product of the division of society into classes.

Exploitation is cruelly felt by the slave: he has the impression that all the fruit of his labor goes to the master; in fact, a part - reduced to the strict minimum, it is true - is returned to him in the form of food. But the forms of slave struggle are primitive and rudimentary: passivity in the face of forced labor, desertion from the master's domain, organization of pirate bands, finally collective revolts.

Within the slave society other classes develop. When the trades separate from agriculture, the class of craftsmen appears; then the development of trade gives rise to that of merchants.

Hence new contradictions. Intermediary between two producers, the merchant class quickly acquires enormous wealth and proportionate social influence. It competes with the landowners to orient political power in the direction of its class interests (struggle of the “democrats” against the “aristocrats” in Greece, of the “plebeians” against the “patricians” in Rome).

But these secondary contradictions should not mask the main contradiction: it is slavery which makes it possible to increase wealth, the production on which trade lives. This increase in production and with it in labor productivity increases the value of human labor power. We can no longer do without slavery, which is becoming an essential element of the social system.

The contradiction of interests between masters and slaves did not endanger the slave system as long as technological progress gave it a superiority over the backward tribes which it reduced to slavery. But, after having been the main force in the development of the productive forces, the slavery relations of production turned into obstacles. For example in the 2nd century AD, Heron of Alexandria discovered the principle of the steam engine. But this had no practical consequences: instead of introducing new techniques that servile labor rendered inoperative, people preferred to recruit new slaves. Technical superiority finally gave way to the stagnation of techniques and even to their decline.

On the other hand, the recruitment of slaves required permanent war, otherwise it would have been necessary to bring up the children of slaves, an expensive means of renewing them. At the end of a long agony, where objective contradictions and religious and political struggles are entangled, the ancient slave state, the Roman Empire collapsed under the blows of the Barbarians. It collapsed precisely at the moment when its technical inferiority and its internal contradictions - economic and political - no longer allowed it to prevail over the barbarians and thus recruit new slaves. For the struggle of the Barbarians against the Roman state was ultimately nothing other than the struggle against their enslavement. By the logic of its system, the Roman Empire was in a position of perpetual aggressor.

Thus the specific contradiction of the slave regime led it to its ruin when it itself entered into contradiction with the character of the productive forces. To get the economy back on its feet, new production relations were needed: they developed on the ruins of slavery: this was the feudal system.

The feudal regime marked an evolution of private property. Its economic basis is the feudal lord's ownership of the means of production and his limited ownership over the worker, the serf. The feudal can no longer kill it, but he can still sell and buy it. The serf, peasant or craftsman, has individually only his instruments and his private economy, based on personal labor. He can thus have a family and the recruitment of serfs is ensured mainly by heredity of serfdom. These relations of production correspond, for the most part, to the state of the productive forces.

The essence of exploitation, here again, consists in the fact that the feudal lord appropriates privately the surplus of the serf's production. The serf, for example, works three days for himself and three days for the lord. Exploitation is hardly softened compared to the days of slavery; the very word “serf” comes from the Latin word which means “slave” (servus). All rights belong to the lord. Under the pretext of "protecting" his serfs against robbery and looting by neighboring lords, he plundered them himself, demanding enormous royalties in kind. The forms of struggle of the serfs remain primitive: flight out of the seigniorial fiefdom, organization of bands in the forests, revolts finally, or jacqueries during which the serfsstrive to destroy the scrolls where the lord keeps records of their royalties.

A fierce repression fell on the Jacques. [Read Prosper Mérimée: La Jacquerie, preface from Aragon. The French Library; and Engels: "The Peasants' War", in The Bourgeois Democratic Revolution in Germany. Editions Sociales.] The class struggle between feudal landlords and serfs, a reflection of the specific contradiction in feudal production relations, lasts from the beginning to the end of the regime. In addition, this contradiction is developing in a new form, the germ of new conflicts: the fraction of serfs who devote themselves to crafts, then to commerce, creates a new class. The contradiction of interests will grow between these inhabitants of the towns, the “bourgeois”, and the feudal lords. The young bourgeoisie is called upon to develop the productive forces, to constitute a new economic power.The feudal relations of production, at the beginning conforming to the character of the productive forces, will become backward and will turn into obstacles for these forces. The contradiction between bourgeoisie and feudalism, at first secondary and itself engendered by the development of the productive forces within serfdom, gradually takes center stage and finally plays the main role. Indeed, the struggle of the rural serfs results in a certain improvement in their lot because the feudal lords fear that the bourgeoisie will find allies in them. But by itself it could not lead to the liquidation of feudal relations of production, because the new productive forces were not developing in the countryside, but in the city. It is the bourgeois democratic revolution which abolishes serfdom.The specific contradiction of feudal production relations could only disappear when these themselves came into violent contradiction with the new character of the productive forces. For a new development of the economy new relations of production were needed: on the ruins of the feudal system, capitalism arose.

The development of the bourgeoisie

We can notice that, in each case, the new productive forces which will lead to new relations of production do not appear outside the old regime, after its disappearance, but on the contrary within it. Each generation works to achieve specific technical improvements that are immediately profitable to it, and this because it must adapt to the existing production conditions, created by the work of previous generations. In addition, a given generation is not at all aware of the social results that this or that improvement in the productive forces can lead to in the long run: it only thinks of its daily interests. It is only afterfor a while for the ruling classes to realize the danger and consciously slow down the growth of the productive forces. Each generation is drawn into a chain of causes and effects that it does not control. The new relations of production are not the effect of a conscious and premeditated action of men; on the contrary, they arise spontaneously, independently of the conscience and the will of men. They are not arbitrary, but their necessity arises from the technical and economic conditions of the old regime. This is an important feature of the dialectic of modes of production. What defines a mode of production are the dominant relations of production which are not necessarily the only ones. Let us take a closer look at the development of the bourgeoisie,who lived for seven centuries in the feudal regime.

At the start, production is low and consumed locally; there are few exchanges and one notes a preponderance of the countryside on the city, subjected to the feudal, and very little developed. Then, around the 12th century, thanks to the progress of the trades, made possible by serfdom itself, new phenomena appeared in the towns: a surplus of production for the market. Hence the fairs, with a class specializing in the sale and purchase of goods: the merchants, the first embryo of the bourgeoisie.

This rise of the bourgeoisie is at the origin of the communal movement, the first form of the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal lords: in exchange for the franchises granted, the lord demands rights paid in cash; by the same means, the bourgeoisie bought various political rights: to enclose their city with walls, coin money, build a prison, have an armed militia, elected representatives, a town hall with a fortified tower (belfry). The king often gives them his support against the lords, his rivals, in exchange for loans of money which are necessary to him for the strengthening and the march of the feudal state.

The Crusades developed the merchant bourgeoisie by opening the way to the Mediterranean. At the same time, an obligatory auxiliary to exchanges, the bankers' class (Florence) grew.

The Hundred Years War punishes the military incapacity of the feudal lords [The day before the battle of Poitiers, King Jean had the communes disarmed!], And the rise of the bourgeoisie, English, Belgian with the clothier Artevelde, French with the clothier Etienne Marcel. The progress of military technique inferior the lords: firearms are so expensive that only the king, financed by the merchants, can buy them; he will thus dismantle the fortified castles.

At the end of the 15th century the great discoveries took place, which set out to conquer gold. The influx of gold on the European market had prodigious consequences: enormous fortunes were quickly formed, prices increased, the lords were ruined. The great bourgeois families like the Medici were the real kings of the time, a power to be reckoned with. In exchange for the financial support it receives from the bourgeoisie, the monarchy grants it monopolies.

It is then that manufacture can appear, both because the capital accumulated in the previous period exists and because the development of trade is such that artisanal production, characteristic of feudalism, is no longer sufficient. Thus we went from craftsmanship to commerce, and from commerce to manufacture, a new step forward for the productive forces. Shopping centers become manufacturing centers: for example the silk industry in Lyon. Manufacture is the decomposition of the manufacture of a product into fragmented tasks, carried out by separate workers: it is the possibility of increasing production with a view to trade, with a view to increasing capital. Commerce, from a means that it was, has become an end which is created by new means. Thus the industrial bourgeoisie,manufacturing, appears within feudal society and, with it, the first embryos of the proletariat. The "middle ages" gave way to "modern times". [These two expressions obviously have only a very weak scientific meaning, but they correspond to a real change.] It is the beginning of new relations of production, characterized by the capitalist exploitation of a salaried proletariat. This is recruited from among the ruined peasants, driven from the land, the artisans ruined by competition, the mercenaries of the feudal lords who have remained unemployed, and all those fleeing feudal oppression: free, they are all deprived of the means of production and , so as not to die of hunger, obliged to sell their labor power to the bourgeois; because for the latter, himself born of commodity production, everythingbuys and sells.

The new productive forces require workers to be more cultured and more intelligent than the ignorant and stupid serfs; that they are able to understand the machine and know how to handle it properly. So the capitalists prefer to deal with salaried workers freed from the shackles of serfdom, sufficiently cultivated to handle the machines properly. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.c, p. 26.)

The new relations of production in fact favor the development of the productive forces which increase profit: we pass from manufacture to mechanized industry, then, with the steam engine, to the system of machines and to the great modern mechanical industry. In the 18th century, it was the “industrial revolution”, powerfully described by Marx in the first part of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

The consequence of the appearance of these new relations of production is a constant class struggle against the feudal lords. This struggle has evolved for a long time since the first battles for “franchises”.

The Renaissance expresses it. The bourgeoisie confronts the Church, an ideological ally of feudalism, and finds support in the ideologies of Antiquity. With Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus and Rabelais, she exalts nature, science, reason, the power of the human spirit; she criticizes medieval education with Rabelais and Montaigne. The wars of religion express this struggle in a more veiled, mystical form.

The struggle intensified in the eighteenth century: it was directed against the feudal state which, by its regulations, provincial fragmentation, privileges and taxes, hampered the development of productive forces and the extension of trade. This greater acuteness of the struggle has a great significance: the bourgeoisie begins to realize that it necessarily needs, in order to prosper, to liquidate the old relations of production and to assure the new ones an undivided reign. The struggle becomes political:

So here is what we have seen: the means of production and exchange, on the basis of which the bourgeoisie was built, were created within feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and traded, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing, in a word the feudal system of property, ceased. to correspond to the productive forces in full development. They hampered production instead of advancing it. They turned into so many chains. These chains had to be broken. We broke them.

Instead arose free competition, with an appropriate social and political constitution, with the economic and political supremacy of the bourgeois class. (K. Marx and F. Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 34.)

Obviously this awareness did not happen overnight:

When, under feudal rule, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began to build large factories alongside the small workshops of craftsmen, thus advancing the productive forces of society, it was obviously unaware of the social consequences to which this innovation would succeed, she did not think about it; she was not aware, she did not understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces, which was to end in a revolution against the royal power whose benevolence she valued so much, as well as against the nobility. which the best representatives of this bourgeoisie often dreamed of entering; what she wanted was simply to lower the cost of producing goods,to throw more goods into the markets of Asia and those of newly discovered America, and make greater profits; his conscious activity was confined to the narrow framework of his practical, daily interests. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.d, p. 29.)

So at the beginning the bourgeoisie had no other objective than to secure a place in feudal society. The class struggle is the social, political, ideological reflection of real, material, economic interests. This is an objective fact, because the bourgeoisie itself is inscribed in objective history as a product of the economic laws of commodity production, a product of private property, the first elements of which are granted to the exploited class by the very institution of serfdom.

A moment comes when feudal property and the whole feudal system become a direct obstacle to the development of the productive forces, when the contradiction between the old relations of production and the new productive forces becomes intolerable. The rising class is by definition the one capable of developing the new productive forces.

The contradiction develops into antagonism: the struggle becomes more and more conscious, methodical, spontaneous than it was at first; it makes the rising class revolutionary. It becomes the means without which one cannot achieve the application of the necessary law of correspondence. Its objective now is not to make room for the bourgeoisie in the feudal system, but to abolish this system. This is why it becomes more acute and more bitter on the part of the feudal lords too, who are no longer only threatened in their relative economic power, but in their existence as a class; so they are becoming more and more reactionary.

From then on, we can understand Marx's formula: the class struggle is the motor of history, that is to say the political means by which the contradictions of production are resolved, the means by which the productive forces and the whole of society will be able to move forward. But, if it resolves the contradiction, it is not this which opened it: it is not the conscience of men which creates contradictions with pleasure.

This engine does not work with nothing: there is production with its necessary law of correspondence. But it allows this law to fully manifest itself, just as an engine allows the energy of its fuel to produce its full effect. From the moment when production generates antagonistic classes and until their disappearance, the development of society takes place through class struggle: struggle between, on the one hand, the hostile classes out of interest in the necessary correspondence of relations of production with the productive forces and, on the other hand, the classes favorable by interest to this correspondence. Let us note on this subject, with the example of the bourgeoisie, that a revolutionary class can be at the same time exploiting, that a dominated class (it isis the case of the bourgeoisie under feudalism) is not at the same time an exploited class.

The rising class becomes aware of its historical mission with the help of economics, or at least of economic experience; the more this awareness becomes more precise, the more effective its revolutionary struggle becomes, since it is based on knowledge of the objective law of necessary correspondence.

So let's conclude that

economic production and the social structure which necessarily results from it form, in each historical epoch, the basis of the political and intellectual history of that epoch; ... as a result (since the dissolution of the common property of the soil of primitive times) , the whole of history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting classes, between dominated and dominant classes, at the different stages of their social development ... (Engels: Preface to the 1883 edition of the Communist Party Manifesto. See p. 19 of the 1954 edition of Editions Sociales.)

See: Control questions

The contradictions of capitalist society

Capitalist relations of production: their specific contradiction

Characterizing capitalist society, which succeeds feudal society, Stalin writes:

Under the capitalist regime, it is capitalist ownership of the means of production which forms the basis of the relations of production: ownership over the producers, the salaried workers, no longer exists; the capitalist can neither kill them nor sell them, because they are freed from all personal dependence; but they are deprived of the means of production and, in order not to starve, they are obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to submit to the yoke of exploitation. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.c, p. 25-26.)

In other words, capitalist relations enclose a fundamental contradiction between the interest of the exploiting class (capitalist bourgeoisie) and the interest of the exploited class (proletariat). This contradiction is specific to capitalism. It constitutes it, since the existence and prosperity of the capitalist bourgeoisie can have no other source than the wage labor of the proletarians.

We can therefore understand that the class struggle is inseparable from capitalism. It expresses the internal contradiction of capitalist relations of production, the capitalist exploitation of man by man. As soon as the capitalist relations of production are formed - within feudal society itself - the objective class struggle between bourgeois and proletarians appears. [This is why it would be wrong to believe that in 1789, at the time of the bourgeois revolution, the third estate formed a united block without contradictions of interests. All the classes that made up the third estate had a common interest in the abolition of feudalism. But at the same time there was an opposition of interests within the third estate, between exploiters and exploited;to which should be added the oppositions between the big and the petty bourgeoisie, etc.] It continues throughout the history of capitalism.

The analysis of capitalist relations of production will allow us to precisely specify the nature of their specific contradiction, of which the class struggle is the necessary effect.

The craftsman sold his products to buy necessary material goods; the capitalist buys raw materials in order to sell manufactured products. The goal of artisanal production is consumption; the goal of capitalist production is profit. In this new form of circulation: investing money to produce more money - money is transformed into capital. The transition from the first form of circulation of money to the form of circulation of capital is possible whenever there is private ownership of the means of production, which is particularly the case under the feudal regime. This explains why capitalism can be born there.

But in order for a profit to be realized in the operation, the capitalist must find on the market a commodity which has a very special property: the property of producing more value than is necessary for its renewal; and the capitalist must appropriate the surplus value thus produced. What is this commodity so interesting for the capitalist? It is obviously the labor power of the worker, for there is only work that can produce value. [Of course, man's labor-power can only produce surplus value from a certain level of development of the productive forces, as we saw in lesson 17, II.]

... by force of work, ... it is necessary to understand all the physical and intellectual faculties which exist in the body of a man, in his living personality, and which he must set in motion to produce useful things . (K. Marx: Le Capital, L. 1 st, t. I., eh. 6, p. 170. Editions Sociales.)

What is needed so that the capitalist can appropriate the value thus produced? That he has all the means of production.

What does it take for human labor power to become a commodity? so that men come to sell it themselves in the market?

In the first place, it must belong to them entirely, that is to say, that they be freed from the bonds of serfdom; in the second place, there is the market: buying and selling, commodity production; thirdly, that men have nothing to sell other than their labor power, that is to say that they themselves have no means of production. Such men, the proletarians, exist, both as a result of the economic disintegration of the feudal system, and as a result of the competition which reigns in commodity production, competition which ruins the small artisans, the small traders and that from the beginning of its development. On the other hand, the capitalist who has an interest in using free workers, more developed than ignorant serfs, and knowing how to use new techniques,promotes by all means the struggle of the serfs for their liberation.

Here we grasp at the same time the origin and the nature of the "freedom" which capitalism has championed; it is, for the capitalist, the freedom of commerce and enterprise, and for the proletarian the freedom to be hired by the capitalist.

Hiring is therefore nothing other than the purchase of the proletarian labor power. But how is she going to be paid? As with any commodity, its value is determined by the quantity of labor necessary for its production, by the value of the products necessary for its maintenance, for its renewal, necessary for the proletarian to live and for his children to grow up and replace him. This value being subtracted from the value produced by the worker during the working day, all the surplus, the surplus value, will increase capital: the first part is expressed in wages, the second gives rise to profit. ["The value of labor power is determined by the value of the basic necessities that are needed to produce, develop, conserve and perpetuate labor power". (K. Marx:Wage, price and profit, p. 18. Salaried labor and capital ... p. 95.)] This is why the capitalist has every interest in lengthening the working day, and the proletarian in shortening it. If it takes three hours to produce a value equivalent to what the maintenance of the worker's labor force requires, and the worker begins work at 6 a.m., from 9 a.m. and beyond therefore works for the capitalist. If, working without interruption, he finishes at 2 pm, he has worked 5 hours for the capitalist; but if he finishes at 7 p.m. (we still assume uninterrupted labor) he has worked 10 hours for the capitalist. So between an 8 hour day and a 13 hour day (common in the early days of capitalism), the capitalist's profit doubles!As for the wage, it is always the same: it is fixed by the value of the maintenance of the labor force, a value that is enough 3 hours to produce. Of course the capitalist conceals this fact by paying the wages at the end of the day, after the work he has demanded is finished. The proletarian is therefore obliged, in order not to die of hunger, to work for the entire time fixed if he wants to receive his salary.

In other words, the capitalist in exchange for a salary which represents strictly the equivalent of the minimum material needs of the proletarian, appropriates the products of the labor of this proletarian. The working day is divided into necessary working time and free working time.

Under capitalism there is therefore, as under feudalism and slavery, private appropriation of unpaid labor, but the proletarian does not immediately discover the secret of this exploitation, because he has the illusion that all his labor is paid to him. at the end of the day- The serf owned the products of his private economy and knew that he worked so many free days for the lord. The modern proletarian, like the slave, possesses nothing, apart from his "freedom", that is to say the faculty of selling his labor power. The slave was fed by his master; the capitalist gives the proletarian, in the form of a salary, the strict minimum to feed himself, and sometimes even takes from him in the canteen and in the form of rent almost all of his salary: capitalism is wage slavery.

This analysis allowed us to verify that we were right to say that the economic interests of the capitalist and the proletarian are fundamentally irreconcilable, and that there is a contradiction inherent in capitalism, a contradiction which is indeed the essence of capitalist relations of production. .

From this derives a consequence: the idea of ​​class collaboration, of capital-labor association (which presents itself as arbiter between the antagonistic classes), is a weapon in the service of the capitalist. It aims to divert the proletarian from the struggle for the defense of his interests. Capitalist exploitation is not the result of "abuse of bad bosses", as the Pope's Encyclicals claim; there is no such thing as "good" capitalism, because all capitalism is exploitative. To speak of suppressing the proletariat, capitalist exploitation while claiming to preserve capitalism, private ownership of the means of production, is therefore to make fun of the world. To suppress the proletariat, capitalism must be suppressed.

These remarks apply to Proudhon's bourgeois "socialism", concerned not with destroying capitalism through revolutionary class action, but "with improving the lot of the working class" within the framework of an amended and good-natured capitalism. . [“Bourgeois socialism attains its proper expression only when it becomes a mere figure of rhetoric. Free trade, in the interests of the working class! Protective rights [for industrialists], in the interest of the working class! ... This is the last word of bourgeois socialism, the only one it has said seriously. For bourgeois socialism is entirely in this assertion, that the bourgeois are bourgeois - in the interest of the working class. (Marx-Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 57.)]

Another consequence of our analysis: the class struggle is not a malignant invention of Karl Marx. It exists independently of the will of men, and that is why the proletarians can only ensure their existence by fighting against the exploiter. If the proletariat stopped fighting for wages, it would be forced by the capitalist bourgeoisie to a condition bordering on animality.

However, it should be noted that the contradiction between capital and labor is not the only one that has existed since the beginning of capitalism. There is also competition, the struggle between the capitalists. But the contradiction of interests between rival capitalists is not fundamental; it is subordinated to the specific contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction between exploiting capitalist and exploited worker: without this contradiction there would, in fact, be no capitalism. Thus, the law of the anarchy of production in a capitalist regime is subordinated to the law of surplus value, which is fundamental.

The law of necessary correspondence in capitalist society

We have just studied the capitalist relations of production: we have done so by analyzing their internal contradiction, the specific contradiction of capitalism.

This study will allow us to understand what happens, in a capitalist society, to the fundamental law of societies, the law of correspondence necessary between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces.

We are going to see how, in a first period, the specific contradiction of capitalism created favorable conditions for the play of the necessary law of correspondence, therefore for the development of the productive forces. Then we will see that, in a second period, the specific contradiction of capitalism creates conditions unfavorable to the play of the necessary law of correspondence: there is henceforth a conflict between relations of production and productive forces; the development of the productive forces is thus hampered.

The correspondence between capitalist relations of production and the character of the productive forces

We saw in the previous lesson (point IV) that the bourgeois class was constituted within feudal society. But, as its interests were linked to the rise of new productive forces (factories, factories, etc.), the bourgeoisie could only develop in the struggle against the feudal relations of production, which were not in harmony with the new productive forces, and which consequently stood in the way of the play of the necessary law of correspondence.

The role of the bourgeois democratic revolution was precisely to ensure the liquidation of feudalism; the capitalist relations of production took the upper hand, thanks to the triumph of the bourgeoisie.

Thus began a historical period when the new mode of production fully corresponded to the requirements of the development of production. The necessary law of correspondence, which feudal society hampered, therefore regained all its force in capitalist society.

It should be observed that capitalist relations are incompatible with any other form of production relations. Why ? Based on profit (see point I of this lesson), capitalism has an interest in always producing more and more cheaply: it must therefore constantly embrace new productive forces which reduce production time and conquer by all means of new markets. But the profit thus achieved can in turn generate greater profit only by investing in new industrial, commercial and agricultural enterprises: and consequently capitalist property must necessarily extend to all means of production without exception. . Thus capitalism cannot allow any other form of property to exist alongside it. It must beextend to the entire nation, and out of the nation. From his beginnings he was promised a universal reign.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, which means the conditions of production, that is to say all social relations. The maintenance without change of the old mode of production was, on the contrary, for all the previous industrial classes [For example in the case of the slave industry.], The first condition of their existence. This continual upheaval of production, this constant upheaval of the whole social system, this perpetual agitation and insecurity distinguish the bourgeois era from all the preceding ones. All traditional and frozen social relations, with their train of ancient and venerable conceptions and ideas, are dissolved; those who replace them age before they can ossify.All that had solidity and permanence goes up in smoke, all that was sacred is profaned, and men are finally forced to consider their conditions of existence and their reciprocal relations with disillusioned eyes. (Marx-Engels: Manifesto ..., p. 32.)

The productive forces are therefore experiencing a prodigious rise. This is the time when capitalism thinks it can develop them in an unlimited way. This is the origin of the belief in indefinite "progress" within the bourgeois framework and in the eternity of capitalism, presented as the last and completed form of civilization. This is the time when bourgeois economists believe that capitalist production develops harmoniously and without contradictions: the time of "economic harmonies".

The capitalists are then aware of serving the interests of society, of increasing the volume of consumer goods, of providing work for all. Their "social" concerns consist, for some of them, in this, that they hope to remedy social ills by the very development of production and thus consolidate the capitalist regime and bourgeois society. Making all of them owners was the ideal of the bourgeois reformers of the time. They want the bourgeoisie, without the proletariat. It is this kind of conservative philanthropy that spawned the many charities.

This ideology reflects the fact that, in this period, capitalist private ownership of the means of production maximized production.

In the period following the bourgeois revolution, when the bourgeoisie destroyed feudal production relations and established bourgeois production relations, there were undoubtedly periods when bourgeois production relations were entirely in conformity with the character of the forces. productive. Otherwise, capitalism could not have developed as quickly as it did after the bourgeois revolution. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 139.)

The capitalist relations of production were then the main force which stimulated the impetuous development of the productive forces.

Now, as we have shown in point I of this lesson, capitalist relations are relations of exploitation. If therefore the productive forces have been able to increase under a capitalist regime, it is as a consequence of exploitation! The rise of production had as a condition the existence of surplus value, of the additional value that human labor can generate and that the bourgeoisie appropriates. So it is the exploitation of the proletariat that has allowed the development of capitalism. It is the modern proletarians who, at the cost of appalling misery devouring men, women and children, have created the wonders of modern civilization and allowed the prodigious development of the productive forces on which the capitalist bourgeoisie has based its opulence and its power. ["Capital is dead labor,who, like the vampire, only comes to life by sucking on living labor and his life is all the more cheerful the more he pumps it. »K. Marx: Capital, L. I, t. I, p. 229. Social Publishing.)]

In other words, in a capitalist society, production is subordinated to capitalist profit; it involves the exploitation of the working class.

It is therefore fair to say that the specific contradiction of capitalism - a contradiction between the exploiting class and the exploited class - has created conditions favorable to the play of the necessary law of correspondence, favorable, therefore, to the rise of the productive forces.

We will now see how the same contradiction, in a second period (which begins around 1840) had the opposite effect.

The conflict between capitalist relations of production and the character of the productive forces

The capitalists of the ascending period believed that it would be possible for them to develop the productive forces without limit and that industry would alleviate all evils, solve all problems. They did not suspect that its development would necessarily meet a limit: capitalism itself. In the same way that the magnification of the lenses of the microscope encounters a limit beyond which new optical phenomena occur which prevent vision and prevent any progress under the classical microscope, in the same way as the increase in the speed of airplanes generates absolutely new phenomena when it reaches the speed of sound, in the same way the increase of the productive forces - which capitalism had, as we have seen, made possible - had to, starting fromat a certain point, turning against capitalism itself, for such is the dialectic in nature and in society. Capitalism, too, ran into a "sound barrier": it was the economic crises. [See Baby: work cited, p. 253-254.] What is the basis?

By the unprecedented development of the productive forces, capitalism is able to throw on the market ever increasing quantities of goods at lower prices; it thus aggravates competition: it ruins the mass of small and medium private owners. Wealth accumulates in the hands of a small number of capitalists (monopolists), while the misery of the greatest number becomes general (impoverishment of the middle classes, the peasantry, etc.). All these layers, whose numerical importance does not cease increasing as capital accumulates in the hands of a minority of exploiters, all these layers have a considerably reduced purchasing power, the market is shrinking, the slump occurs because the majority of the population limits its consumption to the strict minimum.There is an increasing imbalance between production and consumption: this is what the capitalists call "overproduction"; it is the crisis.

The race for profit, the goal of capitalism, generates its opposite: the cessation of profit. And the majority of society is in misery for having produced means of subsistence which it cannot afford to buy: it is misery in abundance!

Marxist economic analysis shows that the balance between production and consumption, the harmonious development of all social production can only be achieved if we take into account all the needs of society both in terms of consumption objects than in means of production. But how could the capitalist take these requirements into account since he has no other goal than his private interest, his profit, which is itself determined by the prospects of the market? In a capitalist regime, production is not subordinated to the needs of all, but to the profits of the capitalist minority. It is therefore not possible, under capitalism, to develop production harmoniously; this inevitably has an anarchic character.

We see that the basis of economic crises is, in the final analysis, the contradiction that has developed between private capitalist interests and the demands of social production. By developing the productive forces, capitalism has put an end to the partitioning of production specific to crafts. The ruthless competition between the capitalists led, at the beginning of the XXth century, to the absorption of the weakest by the strongest: thus monopolies are constituted, all-powerful economic feudalities which extend their networks beyond the borders of a country (example: the American Standard Oil trust, controlled by Rockefeller, king of oil). [The transition from liberal capitalism to monopoly capitalism is a remarkable expression of the struggle of opposites: it isis in fact free competition between capitalists which changes into its opposite (monopoly) by eliminating the weakest; then a new form of struggle appears, the struggle between monopolies, on a world scale.]

Capitalism, which has reached this stage, forms a single whole of all the various industries, from the extraction of raw materials to the finished product; gigantic trusts control the whole economy of a country or even of several countries: industry, commerce, agriculture. A financial oligarchy, which holds the immense capital necessary for the march of production, has the upper hand over the economy.

Thus the very development of capitalism has led it to penetrate all aspects of social life. Banks, trusts and cartels create a close dependence between the various branches of production. The whole production process takes on a social character.

But who benefits from this formidable concentration? The handful of capitalists who own the great means of production. Production is more and more social, but it is for the benefit of the private interest of a parasitic minority. The rival monopolies, which constitute this minority, seek maximum profit, both at the expense of the working masses and to the detriment of the weaker capitalists. Appropriating the maximum profit is for them an objective necessity, which conditions their expansion. This is the fundamental law of current capitalism.

The main features and requirements of the fundamental economic law of present-day capitalism could be formulated roughly as follows: ensuring maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of a given country, by the enslavement and systematic plundering of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and finally by wars and the militarization of the national economy used to ensure the highest profits. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 128.)

The inevitable result of the race for capitalist profit is the increased misery of the masses, an unprecedented outburst of violence. The Korean War was thus started by the magnates of American capitalism: frightened by the prospect of the crisis, which would have dried up their profits, they did not hesitate to seek in the war, source of abundant orders, an advantageous outlet. "Our prosperity is war prosperity" cynically admitted President Eisenhower.

Capitalism at the current stage is therefore in a permanent position of aggressor towards the peoples: it is imperialism.

But it is not in the power of the capitalists to abolish the constitutive contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction between the interests of the exploiting class and those of society as a whole. Noting this contradiction, the bourgeoisie cannot consider sacrificing its class interests, giving up its profits. It therefore strives to limit the productive forces according to its interests. It thus protects the capitalist relations of production against the rise of the productive forces which calls them into question.

We could multiply the examples showing that capitalism, in the grip of the fear of the crisis, hinders the development of the productive forces: return to labor by hand, systematic production of poor quality articles, discarding of patents, reduction or elimination of necessary funds for laboratories, etc. This explains the stagnation of capitalist production in all areas. Characterizing the situation of capitalism, Stalin writes:

For having developed the productive forces in gigantic proportions, capitalism is entangled in insoluble contradictions for it. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities and reducing their prices, capitalism worsens competition, ruins the mass of small and medium-sized private owners, reduces them to the status of proletarians and decreases their purchasing power; the result is that the disposal of manufactured goods becomes impossible. By expanding production and grouping millions of workers into huge factories and factories, capitalism gives the process of production a social character and thereby undermines its own base; for the social character of the production process requires social ownership of the means of production; gold,ownership of the means of production remains private, capitalist property, incompatible with the social character of the production process.

It is these irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production which manifest themselves in the periodic crises of overproduction; the capitalists for want of having solvent buyers, because of the ruin of the masses for which they are themselves responsible, are obliged to burn foodstuffs, to annihilate ready-made goods, to stop production, to destroy the forces productive, and this while millions of people suffer from unemployment and hunger, not because we lack goods, but because we have produced too much.

This means that the capitalist relations of production no longer correspond to the state of the productive forces of society and have entered into insoluble contradiction with them. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3.c, p. 26-27.)

The contradiction between the capitalist relations of production and the social character of the productive forces is therefore the basis of the crises from which capitalism is affected.

But this contradiction itself arose from the specific constitutive contradiction of capitalism (studied in point I of this lesson).

If indeed we want to summarize our whole point II, what do we see? The specific contradiction of capitalism (exploiting bourgeoisie against exploited proletariat) was first of all favorable to the play of the necessary law of correspondence: the law of surplus value, source of capitalist profit, gave rise to the rise of the productive forces; such was the interest of the bourgeois class.

Then the same contradiction led to the opposite result. The same class interest has become an obstacle to production. The law of surplus value, which today takes concrete form in the law of maximum profit, ended up defeating the law of correspondence necessary between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces. Now, as we know, this necessary law of correspondence is the general law of human societies, the law common to all modes of production; societies can only progress if this law is respected. Thus the specific law of capitalism (law of surplus value, inseparable from bourgeois exploitation) holds in check the general law of human societies. This conflict is at the origin of the decline of capitalism. It means thatwithin the regime, productive forces have developed which it can no longer contain. It means that new relations of production, socialist relations, are objectively necessary because they are the only ones adapted, henceforth, to modern productive forces.

Capitalism is pregnant with a revolution, called to replace the current capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership. (Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, p. 27.)

It will be noted that the bourgeoisie, by developing the concentration of the means of production, has unwittingly worked against itself. At the stage of monopolies, in fact, the whole of production takes on a social character; the contradiction between this social character of production and private, capitalist appropriation thus becomes all the more acute, all the more unbearable as the monopolies are more powerful. By giving rise, out of class interest, to the productive forces, by concentrating them ever more so as to derive the maximum profit from them, the bourgeoisie has dug its own tomb. And the gravedigger is none other than the class whose work and misery made the heyday of capitalism: the proletariat.

The class struggle of the proletariat as a method for resolving the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces

The dialectical analysis of capitalism has shown us:

a) A contradiction within the relations of production, a contradiction which opposes the exploited proletariat and the exploiting bourgeoisie. Studying this contradiction in point I of this lesson, we have found that it lasts as long as capitalism itself; it is the specific contradiction of capitalism;

b) A contradiction between the capitalist relations of production and the character of the productive forces, a contradiction which appears only at a certain level of the productive forces developed by capitalism (around 1840) - we have studied this contradiction in point II of this lesson.

What is the basis of the change in the mode of production, the basis of the socialist revolution? We have seen it: this is the second contradiction. But it is the first which generates the second, since it is the capitalist exploitation, the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie which allowed the impetuous rise of the productive forces, rise profitable to the exploiting class, until the day. where the productive forces have become too powerful for capitalism.

We are now in a position to understand what is the historical role of the class struggle of the proletariat. We will see that this role is precisely to resolve the contradiction (b) which has arisen between the capitalist production relations and the productive forces.

At the same time as it developed new productive forces, the bourgeoisie - in accordance with the nature of the capitalist relations of production (see point I of this lesson) - developed the proletariat, the exploited class, and consequently the antagonistic class of the exploiting bourgeoisie. As the means of production were increasingly concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat increased in number and in strength. This is how the bourgeoisie gathered, for the needs of capitalist exploitation, tens of thousands, then millions of proletarians in the vast factories of the industrial cities. Likewise, it brought together tens of thousands of agricultural workers on huge farms.

Now, as we know, the proletarians can only ensure their existence through a constant struggle against the class which exploits them. Thus the bourgeoisie, generating its opposite (the exploited proletariat), has generated an army of enemies, which delivers a class struggle to the exploiters.

Karl Marx, in the first part of the Communist Party Manifesto, described the main stages of this formidable fight: we urge the reader to refer to them. [See also Marx: Misère de la Philosophie, p. 129-136.]

At the start of capitalism the workers, not understanding the exact nature of the regime they were undergoing, directed their blows against the machines, which made them presage unemployment. They do not distinguish between the machine and the use that the bourgeoisie makes of it for its class profit. In short, they fight against the productive forces instead of fighting against exploitation.

Little by little they discover that the real enemy is not the machine, but capitalism. Indeed this one, using the machines, decreases the cost of the production; the value of labor power therefore decreases: there is a fall in wages. The proletarians engage in the struggle to defend their wages. Noting that the capitalist seeks to pit the proletarians against each other (the most unhappy accepting very low wages to the detriment of the less unfortunate who, consequently reduced to unemployment, are in turn forced to accept even lower wages, and so always ...), the proletarians become aware of their common interests. They therefore unite to lead the struggle against the common enemy, the capitalist.

This first form of struggle is the strike, the aim of which is to maintain wages (and reduce the working day). As the first weapon of the proletariat, the strike signified the advent of the class consciousness of the proletariat, awareness that the individual interests of workers can only be defended by class solidarity, by common struggle.

Large-scale industry brings together in one place a crowd of people unknown to each other. Competition divides them of interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest that they have against their master, unites them in the same thought of resistance - coalition. Thus the coalition always has a double aim: that of putting an end to competition between them, in order to be able to compete with the capitalist in general. (Marx: Misery of Philosophy, p. 134.)

The temporary coalition, in view of the strike, leads to the permanent coalition, to the association to resist capitalist repression: it is the union.

Temporary coalition for the strike, then permanent coalition (union), these are the forms of spontaneous struggle and organization of the proletariat: it succeeds without the help of any scientific theory, through its own experience. This is how the working class snatched, step by step, from the constrained and forced capitalists, some great conquests such as, for example, the eight-hour day. But, pushed by the inexorable law of profit, the capitalist bourgeoisie seeks to take back by all means what it had to give up. When the capitalists and their statesmen speak warmly of "improvements in the lot of the working class", one should not be fooled; these improvements were won with a hard fight by the organized workers. VS'is precisely why the bourgeoisie is waging a bitter war against the trade unions. She accuses them of constituting "new feudalities" - this to set up against the organized proletariat the middle classes and the peasantry, which are attached to the memory of 1789. A pleasant accusation in the mouth of the "feudal" of finance capital, who drain all of them. the wealth of society (including the petty bourgeoisie and peasants).

When the science of societies, founded by Marx and Engels, enters the ranks of the proletariat, the class struggle is carried, thanks to the revolutionary party, to a higher level. [On the characteristics of the Revolutionary Party, the Communist Party, see Lesson 14 (point IV, b.)] Spontaneity is then overcome. Bringing together the advanced elements of the proletariat, the Party's role is in effect to introduce socialist consciousness into the working class, and to lead it, as well as all the working layers which are united with it, to the assault on capitalism. He fights for the immediate demands of the workers, but he does not stop there: explaining to them scientifically the source of the exploitation, he shows them that they can only free themselves from it by destroying capitalist society and 'Bourgeois State which protects it, and by establishing, by the dictatorship of the proletariat, a society without exploitation of man by man, a socialist society. Only such a struggle deserves the name of revolutionary.

The proletariat is fundamentally interested in leading this struggle to the end and in destroying the capitalist relations of production. We have seen that the proletariat, linked to the most advanced productive forces, is the necessary product of capitalist exploitation. It can therefore free itself from class exploitation only by wresting the means of production from the bourgeoisie, the exploiting class, to make them, in a society without exploiters or exploited, the property of all. While the middle classes, classes of small owners (small manufacturers, retailer, artisans, poor or middle peasants) seek to subsist as classes of small owners within capitalism, the proletariat, which strictly possesses nothing but its labor power, has for perspective only to suppress theexploitation of which it is the object, that is to say of suppressing itself as an exploited class, in order to found classless society.

But just as the old feudal lords felt solidarity ”, in all the countries of Europe, against their own threatening bourgeoisie, so today the bourgeoisie of the various capitalist countries puts into practice, against the revolutionary proletariat, its class solidarity. reactionary. This situation, which in no way eliminates the contradictions between rival capitalists, has taken on a singular power with the appearance of monopolies: large capitalism is cosmopolitan. But, opposite, the proletarians of all countries are testing and proclaiming their revolutionary class solidarity. “Workers of all countries, unite! ". This is the appeal that concludes the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Proletarian internationalism thus stems from the objective situation of the proletarians, whatever their nationality: the exploited of all countries have a common enemy, the exploiting class, whatever their nationality.

This is the revolutionary struggle against exploitation.

However, this struggle cannot achieve victory as long as the capitalist relations of production objectively agree with the level of the productive forces, that is to say as long as capitalism develops in accordance with the great law of necessary correspondence. This does not mean that the struggle of the proletariat is then useless; for it is through her that he becomes aware of his forces, that he gathers and organizes them; it is through her that he is educated. The struggle of the proletariat at this stage cannot suppress capitalist exploitation, but it can limit its effects.

On the other hand, when, by the very fact of the rise of the productive forces, the capitalist relations of production cease to suit them - that is to say, in short when capitalism comes into conflict with the law of correspondence necessary between the productive forces and relations of production - then new objective conditions are created for the struggle of the proletariat. [We will see in lessons 20 and 21 that the revolutionary transformation of society by the proletariat also requires subjective conditions, which we will study.] Its struggle for the socialization of the means of production tends to create conditions favorable to the free play of this law of necessary correspondence that capitalism can no longer respect. The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat thus goes in the direction of history; thefuture is assured because it conforms to the fundamental law of companies.

But the capitalist bourgeoisie, which wants to keep its exploiting class profits, does everything in its power to obstruct the necessary law of correspondence; as we have seen, the greatest suffering for society results. Only a considerable social force can overcome the resistance which the bourgeoisie opposes to the necessary law of correspondence. What is this force? The Utopians thought they could transform society by the sheer force of ideas. Marx and Engels had the merit of discovering that the only method capable of resolving the contradiction between the social character of the productive forces and private appropriation (contradiction b), see above, p. 177), it is the revolutionary struggle of the working class, supported by the other victims of exploitation. The proletariat in factis not isolated in his struggle. The very development of capitalism - moving from competition to monopoly - results in the impoverishment of the various layers of society. The big bourgeoisie can only prosper by spreading misery around it. Thus rise ineluctably against it - in addition to its natural enemy, the revolutionary proletariat - the impoverished middle classes, the working peasants, artisans, shopkeepers, etc., all the layers it ruins. Guided by the Marxist-Leninist Party, the proletariat brings together all these layers, which want to save themselves from decay, in a single front of struggle against the common enemy, the exploiting big bourgeoisie. In this way, a social force powerful enough to break up capitalist relations is set in motion, paving the way forconstruction of new relations of production, socialist relations, adapted to the level of modern productive forces.

The aptitude of the proletariat to bring together the broadest masses in order to fight against the exploiting minority fully reveals its national role. As Marx and Engels had indicated in the Manifesto, the working class in its revolutionary struggle takes the head of the nation, while, out of class interests, the oligarchy of big capital is detached from the nation. We know how today in France this oligarchy has turned to open betrayal of the national interest: determined to do anything to survive, it delivers our country body and goods to a foreign imperialism. A situation which is not without analogy with that of the feudal lords who, in 1789, to regain power, forged an alliance with the feudal lords of other countries against their own people.

On the contrary, the interests of the revolutionary proletariat are identified with those of the nation, against the exploiting and stateless big bourgeoisie. Proletarian patriotism and proletarian internationalism are thus the two inseparable aspects of the same struggle waged by the working class against the reactionary bourgeoisie, which sacrifices the lives of the peoples to the law of maximum profit.

Conclusion

The study of the contradictions of capitalist society and their development leads us to the threshold of a new society, without exploitation. But before going any further, perhaps it is useful to reflect on certain ideological consequences of capitalist exploitation.

There was a bourgeois humanism. Who says "humanism" says trust in man, love of man. The revolutionary bourgeoisie, in France especially, prided itself on believing in universal brotherhood. Why ? Because it objectively struggled to give the necessary law of correspondence its free play, hampered by feudalism; his action therefore went in the direction of history.

But today what is it? It is henceforth the bourgeoisie which, for the sake of class, hinders the free play of the law of necessary correspondence between productive forces and relations of production. This is the objective basis of bourgeois inhumanism (fascist contempt for man and the theme of decadence). The mentality of the international big bourgeoisie is that of a gang at odds with the human species. Its ideology, which claims to withdraw the most elementary rights from any "opponent", is an ideology of violence and death, capable of justifying the appalling crimes in which the failed class seeks its salvation (the Korean War, for example).

Conversely, the working class, which struggles to restore its rights to the necessary great law of correspondence, is the vanguard of humanity. Because it is the revolutionary class, the working class forges living links between the past of societies and their future. The past, since it takes back and makes its own all that could have contributed to the progress of societies (thus it revives bourgeois humanism - and this against the reactionary bourgeoisie who condemn it). The future, since it forges it in its class struggles. The working class fights thus for all men: this is why its first victory - the October Revolution of 1917 - is the greatest date in human history.

See: Control questions

The superstructure

What is the superstructure?

In lessons 12 and 13, we studied the origin and role of ideas in social life. We have seen that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of its material life.

Is it therefore appropriate to designate by the word superstructure all the ideas and institutions which exist without distinction in a given society? Now knowing the fundamentals of historical materialism, we can answer this question precisely.

At every moment of history and in all societies, different ideas coexist, opposing ideas, reflecting the objective contradictions of society. These ideas, however, do not have the same value: some tend to keep society in the old ruts, others to put it on a new path. In societies where there is an antagonistic class struggle, the movement of contrary ideas is a reflection of the class struggle: the struggle of ideas can take a violent, repressive form. Under socialism, there is no longer a class antagonism, but the struggle between the old and the new nonetheless exists and is reflected in a struggle of ideas.

Men become aware of the problems which arise in their time through the struggle of ideas, which paves the way for the discovery of the solutions which reality itself conceals. Also idealists, like Hegel, believe that it is the dialectic of the idea which generates historical movement.

Contrary to the metaphysical image of the past given by certain historians, it is false that there were blessed times, without struggles of ideas, when the harmony of thoughts and hearts reigned. In fact, there were opposition currents, brutally stifled by the ruling classes and ignored by official history. The vaunted Middle Ages cruelly attacked its clergy and feudal lords in its popular satirical works: fabliaux and songs.

The repression against new ideas, the organized ideological struggle of the ruling class is a feature of societies where there is the exploitation of man by man.

The bourgeoisie thought to make a name for itself by proclaiming the free struggle of ideas; in fact it was only a question of freedom of opinion within the framework of bourgeois ideology: a truth which is revealed more and more with the decline of this class.

Only a class capable of abolishing class antagonisms can champion the free struggle of ideas. In the most rapidly advancing society, socialism, it is quite impossible that the liveliest struggle of ideas should not develop.

To recognize oneself in the battle of ideas, not to put them all on the same level, to distinguish the class interests that they hide, only historical materialism allows the activist as well as the scientist to do it.

It is indisputable that the authorities of the capitalist regime bring one idea to the fore and not another, through the press for example. If we read in a newspaper that the too great number of small traders is the cause of the economic difficulties, it is necessary to know how to detect behind this "theory" the interest of the big capital: pushed by the law of the maximum profit, characteristic of current capitalism, it seeks to reduce as much as possible the share of surplus value left to small retailers. If we read that the best tax system is indirect taxes because everyone pays them, this argument still conceals capitalist interests: in fact, indirect taxes, on consumption, hit people much harder. wage earners, peasants, middle classes than the capitalist.

But these ideas are not limited to idealizing the existing regime. By the same token, they are means of struggle: by spreading them, capital seeks to retain the method of taxation which favors it. Better, it prepares the ground, the spirits, for new measures, laws or decrees: political measures which will have to contribute to consolidate capitalism.

So these ideas spread by the ruling class reflect its interests and therefore serve them: we begin to understand what is meant by superstructure.

What is true of this or that idea spread daily by the press, is also true of the most elaborate philosophical theories. On the Calvinist theory of predestination Engels writes:

Calvinist dogma met the needs of the most advanced bourgeoisie of the time. His doctrine of predestination was the religious expression of the fact that, in the commercial world of competition, success and failure depend not on the activity or skill of man, but on circumstances independent of its control. These circumstances do not depend on ... [his will nor his action]; they are at the mercy of higher and unknown economic powers; and this was especially true at a time of economic revolution when all the old trading centers and all the roads were replaced by others, as India and America were open to the world,and that the most respectable articles of economic faith by their antiquity - the respective values ​​of gold and silver - began to falter and crumble. (Engels: Philosophical Studies, p. 98.)

Thus a simple economic phenomenon becomes the work of the mysterious wisdom of God. The bourgeoisie experienced competition, but the religious spirit of the time masked its uniquely economic nature from them. The idea of ​​"fatality" is transposed onto the majestic plane of the conception of the world and penetrates into religion. Merchants deplore the effects of competition, but they live off it: it enriches them. They would like competition without its effects. They are consoled by the idea that men must undergo a fate fixed in advance. By making a class that lives off competition accept the effects of it, the doctrine of predestination therefore consolidates commodity production.

Naturally the feudal lords who were ruined by bourgeois commerce could not accept this doctrine: it was condemned by the Catholic Church, the spiritual sword of feudalism. But the commodity economy, developing the productive forces, was a progress over feudal economy: Calvinist theory therefore played a progressive role in relation to medieval faith. Nowadays, on the contrary, it is obsolete; its fatalism is opposed to the revolutionary idea that man is master of his destiny: the ideology of the big Protestant bankers, it only serves to make accept the "fatality" of the economic crises and the financial crashes of capitalism.

This example clearly shows that the same idea can be, depending on historical conditions, in two very different positions: sometimes it can serve the dominant form of economy, which was the case with the doctrine of predestination under feudalism; sometimes it can serve the dominant relations of production, which is the case with the same doctrine under capitalism. It is only in this second case that we will say that it is an element of the superstructure. Thus the term superstructure does not apply indifferently to any corresponding idea, theory or institution. It is defined in relation to the economic base of the company. The superstructure encompasses the ideas and institutions which reflect the dominant relations of production, and hence are also dominant.

The basis is the economic regime of the company at a given stage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and the political, legal and other institutions that correspond to them.

Every base has its own corresponding superstructure. The basis of the feudal regime has its superstructure, its political, legal and other views, with the institutions which correspond to them; the capitalist base has its own superstructure, and the socialist base its own. When the base is modified or liquidated, its superstructure is, following it, modified or liquidated; and when a new base is born, after it a superstructure is born which corresponds to it. (Stalin: "On Marxism in Linguistics", Latest Writings, p. 13-14.)

Note that political institutions, that is to say the state, are part of the superstructure.

Indeed, the state "corresponds", in Stalin's words, to political views, to the dominant political ideology. It is organized according to principles which reflect class interests. The state is the most powerful form of organization of power in the class, the one that personifies the dominant relations of production. The economic base is first, the state is second. Political organization stems from political ideology, an organizing force. In the final analysis, the strength of the state is nothing other than the strength of ideas, itself a reflection of the vitality of the economic base. Political power lies in the mass support which the reigning ideas benefit the state. This mass support may or may not be justified: masses may, up toat some point in historical development be deceived, and the strength of the power of the exploiting classes lies in lies. When this support of the masses wanes, the state weakens: the use of open violence by the class in power is the sign of its weakness and its imminent end. What is decisive are the ideas that take hold of the masses. [For an in-depth study of the state, see Lenin's classic book: The State and the Revolution, Editions Sociales, Paris. 1947.]these are the ideas which seize the masses. [For an in-depth study of the state, see Lenin's classic book: The State and the Revolution, Editions Sociales, Paris. 1947.]these are the ideas which seize the masses. [For an in-depth study of the state, see Lenin's classic book: The State and the Revolution, Editions Sociales, Paris. 1947.]

The superstructure is generated by the base

The superstructure is generated by the base, it disappears with it, it follows its fate. The dominant ideas in a society are, in fact, produced by the type of ownership of the means of production that dominates there. The superstructure is therefore not a simple juxtaposition of political, legal, philosophical, religious ideas, etc. These ideas have an internal connection: they reflect the same basis. Base and superstructure form an organic whole. For example the feudal superstructure is indissolubly linked, in all its parts, to the feudal base. The dialectical unity of the base and the superstructure forms the content of the Marxist concept of social formation.

Thus the superstructure forms a whole, not of course immutable, but living, being born with its base, developing with it, disappearing in its wake.

In class societies, the existence of the state imprints a particular character on the whole life of the superstructure. He is the organizing element. For example, it is he who organizes a class teaching.

What dies following the disappearance of an economic regime is the superstructure as an organic whole. We must therefore not confuse the superstructure, a fundamental notion of historical materialism, with this or that idea or institution, considered in itself, in isolation, in the abstract, detached from such and such a given superstructure. Any idea or institution, by being integrated into a new superstructure, is profoundly transformed and receives a new meaning from the whole of which it is now a part. To forget that is to fall into formalism.

A particularly significant example is given by the denominational school. The school of the medieval, obscurantist type left the scene of history at the time of the liquidation of the feudal superstructure by the revolutionary bourgeoisie, following the liquidation of the feudal economic base.

Subsequently, during the 19th century, the French bourgeoisie, fearing the revolutionary rise of the proletariat and no longer fearing a return of feudalism, had to encourage the denominational school with the aim of using it for undemocratic ends. But it gave it new life as part of the bourgeois superstructure and for that it modified it accordingly, adapting it to the conditions of bourgeois society. [This is the people of the Guizot law in 1833, which followed the uprising of the Lyon canuts in 1831, then the Falloux law in 1850, which followed the crushing of the workers' insurrection in June 1848. ]

This in no way means that the feudal superstructure survived at its base, but quite simply that the bourgeois superstructure changed in a reactionary sense, at a time when the capitalist relations of production, from progressive as they were, became reactionary. . The secular school, heir to the bourgeois democratic tradition, is, in these conditions, one of the elements that can best enter into the struggle against the new orientation of this superstructure. The proletariat must support it. [This in no way means that he renounces criticizing the content of his teaching: he criticizes it in so far as it expresses bourgeois ideology of exploitation.]

Thus the correspondence between superstructure and base does not appear only at times of upheaval in the entire mode of production, but also at the time of the different phases or degrees of the development of one and the same social formation.

Under capitalism, to the phase of free competition correspond "liberal" ideas and, in politics, bourgeois parliamentary democracy; the monopoly phase corresponds to the reaction across the board: the monopoly bourgeoisie proclaims the need for a "strong state", violates its own legality, throws bourgeois democratic freedoms overboard.

In the cultural field, there is a double movement whose contradictory aspects correspond to the period of rise and the period of decline of capitalism. First period - from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century - bourgeois culture developed and was enriched, by a process of critical assimilation, by all the acquisitions of human thought, in particular of ancient culture. It tends to present itself as the universal, and therefore definitive, culture of humanity. Second period: bourgeois culture gradually rejects out of its sphere all the progressive, rationalist, humanist elements that it contained and quickly breaks down. She can't even respect her own past anymore. The process of critical assimilation is followed by a process of discrimination.The ambitions of universality were succeeded by the abandonment of his own heritage: Diderot was excluded from philosophy, Michelet from the ranks of historians, Victor Hugo from those of “pure” poets.

In conclusion on this point, in order to properly appreciate an idea or an institution, one should never examine it in itself, abstractly, detached from the superstructure of which it is part and which reflects a determined basis. This is essential in particular in the case of the State. It is a lie that the social-democratic and idealist theory of the "intermediary" state, "above the classes", allegedly embodying "the general interest". Likewise, the Christian Democrats present the State as the embodiment of the "common good". In reality, the state, a historically necessary phenomenon that appeared with the division of society into antagonistic classes, remains by origin and by nature the state of a class. We cannot speak of "democracy" in general and abstractly without falling into formalism,which is a scientific error. It is necessary to always ask the question: democracy for whom? for the capitalists or for the masses?

Note: Anarchism - which continues to exercise some influence in the French workers' movement - is an idealist doctrine, which ignores the nature and role of the superstructure. It therefore ignores the class origin of the state, its objective link with the economic base. He sees in it the product of who knows what "instinct" for domination and power which resides at the bottom of man and which is in fact only a by-product of the class struggle. Also on a practical level, anarchism denies the need for political and ideological mass action because it fails to see that the real strength of a state is its mass support. By exalting individual or minority action, anarchism leads to adventure and degenerates into an instrument of provocation.

The superstructure is an active force

The superstructure is born from the base, but that does not mean that it is limited to reflecting the base, that it is passive, neutral, that it shows itself indifferent to the fate of the base, the fate of classes, character of the scheme. On the contrary, once it has come into the world, it becomes an immense active force, it actively helps its base to crystallize and strengthen itself; it takes all measures to help the new regime to complete the destruction of the old base and the old classes, and to liquidate them.

It could not be otherwise. The superstructure is brought into being by the base to serve it, to actively help it crystallize and strengthen itself, to actively struggle to liquidate the old, expired base with its old superstructure. It is enough for the superstructure to refuse to play the role of a tool, it is enough for it to pass from the position of active defense of its base to an attitude of indifference towards it, to an identical attitude towards the classes, for it to loses its quality and ceases to be a superstructure. (Stalin: work cited, p. 14-15)

We already know that ideas are active forces. But the point on which Stalin insists here is that the superstructure is created precisely to serve and defend its base. In a way, this is its very definition, since it is enough for it to cease to serve its base for it to lose its quality of superstructure.

The superstructure is a tool, the fruit of a concerted plan, of a conscious activity of the ruling class. Of course, this does not create ideas out of thin air. Ideas are reflections. But it is consciously that a given class puts forward ideas that are useful to it.

We have described the superstructure as a cohesive whole. But what determines whether an idea or an institution belongs to this whole? Only its class utility, its role in the service of the base.

There is no chance in the life of the superstructure, in the struggle of ideas, in the evolution of institutions. The bourgeoisie organizes its superstructure according to a plan. Here is an example: the speech of the Comte de Montalembert at the podium of the Assembly, during the debate on the Falloux law, a few months after June 1848:

I'll add one word, like owner and speaking to owners, with full frankness, because we're here, I think, to tell each other the truth bluntly.

What is the problem today? It is to inspire respect for property in those who are not owners. However, I only know one recipe [Note the word which fully justifies the Stalinist text!] To inspire this respect, to make those who are not owners believe in property: it is to make them believe in God! And not to the vague God of eclecticism, of this or that other system, but to the God of catechism, to the God who dictated the Decalogue and who eternally punishes thieves. This is the only truly popular belief that can effectively protect property ... (Speech to the National Assembly, Jan. 1850.)

Here we see on the spot the conscious formation of the superstructure, the obligation of the bourgeoisie to include an old institution in its superstructure in the process of becoming more reactionary.

The Catholic Church has not condemned slavery; slaves existed in Europe in the Middle Ages, in the colonies until 1848, in the United States until 1865.

The Church taught the serfs obedience to the Lord. Certainly it forced the warlike lords to respect the "Truce of God" under penalty of eternal fire. But by this measure, it safeguarded above all the cultures necessary for the life of society, it protected production, it avoided famine and jacqueries. In short, it protected feudalism against the "excesses" of the feudal lords. But the Archbishop of Reims exclaimed:

Serfs, be submissive to your masters at all times. And do not come and take their harshness or their avarice as a pretext. Stay submissive, not only to those who are good and moderate, but even to those who are not. The canons of the Church declare anathema to those who urge the serfs not to obey, to use subterfuge, all the more so those who teach them open resistance. (Quoted by J. Bruhat: History of the French workers' movement p. 43, Editions Sociales, Paris, 1952.)

Then the Church, through the Encyclicals at the end of the 19th century, tried to protect capitalism against the “abuses” of the capitalists. His language has adapted. It once proclaimed the necessary existence in society of lords and serfs, it now proclaims the necessary existence of capitalists and proletarians.

Thus the existence of the Church under capitalism is not a survival: it means that the bourgeois regime, exploiting and oppressive, takes advantage of an ideology and an institution corresponding to an older social formation, but where there was already exploitation and oppression. This is why the bourgeoisie, as soon as it felt itself threatened, deliberately re-implanted religion by adapting it to its needs and restored it to vigor and support as an integral part of the capitalist superstructure. She therefore presented religious education and secular education as complementary. The official instructions of 1887 for the elementary school state:

Secular education is distinguished from religious education without contradicting it. The teacher does not replace (not) the priest ..., he joins his efforts to (his) to make of each child an honest man.

If the bourgeoisie does not put all its eggs in one basket, it does know how to tune its violins!

One remark of Stalin is particularly to underline: as soon as the superstructure refuses to play this role of tool, it loses its quality, it is no longer a superstructure. When, for example, the masters of public education refuse to defend the imperialist aims of the bourgeoisie, the latter hunts down the democratic teachers. When bourgeois legality no longer corresponds to the political demands of the monopolies, ceases to be in their hands a good instrument of their interests, the bourgeoisie seeks to throw bourgeois democratic freedoms overboard. It was then that the proletariat, which found in bourgeois democracy the best possible conditions under capitalism to spread its political views throughout the nation,is quite naturally designated to raise the flag of bourgeois freedoms and carry it forward.

Ideas and institutions should therefore not be appreciated in a metaphysical way. If it is true that their origin determines their characters, the change in historical conditions transforms their role: it is always necessary to dialectically seek to the service of which class they can be put at a given moment, because of the change in objective conditions.

The active force of the superstructure and especially of the state is manifested especially in the agonizing period of capitalism. In this period the relations of production no longer correspond to the character of the productive forces. It is the capitalist state which takes all useful measures to consolidate them, to hamper the application of the law of correspondence necessary between relations of production and productive forces, and to try to prolong the existence of capitalism indefinitely. The bourgeois state, supported by the corresponding ideology, then becomes the main obstacle to the progress of society.

An obstacle which can only be removed from the road by the conscious activity of new forces. We know from the previous lesson (18th lesson, point III.) That these forces, social and political, are constituted by the alliance of the proletariat and the working layers in the countryside and in the city. We now see that such a struggle aims to break down the obstacle that is the bourgeois state and to establish a new political power, the power of the proletariat, whose active role will make it possible to liquidate the old base and the old. superstructure, to create a new base and a new superstructure.

Thus, under certain historical conditions, ideas and institutions play a determining role. Vulgar materialism leads to the false "theory" of the automatic, "spontaneous" development of society: in practice, it justifies passivity in the face of action by the capitalist state to prolong the existence of its base. Marxism, on the contrary, never neglects the primordial role of the revolutionary initiative of the masses, of socialist consciousness. He never neglects the struggle to develop political activity and raise the ideological level of the masses.

The superstructure is not directly related to production

The superstructure is not directly linked to production, to the productive activity of man. It is linked to production only indirectly, through the base. So the superstructure does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the development of the productive forces in an immediate or direct way, but as a result of changes in the base, after refraction of changes in production into changes in the base . This means that the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and limited. (Stalin: work cited, p. 18.)

This important thesis of Marxism warns against all those who ignore the relations of production and the class struggle and claim that the "evolution of techniques" directly leads to the progress of ideas and institutions. It is a commonplace of bourgeois thought, in fact, to say that the material progress of "modern civilization" must be followed by a corresponding progress in the cultural, intellectual, "moral" order. The denial that imperialism constantly gives to this bourgeois commonplace is the occasion for the lamentations of idealists who use it as a pretext to condemn the progress of techniques and science.

However, what determines the cultural, intellectual, “moral” level of a society is its economic base. The progress of technical and scientific knowledge cannot directly change this. It is only reflected in the superstructure through the base. Just as productive forces develop within the limits of existing production relations, so technical and scientific progress is evaluated according to the criteria of the ideology which reflects this basis, it is appreciated by each class according to its class interest.

There was a time when the industrial bourgeoisie proclaimed that the progress of science would lead to the material and cultural progress of mankind. It was only expressing the possibilities for the development of industrial capitalism at that time. But in itself this thesis, which was that of positivism, is false.

Under declining capitalism, not only are science and technical progress not at the service of social needs, for they are at the service of capitalist profit, but also scientific ideas cannot widely penetrate the masses and serve to raise their cultural level. The retrograde bourgeois ideology dominates the masses; the bourgeois superstructure determines their cultural level, and this inevitably lags behind the progress of scientific knowledge. The positivist conception of A. Comte, according to whom the progress of society and institutions depends solely on the dissemination of knowledge among the masses, is a utopia of the progressive bourgeoisie: the subsequent development of capitalism was to show its inconsistency.

Unlike positivism, Marxism demonstrates that it is the class struggle and the change in the economic base that allow the - new - superstructure to reflect technical and scientific progress. The only way to raise the cultural and intellectual level of society, to advance ideas and institutions, is class struggle and socialist revolution. Machine and science, by themselves, have no more power to stupefy man than to elevate him. They are not sufficient to define "civilization". The technical development in the United States does not prevent the dominant ideology in this country, far from expressing a high degree of civilization, offering all the features of capitalist barbarism. As for socialism, it doesis not a "technical civilization", nor the triumph of scientism. Its moral superiority is the reflection of the socialist base which generates a superior humanism. The true humanist does not condemn the class struggle, he takes part in it: he knows that only it leads to an economic and social regime in which the most daring conquests of labor and human intelligence can be applied without hindrance.

Conclusion

A society torn apart by class antagonism cannot know a true moral and cultural unity. Of course, the ruling class can impose its ideology, succeed in stifling the voice of the oppressed: it is a "peace", but how the peace of the tombs would put an end to a war where one of the belligerents would have been exterminated! Only the society without class antagonism knows the true moral and spiritual unity which in no way excludes the struggle of ideas, essential to the progress of knowledge.

In a society like ours, there are two antagonistic ideologies and only two: that which serves the interests of the bourgeoisie and which is an integral part of the superstructure, and on the other hand the ideology of the proletariat which finds its scientific expression only in marxism.

In addition, there can be no "neutral ideologies". But there are bourgeois ideas which are withdrawn from the ideological demands of aggressive imperialism, enemy of the people, of nations, and of man. Such are the rationalist, anti-fascist, humanist bourgeois ideas. As soon as these ideas come into contradiction with the demands of imperialism, the bourgeoisie launches the attack against them. It is clear then that the working class and the progressive forces must seize them, give them back strength and vigor, and carry them forward by developing their democratic content.

Thus the two ideologies present are not static. One is in decline and becomes every day more reactionary, less universal. The other is enriched and strengthened in the struggle for a new humanism.

It is in accordance with its class interest, henceforth inseparable from that of the nation, that the proletariat draws from the national culture of the past the progressive elements, faithful reflections of life and at the same time lasting monuments of art. It is also according to its class interest, now opposed to that of the nation, that the bourgeoisie is turning away from the national heritage, from its own democratic and humanist heritage. There is not, there cannot be, a neutral ideology: there are only the ideas developed by the bourgeoisie during its long history, and the ideas which result from the scientific criticism of the former, which forward Marxism and make the proletariat its own. That such or such an idea can change sides according to the historical ups and downs of the class struggle,this shows precisely that it is not neutral, that it has a determined content: this is why it is rejected by the bourgeoisie when the interest of this class changes.

The task facing the vanguard forces of society is to reassess the entire ideological and cultural heritage. Marxism is essentially critical and does not leave stone upon stone of the laborious ideological scaffolding of capitalism. Therefore cannot be a fully Marxist who has not critically assimilated the culture of the past.

See: Control questions

Socialism

Distribution and production

Since the appearance of classes, men have never ceased to dream of an ideal social regime from which the exploitation of man by man and the class struggle would be banned. A true underground current of popular aspirations thus crosses the history of the oppressed masses since the ancient belief in the return of the golden age. The people have never despaired of the future of humanity. Throughout the ages, poets and thinkers have waited and celebrated the dawn of new times, like Thomas Campanella who, at the end of the 16th century, wrote the City of the Sun and spent 27 years in prison. The Christian religion has struggled for two thousand years to repeat to the oppressed that "this kingdom is not of this world", but nothing has been able to kill the hearts of the masses.hope of earthly happiness and Beethoven made his wonderful Ninth Symphony a hymn of future times.

Nevertheless, before Marxism, ideas about the "ideal city" did not and could not leave the realm of utopia. Deprived of the knowledge of economic laws, social philosophers of all ages have seen the essential evil in the unequal distribution of goods between individuals; they therefore advocated either equal sharing or community of goods. But, deprived of the science of societies, they do not know how to analyze production and dismantle the mechanism of class exploitation. This is why they have been treated as dreamers and a stubborn prejudice has taken root in the bourgeoisie - large and small - that socialism and communism are unachievable.

In the 19th century, the utopian socialists realized that the problem had to be approached from the other end: not through consumption, but through production - that you could not demand abundance of goods before having considerably increased production, which is precisely what modern mechanized industry allows. But, lacking a scientific analysis of the laws of production and the economy, they did not see clearly that the decisive question on which to pronounce, if we really want to increase production, is that of the suppression of capitalist private property of the means of production and no other, since it is this property and that alone which leads to the paradox of making "overproduction" an economic calamity. Ignoring the laws of capitalism,they thought that goodwill could be enough to put the enormous apparatus of capitalist industry at the service of the needs of society. We have seen that it cannot be so, since private ownership of the means of production is precisely an obstacle to the achievements that modern industry and science could allow.

However, utopian socialists have put forward this revolutionary idea that the immense productive forces liberated by modern science and industry must be used to satisfy the material needs of society, and not to provide profit to a thin layer of exploiters. : "Replace the exploitation of man by man by the exploitation of the world by associated men, replace the government of men by the administration of things", such were the goals of socialism according to Saint-Simon.

Only Marxism gave a scientific answer to the problems raised by the achievement of these goals by showing:

1. that the essential element of the relations of production is the property of the means of production;

2. that the change in the relations of production cannot be effected if we do not rely on the internal dialectic of the development of the mode of production;

3. that the force which alone can overcome the resistance of the classes harmed by this change is the political class struggle of the proletariat and its allies.

Marxism thus makes it possible to scientifically define:

1. the basis of socialism;

2. the objective conditions required for its advent;

3. the subjective conditions of its construction.

The economic basis of socialism

By showing that the essential element of the relations of production, in any society, is the form of ownership of the means of production, Marxism has shown at the same time that socialism cannot consist either in the community of " goods ”in general, neither in the division of“ goods ”, nor in the association of private capital, nor in the concentration and organization of capitalism. The basis of socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, which means the expropriation of the private owners, and above all of the owners of the great modern means of production which can and must be set in motion for the satisfaction of needs. social. Marxism has shown that this goal is perfectly achievable, it has indicated the ways, which are no longer utopian:it is the proletariat which is objectively capable of accomplishing this historical transformation of the mode of production, because it is the direct victim of private property; social ownership of the means of production fully coincides with its exploited class interests. The capitalists, who for centuries have appropriated the product of the labor of the poor masses, are the expropriators of the masses. Socialism is the expropriation of the expropriators.who for centuries have appropriated the product of the labor of the masses reduced to misery, are the expropriators of the masses. Socialism is the expropriation of the expropriators.who for centuries have appropriated the product of the labor of the masses reduced to misery, are the expropriators of the masses. Socialism is the expropriation of the expropriators.

Social ownership of the means of production has the effect of suppressing wage labor. In fact, the surplus of value that the modern productive forces allow to produce in a day compared to the value necessary for the maintenance of the labor force of the worker belongs, no longer to the private capitalist, but to the collectivity. whole and then is distributed among its members according to the work provided and also in the form of multiple social benefits. The notions of surplus value, of wages as the price of labor power, of profit, of capital, of necessary labor and of free labor lose their meaning.

The remarks on labor power as a commodity and on the “salaried” workers seem rather absurd in our regime; as if the working class, which owns the means of production, paid for itself and sold its labor power to itself. It is no less strange to speak today of "necessary" and "surplus" labor: as if, under our conditions, the labor of workers given to society with a view to expanding production, to developing education, protect public health, organize national defense, etc. was not as necessary to the working class, now in power, as the labor expended to provide for the personal needs of the worker and his family. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p.108-109)

Socialism, as it is defined scientifically by Marxism, is therefore the suppression of the exploitation of man by man and at the same time the suppression of antagonistic classes in society. Consequently, the economic class antagonism between exploiters and exploited also ends.

Social ownership of the means of production also results in the elimination of any possibility of economic crisis. Indeed, competition between private producers guided by the prospect of profit disappears, and with it the anarchy of capitalist production. On the other hand, the law of capitalist accumulation, which requires that the development of gigantic productive forces be conditioned by the growing misery of the masses due to the private appropriation of the product of social labor, becomes obsolete. It follows that: 1. the development of the production of the means of production and the development of the production of the means of consumption can be harmonized according to the rules of reproduction established by Marxist economics; theanarchy of production gives way to the law of harmonious (proportionate) development of the economy; in other words, it can be planned; 2. The continuous increase in production cannot lead to a "crisis of overproduction", because, each receiving according to the work provided, it is necessarily accompanied by the increase in the purchasing power of all workers who increase their consumption. The disagreement between production and consumption, and all the absurdities which result from it - unemployment, destruction of the productive forces - cannot occur. Socialism is therefore the absence of economic crises, the suppression of imperialism and the disappearance of the causes of war.Continued increase in production cannot lead to a "crisis of overproduction" because, each receiving according to the work provided, it is necessarily accompanied by the increase in the purchasing power of all workers who increase their consumption. The disagreement between production and consumption, and all the absurdities which result from it - unemployment, destruction of the productive forces - cannot occur. Socialism is therefore the absence of economic crises, the suppression of imperialism and the disappearance of the causes of war.Continued increase in production cannot lead to a "crisis of overproduction" because, each receiving according to the work provided, it is necessarily accompanied by the increase in the purchasing power of all workers who increase their consumption. The disagreement between production and consumption, and all the absurdities which result from it - unemployment, destruction of the productive forces - cannot occur. Socialism is therefore the absence of economic crises, the suppression of imperialism and the disappearance of the causes of war.The disagreement between production and consumption, and all the absurdities which result from it - unemployment, destruction of the productive forces - cannot occur. Socialism is therefore the absence of economic crises, the suppression of imperialism and the disappearance of the causes of war.The disagreement between production and consumption, and all the absurdities which result from it - unemployment, destruction of the productive forces - cannot occur. Socialism is therefore the absence of economic crises, the suppression of imperialism and the disappearance of the causes of war.

Summarizing the basic features of socialism, Stalin wrote:

Under the socialist regime which, for the moment, is only realized in the USSR, it is the social ownership of the means of production which forms the basis of the relations of production. Here, there are no longer any exploiters or exploited. The products are distributed according to the work provided and according to the principle: "Who does not work, does not eat". The relations between men in the process of production are relations of fraternal collaboration and socialist mutual aid of workers freed from exploitation. (Stalin: Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, 3, c, p. 27.)

How can social ownership of the means of production be achieved? If we take the example of the USSR, we see that:

1. the means of production in industry have been expropriated and handed over to the whole people;

2 ° the small and medium-sized individual producers have been gradually grouped into production cooperatives, that is to say into large agricultural enterprises, the collective farms;

3 ° to ensure the economic alliance of the city and the countryside, industry and agriculture, commodity production (i.e. exchange by purchase and sale) was maintained for a time as the only acceptable form - for the peasants - of economic relations with the city: state trading and cooperative and collective farm trade have been fully developed, eliminating capitalists of all kinds from the trade circuit. [See Stalin: “Economic problems ...”, cited work, p. 106.]

As a result, there are two forms of social ownership of the means of production in the Soviet Union:

Socialist property in the USSR takes either the form of state property (property of the entire people) or the form of collective farm ownership (ownership of each collective farm, ownership of cooperative unions). (Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR).

The earth, the subsoil, the waters, the forests; factories, factories, coal and ore mines, railways, water and air transport, banks, PTT, large agricultural enterprises organized by the State (sovkhoz, machine and tractors, etc.), as well as municipal enterprises and the basic mass of dwellings in cities and industrial agglomerations are the property of the State, that is, the good of the whole people. (Article 6).

Joint ventures in collective farms and in cooperative organizations with their live and dead livestock, the output provided by collective farms and cooperative organizations, as well as their common buildings, constitute the socialist common property of collective farms and cooperative organizations ... ( Article 7).

We see that, in the case of the USSR, agricultural cooperatives work land which is given to them free of charge in perpetuity, but which is the good of the entire people. In addition, they are abundantly supplied by the State with tractors and other first class machinery which are the property of the State. What the collective farm freely disposes of is therefore essentially, in addition to its enterprises and buildings, the fruit of collective farm production, the source of its income.

Each collective farm household, in addition to the basic income of the common collective farm economy, has the use of a small piece of land on which it owns an auxiliary economy: dwelling house, productive livestock, poultry, small agricultural equipment.

The law admits small private economies of individual peasants and artisans, excluding the exploitation of the labor of others.

With regard to the means of consumption, citizens have the right to personal ownership of income and savings from their work, to ownership of their dwelling house and auxiliary household economy, household items and household items. daily use, objects of personal use and convenience (eg automobile); they have the right to inherit personal property.

Socialist society therefore comprises two classes: the working class [The suppression of exploitation effectively makes the word “proletariat” inappropriate.], And the class of working peasants, collective farm workers, between which there is no antagonism since their interests are united.

There is also a social layer of intellectuals: technical executives and engineers, executives of the economic organization, scientific workers, members of education, artists and writers. It offers the particularity unknown in bourgeois society of recruiting from all categories of workers. In 1936, Stalin could see that the composition of the intellectuals had changed compared to the situation bequeathed by the old regime and that 80 to 90% of them came from the working class and the toiling peasantry. These intellectuals are no longer at the service of the privileged class, but of all the people.

The essential character of the social structure of the USSR is that, thanks to the suppression of exploitation, the differentiated social groups which still exist are allies and friends, partners in the building of a classless society, and are all made up of workers.

This alliance was cemented in the struggle: for example, the workers helped the peasants in their struggle against the class of peasant owner exploiters (kulaks); they sent them machines, while the working peasants ensured the supply of the workers' centers, which the kulaks wanted to starve.

Likewise, the relations between intellectuals and workers in production have changed.

Now manual workers and managerial staff are not enemies, but comrades and friends, members of a single producer community, keenly interested in the progress and improvement of production. Of the old animosity there is no trace left. (Stalin: "Economic problems ...", p. 117.)

With the exploitation of man by man, the opposition between the countryside and the city disappeared - the countryside ruined and expropriated by the bourgeois capitalists of the city - an opposition which was the basis of the hostility of the peasants. for the townspeople and contempt of the townspeople for the peasants. With the exploitation of man by man, the opposition between manual workers and intellectual workers, instruments of the exploiting bourgeoisie, also disappeared - an opposition which was the basis of the hostility of manual workers for intellectual workers. , and the contempt of intellectuals for textbooks.

Let us add that, in socialist society, production is constantly placed under the democratic control of workers and their organizations. In state enterprises, the work of the director (appointed by the state) is subject to the fire of criticism from all workers. In collective farms, which are managed by the assembly of collective farm members, the leadership is democratically elected.

Finally, with the exploitation of the man by the man, the enslavement of the woman disappeared and the bases of the equality of the man and the woman were established.

With the socialization of the means of production and the suppression of the exploitation of man by man, the conditions are created for a new fundamental economic law to appear, specific to socialist, non-antagonistic relations of production. This law reflects the development process of the socialist economy, the goal and the means of an economy without human exploitation and without crisis. Such an economy can have no other aim than to ensure the maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of the masses. But before studying this specific law of socialism, let us remember that the transition to socialism requires determined objective conditions, in accordance with the fundamental law of societies,law of correspondence between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces.

Objective conditions for the transition to socialism

Marxism, by scientifically defining socialism, also defines the conditions for the advent and construction of socialist society. The change of the mode of ownership is only possible under given objective conditions. What is the basis for the transformation of the relations of production? It is the disagreement between these relations and the character of the productive forces, which disagreement occurs at a given moment.

The goal of the socialist revolution is therefore not a subjective goal. It is not determined by envy and greed, as the bourgeoisie would have it believe, which attributes its vices to the working class! It is not more determined by the ambition of a few leaders who would decide to unleash the disaster one big night!

The task of the socialist revolution is to create the conditions conducive to the unlimited development of the productive forces, by removing the only obstacle which opposes it, the capitalist relations of production, when this has become possible; it is in fact capitalism which, by developing the productive forces to the point where they enter into contradiction with capitalism itself, provides the objective basis of the socialist revolution.

The revolutionary suppression of private ownership of the means of production, of capitalist exploitation, allows a correspondence to be established between new relations of production and the character of the productive forces, at the moment when this is both possible and necessary.

Therefore, without objective conditions, linked to a given historical period, there is no socialism. In a country whose industry is still underdeveloped, for example China, the proletariat in power cannot dream of establishing socialism before having created the bases, that is to say a large national industry, and for a certain time the capitalist mode of production subsists in a sector of the economy.

In other words, it is not in the power of anyone to abolish the laws of economics; the will of men guided by their class interests is effective only when it is based on objective laws. "Voluntarism" is a false philosophy which believes that the will of man, exercised outside the knowledge of the laws of nature and the economy, is all-powerful.

Speaking of the building of socialism, Stalin recalls that this was a difficult and complex task for the power of the Soviets, but that he nevertheless carried it out with honor:

Not because he supposedly abolished existing economic laws and "formed" new ones, but only because he relied on the economic law of the necessary correspondence between the relations of production and the character. productive forces ... Without this law and without relying on it, the power of the Soviets would not have been able to fulfill its task. (Stalin: "Economic problems ...", pp. 97-98.)

And further, he specifies that it is the class interest which presided over the use of this law:

The working class has used the law of necessary correspondence between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces, it has overturned the bourgeois production relations, it has created new, socialist relations of production, and made them agree with the character. productive forces. She was able to do so, not by virtue of her particular faculties, but because she was keenly interested in it ... (Idem, p. 138.)

The fundamental law of socialism

However, the socialist revolution cannot be satisfied with making the best use of the productive forces bequeathed by capitalist society. It must in fact be taken into account that, whatever the productive forces developed by capitalism, they cannot be sufficient for the needs of a socialist society. First, because in its final phase capitalism, even the most technically advanced, destroys the productive forces; secondly, because the development of the productive forces under capitalism is completely anarchic; finally, because the consumption of the masses under capitalism is very low and only a thin layer of exploiters can afford to live well.The quantity of products consumed by the most technically advanced capitalist society is therefore incommensurate with the real needs of the masses that socialist society sets out to satisfy as much as possible, because socialism is not the generalization of misery, but the generalization of abundance.

Therefore, no socialism without an impetuous increase, unimaginable under capitalism, of production. This is an objective necessity. But in order to be able to produce consumer goods in large quantities and constantly increase their volume, it is first necessary to produce in sufficient quantity the means of production, and in particular the instruments of production, and to provide for. their replacement and increase. This is why the increase in production must necessarily begin with the increase in the production of the means of production. This means that one of the objective conditions of socialism is the creation and development of a powerful heavy industry, capable, for example, of supplying tractors in large quantities for agriculture. TheThe impetuous rise of the productive forces is not only a phenomenon that the disappearance of private capital has made possible; it is also, we see, an objective requirement of the new socialist relations of production.

This means that the new relations of production have become the main force which accelerates to the maximum the development of the productive forces. Before the socialist revolution, the productive forces demanded a change in the relations of production; after the socialist revolution, the new relations of production demand the development of the productive forces.

But the development of the productive forces cannot be confined to increasing the size of the working class or the quantity of the instruments of production. The growing needs of a growing population demand an increase in the productivity of labor. But this would be in manifest contradiction with the goals of socialism if it were acquired by a greater fatigue of the worker, by a "slave labor", as Leon Blum wanted to believe. Increase labor productivity while reducing working time and worker fatigue, this is only possible through qualitative progress in production instruments, through the use of avant-garde techniques, through mechanization heavy work, etc. Hence socialism,as a consequence of its objective laws, inevitably develops science, from mechanics to agronomy, in proportions unaware of the capitalist countries. At the same time, it requires the improvement of the worker's qualification, so that manual work becomes more and more intellectual in contact with a higher technique.

These are the elements necessary for the development of socialist society. It follows that there is a fundamental economic law of socialism, an objective law, independent of the will of men:

The essential features and requirements of the fundamental economic law of socialism could be formulated roughly as follows: to ensure the maximum satisfaction of the ever-increasing material and cultural needs of the whole society by constantly developing and perfecting socialist production on the basis of of superior technique.

Therefore: instead of ensuring maximum profits, maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society is ensured; instead of developing production with downtime - from boom to crisis, from crisis to boom, - production is continuously increased; instead of periodic stoppages in technical progress accompanied by destruction of the productive forces of society, it is an uninterrupted improvement of production on the basis of superior technology. (Stalin: "Economic problems ...", p. 130.)

It is essential to understand clearly that the immense industrial and agricultural progress of which socialist society exemplifies the world is by no means an end in itself. Technical progress is the basis for the development of production; this development in turn is subordinated to a fundamental objective requirement of socialism: the maximum satisfaction of the ever-increasing needs of the whole of society. Objective requirement, because the suppression of the exploitation of man by man means that workers work for them. The aim of production is therefore necessarily the maximum satisfaction of the needs of society, and that under the best working conditions. What needs? Material needs, but also cultural needs. The goal of socialist production is therefore "theman with all his needs ”. [Mr. Thorez: Hail to the XIX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.] Socialism is not a "technical civilization", hungry for grandiose material achievements, but indifferent to man, as bourgeois ideologists claim. It is man in full bloom who is at the center of socialism, and all material achievements have no other goal than to better satisfy his needs of all kinds: the need for knowledge and culture as well as the need. of well-being: various elements of a happy life. Socialism is humanism realized.greedy for grandiose material achievements, but indifferent to man, as bourgeois ideologists claim. It is man in full bloom who is at the center of socialism, and all material achievements have no other goal than to better satisfy his needs of all kinds: the need for knowledge and culture as well as the need. of well-being: various elements of a happy life. Socialism is humanism realized.greedy for grandiose material achievements, but indifferent to man, as bourgeois ideologists claim. It is man in full bloom who is at the center of socialism, and all material achievements have no other goal than to better satisfy his needs of all kinds: the need for knowledge and culture as well as the need. of well-being: various elements of a happy life. Socialism is humanism realized.the need for knowledge and culture as well as the need for well-being: various elements of a happy life. Socialism is humanism realized.the need for knowledge and culture as well as the need for well-being: various elements of a happy life. Socialism is humanism realized.

Subjective conditions of the transition to socialism and its development

Marxism makes it possible to know scientifically - not only the objective conditions required for the advent of socialism and for its development - but also the subjective conditions, those which depend on the conscious action of men in history. We know in fact that the capitalist class is opposed by all means to the action of the necessary law of correspondence, that it tries to save its mode of production thanks to the action of the State, and that this roadblock which it raises in the face of the progress of history can only be pushed out of the way by the conscious action of the proletariat and its allies, who constitute the social force necessary to overcome the resistance of the capitalists. (See lesson 19, point III.)

The first subjective condition for the establishment of socialism is therefore that the working class, whose interests are identified with those of the nation, has given itself a truly revolutionary Party.

What should this conscious mass action lead to? To break down the only rampart behind which the capitalists condemned by history are sheltering: the bourgeois state, and to organize a new state power capable of suppressing private ownership of the means of production. It is this new state power that is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument without which there can be no change in the relations of production: everyone understands in fact that it is not possible for the workers' unions, for example, to simply put themselves a fine day to expropriate the capitalists, to organize socialist production, production by workers freely associated by corporation and sharing the fruit of their labor! This anarcho-syndicalist platitude seriously underestimates the violent political action of the bourgeois state, protector of capitalism. [Moreover, at the point where the productive forces of capitalism have arrived, it is within the national framework that the social ownership of the means of production must be realized: it isis therefore a national political power of the working class which alone can establish it.]

The essential task of the dictatorship of the proletariat was clearly formulated by Marx:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to gradually wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all the instruments of production in the hands of the state, that is to say of the proletariat organized as a ruling class, and to increase as quickly as possible the quantity of productive forces. (Marx and Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 48.)

The historical period when the dictatorship of the proletariat is established is a period when the class struggle enters its most acute phase. Long after socialism has removed economic antagonisms, the struggle continues against the remnants of the fallen classes and the attempts of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism, until communism has triumphed over most of the globe.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle; it is a continuation of it in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the victorious proletariat which has taken political power in its hands, against the defeated bourgeoisie, but not annihilated, not disappeared, not having ceased to resist, but having increased resistance. (Lenin. Quoted by Stalin: Questions of Leninism, t. I, p. 124.)

Lenin also wrote:

Whoever recognizes only the class struggle is not yet a Marxist; it may happen that he does not yet depart from the framework of bourgeois thought and bourgeois politics. To limit Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle is to truncate it, deform it, reduce it to what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. The only Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Lenin: The State and the Revolution, p. 35.)

And even:

The fundamental cause of the socialists' misunderstanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that they do not push the idea of ​​class struggle to the end. (Lenin: "On the dictatorship of the proletariat", in The State and the Revolution, p. 145.)

The dictatorship of the proletariat is class domination. Domination over whom? On the capitalists and the various layers of exploiters, traffickers and adventurers who live on capitalist rot and support its state power.

Hence the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state power of an entirely new type. All the political powers that history has known before represented the domination of the exploiting classes, the domination of the minority over the majority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, for the first time, represents the domination of the exploited over the exploiters. It therefore enjoys the sympathy and support of other working, exploited and oppressed social strata and classes: it is therefore the domination of the majority over the minority, the reign of the workers.

This domination can be established, maintained and consolidated only through the conscious and organized action of the working masses, their political activity and their creative initiative.

This domination cannot be bothered by bourgeois “legality” which is only the ideological alibi of the political regime and the economic system that it is precisely a question of breaking and suppressing. This is why the masses on the move create a new legality, corresponding to the interests of the nation and by which democratic freedoms are widely developed. This domination cannot use the bureaucratic state machine of the bourgeoisie, designed in all its details for the oppression of the majority. This is why the masses on the move are breaking down the bourgeois bureaucratism imposed from above and establishing a new type of administration controlled by themselves, and which operates openly under the eyes of the people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not only an instrument of domination, it is also the instrument of the alliance between the proletariat, the working peasantry and the middle classes. It is essential for the proletariat to lead its allies along the path in accordance with the national interest. Domination of the majority over the minority, the dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the workers, for the masses, since it is the end of the political yoke that the bourgeoisie imposes on the masses; the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a liberation, and this political liberation has as a condition the political repression of the actions of the bourgeoisie. For the first time, the masses are acceding to a democracy of their own. Think about it! For the first time millions ofmen are thus called to a life of men. It is thus, for example, in China, where in the most distant villages, the peasants, until then treated as beasts of burden, straighten the spine and feel themselves citizens, responsible for the public good. Such is the immense benefit of the dictatorship of the proletariat: it gives a conscious, active life to those deep masses of men to whom all horizons were refused. Being for the first time democracy for the masses, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the highest form of democracy. It is a turning point: the turning point from bourgeois democracy, dictatorship of capital, to proletarian or popular democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to the democracy of the oppressed classes. The State, which until then was the special force intended to oppress the great number,becomes the expression of the general strength of the majority of the people, of workers and peasants, of their allies, against the oppressors finally repressed.

It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that real "freedoms" for the exploited and the real participation of proletarians and peasants in the administration of the country are possible. (Stalin: On the Principles of Leninism, p. 37.)

Because the state which fulfills the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not rely only on a special force of repression, but on the general strength of the majority of the people, it changes its character profoundly. It is a new type of State. Its continuous strengthening, which is indispensable as long as the bourgeoisie is not beaten and liquidated as a class all over the world, means above all the strengthening of the conscious political activity of the masses. In contrast, the “strengthening” of bourgeois states means only the increase of their police forces and the attempt to stifle the political activity of the masses. We see that the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat is just the opposite of the “strengthening” of the states of the exploiting classes; vs'This is why the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time the real withering away of the "classic" features of the state: the behavior of a popular police force, its links with the masses, are in no way comparable with those of a police Bourgeois State - if we can speak in the latter case of links with the masses! The behavior of a people's army has nothing to do with that of an imperialist army: the whole world saw it during the liberation of China. The policy of the new state is not worked out in narrow and closed circles of "specialists", it is worked out in the masses and in their vanguard: a deputy collective farmer remains a worker in his collective farm.

The historical forms in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised are varied. The first was the Paris Commune. Popular democracy is another. The classic form is the power of the Soviets.

Soviets (or Councils) of Workers' Deputies appeared in Russia during the Revolution of 1905. This form of political power was created by the masses on the move. The October Revolution of 1917 gave "all power to the Soviets". The Soviets are the largest mass organization of the proletariat and of all the exploited, the direct organ of the masses themselves. They decide, execute and control the execution of their decisions themselves. Unlike bourgeois parliamentary assemblies (national or local), they hold all power, executive as well as legislative. These are the organs, local or central, of state power. The most advanced form of democracy in the world, their members are revocable at any time by voters.

The Stalinist Constitution, a reflection of the new economic base, enshrined this fact:

All power in the USSR belongs to the workers of the city and the countryside in the person of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. (Article 3.)

This is why - with all due respect to bourgeois ideologues - who fraudulently equate socialism with fascism - no one in the Soviet Union is exempt from obeying the law. Established by the most reactionary elements of big capital, the fascist dictatorship has no other weapons than arbitrariness and terror; it tramples on bourgeois legality itself. On the contrary, socialist democracy draws its strength from the support of workers: it can therefore only survive by guaranteeing the exercise of their private and public rights. The Soviet government is, like any citizen, bound to respect the Constitution and obey the laws. He could not act otherwise without losing all authority.

Rousseau's ideal - democracy as an expression of the general will - is therefore fully realized by the dictatorship of the proletariat and it can only be so effectively with the abolition of the economic antagonism of the classes.

The role of the Soviet state, supported by the conscious activity of the broad masses, is immense in the building of socialism. New power is an indispensable subjective condition for the appearance of new relations of production. In fact, the power of the proletariat has this particularity of historically preceding its economic base and of having to create its own base. Bourgeois power, on the contrary, at the time of the bourgeois revolution was mainly to bring the political domination of the bourgeoisie into line with the existing bourgeois economy. In addition, the revolutions prior to the proletarian revolution aimed to substitute one form of (bourgeois) exploitation for another (feudal);the proletarian revolution, on the contrary, suppresses all exploitation and this only increases the importance of the state.

From the moment the socialist economic base exists, the Soviet state must be regarded as a reflection of its economic base, and it is then that the reality of the facts can be expressed in a new form, which is precisely the Stalinist Constitution. from 1936.

The Soviet Constitution offers the peculiarity that instead of proclaiming abstract rights by postponing the creation of the material conditions allowing the exercise of these rights - which is what bourgeois constitutions do - it enshrines the existence of real rights whose the material bases are already created. Example:

The citizens of the USSR have the right to work, that is to say the right to receive guaranteed employment, with remuneration for their work, according to its quantity and quality.

The right to work is guaranteed by the socialist organization of the national economy, by the continuous growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, by the elimination of the possibility of economic crises and by the elimination of unemployment. (Article 118.)

Does this mean that the Soviet state is content to passively reflect its economic base? Not at all! At no time does it cease to be an active force which, based on knowledge of the objective laws of the economy, accelerates the development of the socialist economy and plans it consistently.

Two things are necessary for the Soviet state to fulfill this task: 1. knowledge of the laws of nature and of society, ie science; 2. the conscious support of the masses, penetrated by new ideas. The immense role played by scientific socialism at the time of the establishment of the political power of the proletariat therefore only increases thereafter. The conscious struggle against bourgeois ideology, the diffusion of Marxism-Leninism among the masses, the creation of a new culture, national in form, socialist in content, are thus subjective conditions indispensable to the construction of socialism.

As socialism is built, the educational and cultural role of the Soviet state, a new type of state, grows. This increase in the role of the state in no way means the increase in the “totalitarian constraint” of which the opponents of Marxism speak. This new role of the state is almost unknown to the bourgeois capitalist states, which cannot raise, without danger for the ruling class, the cultural and intellectual level of the masses! The capitalist state is therefore mainly occupied with the work of repression. The workers' state, on the contrary, while knowing how to defend its existence, is increasingly becoming the leading center of the creative work of the masses, both in the economic and cultural fields: it is the organizer and the educator. masses,and not their enemy, and this is why the continuous increase in the role of the Soviet state means, here again, the withering away of the "classic" features of the state!

The cultural revolution, the dissemination among the masses of avant-garde ideas and science, the triumph of socialist ideology over bourgeois ideology are therefore the object of all the attention of the state itself. , in accordance with what dialectical materialism teaches about the role of ideas in social life. However, the transformation of the relations of production created the conditions for the advent of a new consciousness among the masses, by removing the objective bases of bourgeois ideology: private ownership of the means of production. Consequently, the new, socialist consciousness is not created out of nothing: the role of the state is to bring the consciousness of the masses into line as exactly as possible with the new objective, socialist conditions - ofaccelerate the process whereby sooner or later a new form of consciousness comes to correspond to the new content. At the same time, socialist consciousness must be brought forward, thanks to knowledge of the laws of society, so that knowledge of the prospects for development, acting in turn on objective conditions, accelerates economic development. We see that in socialist society the objective conditions and the subjective conditions, which are not in contradiction, exert a reciprocal action and lend each other mutual support. This is why socialist society can develop, materially and culturally, at rates unknown to bourgeois society. Socialist emulation is an example of theimportance of the new consciousness of the masses for the development of socialist production. In this transformation of consciousness, literature and art are called to play a big role: writers become, to use Stalin's expression, "engineers of souls". Finally, it is clear that all the tasks incumbent on the socialist state could not have been carried out - from the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the cultural revolution - if the working class and its allies had not had their responsibility. head a conscious and organized detachment, a political party linked to the masses and armed with the Marxist-Leninist theory of societies, the Communist Party. The role of this avant-garde which illuminates the progress of socialist society, which unites theory and practice,only increases as new material and cultural demands arise and the role of the Soviet state grows.

Conclusion

The basic economic law of socialism is an objective law. Ensuring the maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of the masses is not and can never be the result of the “free choice” of a government. This is the necessary consequence of the socialization of the means of production, and only the power of the working class can give the masses what it promises, because it has socialized the means of production and relies on it. the objective law which characterizes the new relations of production. What distinguishes the Marxist conception of socialism from utopian conceptions is that it makes the millennial subjective claim of the masses coincide with the demands of the fundamental economic law of a scientifically defined mode of production. VS'is this which explains the success of the building of socialism in the USSR, under the leadership of the Communist Party, not because of a "free choice" and a happy luck, but because it was armed with science companies.

The opponents of socialism, the capitalist bourgeoisie, will repeat that the successes of socialist construction can only be obtained through the enslavement of the individual. They claim that socialism crushes and annihilates the human person, personal energy and initiative, capacities and talents, individual rights and freedoms; that it levels needs and tastes. But it is capitalism which, by exploiting and mutilating workers, physically and intellectually, stifles a whole world of spiritual interests, aspirations and human capacities, makes the worker an appendage of the machine and the cripples in his physical and moral individuality, reduces him to servile labor, under a regime of oppression, famine, unemployment,which dedicates its existence to insecurity and transforms men into robots. Before capitalism the individual is alone and helpless; to free it, it is only the union of the exploited and oppressed, the revolutionary struggle. The mass is, said Stalin in 1906, "the cornerstone of Marxism", because without the liberation of the mass one would not be able to liberate the individual. The emancipation of the masses is the main condition for the emancipation of the individual.emancipation of the mass one cannot emancipate the individual. The emancipation of the masses is the main condition for the emancipation of the individual.emancipation of the mass one cannot emancipate the individual. The emancipation of the masses is the main condition for the emancipation of the individual.

The defenders of capitalism assert that under capitalism any energetic man, provided with initiative and capacities, even without fortune, can "make his way" and occupy a position in accordance with his capacities. And they cite the “happy cases” of boot-shiners who became millionaires. But they hide the fact that the "success" of a few comes at the expense of thousands of exploited workers. The need to "find its way" under capitalism proves precisely that the situation of men in bourgeois society is determined by the extent of private property. It is the representatives of the "upper" classes or their clerks who are promoted to managerial positions. The situation of men is determined by their situation of fortune, class, caste, national origin, sex, religion,alliances, protections, etc. Such is the "order" considered by "thinkers." and the “moralists” of capitalism as “eternal”, “logical”, only reasonable and conceivable. The “creative capacities” of the Krapp, Stinnes, Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Ford, Boussac are extolled, to prove that they are in a right position. But everyone knows that the “creative capacities” of capitalists boil down to the art of extorting surplus value from employees and that it is only the proportion of their capital that determines their dominant position. This is what fixes the "value" of a man under capitalism.The “creative capacities” of the Krapp, Stinnes, Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Ford, Boussac are extolled, to prove that they are in a right position. But everyone knows that the “creative capacities” of capitalists boil down to the art of extorting surplus value from employees and that it is only the proportion of their capital that determines their dominant position. This is what fixes the "value" of a man under capitalism.The “creative capacities” of the Krapp, Stinnes, Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Ford, Boussac are extolled, to prove that they are in a right position. But everyone knows that the “creative capacities” of capitalists boil down to the art of extorting surplus value from employees and that it is only the proportion of their capital that determines their dominant position. This is what fixes the "value" of a man under capitalism.it is only the proportion of their capital that determines their dominant position. This is what fixes the "value" of a man under capitalism.it is only the proportion of their capital that determines their dominant position. This is what fixes the "value" of a man under capitalism.

Under socialism, on the contrary, the elevation of the individual, the development of his capacities, of his talents, of his creative gifts, has as a condition the elevation of the creative capacities of the masses themselves. The fundamental economic law of socialism has shown us the role of avant-garde technology; the study of the subjective conditions of socialism has underlined the importance of socialist consciousness, the immense active force of the new society.

It should be remembered in particular from this double study that socialism develops in all aspects the personality of the worker: as a technician, educated and intellectually developed; as a social man who possesses a broad and in-depth knowledge of the problems of society, a conscious builder of a new life. The multilateral development of human individuality, of personal capacities, far from remaining an isolated phenomenon as under capitalism, has become under socialism a mass phenomenon. Socialist emulation is a living illustration of the possibilities now offered to personal initiative, to the creative intelligence of all.

In the USSR there are millions of Stakhanovists, innovators, rationalizers, inventors of all kinds, highly qualified workers and specialists, agricultural experimenters, organizers of production and the economy, intellectuals. advanced from the people, the men and women exercising a social and political activity, the workers able to take part in a scientific discussion, in a literary or artistic competition, and, marching among them, the numerous legion of the Heroes of socialist labor , and winners of the Stalin Prizes.

It is only in socialist society that man really occupies a place corresponding to his capacities, regardless of origin, sex, fortune, etc.

Socialism is indeed the reign of the masses, the reign of millions of people who were once victims of secular oppression and deprived, by exploitation, of any human development. It is these masses that make history, for they alone can throw down the power of Capital. Freed from the yoke, they impetuously build a new life for themselves. By suppressing the exploitation of man by man, they have reconciled the individual and the society and given each one the means to develop fully.

See: Control questions

From socialism to communism

The aim of the socialist economy, as it results from the fundamental economic law of socialism, is, as we have seen, the maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society. And it cannot be otherwise as soon as private property has disappeared. However this does not mean that each member of the society can immediately receive according to his needs in an unlimited way. In socialist society everyone receives according to the work done. We must therefore distinguish two phases in the development of a society based on social property: a first phase, called "socialism", and a higher phase, called "communism". This distinction was scientifically established by Marx.

The first phase of communist society

Considered in relation to fully developed communist society, the socialism we have just studied is still only a first phase. Its principle is: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work". But the principle of communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". It is quite true that the main obstacle to what everyone receives according to their needs in the modern world is capitalist exploitation which wastes the wealth of human industry. The first result of the suppression of the exploitation of man by man is that the worker can receive according to the work provided, without part of the wealth he has produced being stolen from him. As for receiving each according to his wishes and needs,this requires that society comes to produce sufficient means of consumption. The goal, communism, is therefore sought from the first measures of the new power which tend to increase production; but it is not yet the unlimited needs of each that can, at this stage, provide the principle of distribution. In fact, any increase in production, if we want it not to happen in spurts and not go without a future, must begin with an increase in the production of the means of production. Before satisfying the needs of individual consumption, one must satisfy the material needs of society for the means of production. However, more often than not, as we have seen (see lesson 20, point IV), capitalist society bequeaths a very bad situation to socialism,where the production of the means of production and that of the means of consumption are not proportional to each other. For example, in Czechoslovakia, capitalism had developed a light industry which assured the bourgeoisie of this so-called "industrialized" country a high standard of living, but which depended for the most part on the heavy industry of the large capitalist countries.

The formula of socialism: "from each according to his capacities, to each according to his work", therefore corresponds to the fact that in the first phase of communist society there must be a measure of consumption.

Where can I find this measurement? In work, of course. It is in fact the quantity and the quality of the work provided by each individual which determines the part he takes in social production; this is the only fair way to measure the consumption to which he is entitled. - In addition, work is the very condition for the development of the productive forces, therefore the condition for the subsequent advent of communism. Thus the remuneration of the work provided prepares the passage to a stage where it will no longer be necessary to measure individual consumption!

Moreover, the principle of socialism - "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work" - constitutes a huge step forward compared to exploitative capitalism, where the worker never receives according to his work.

In socialist society, therefore, there necessarily remains the obligation for individuals to procure by purchase the goods necessary for life, and this obligation is the only possible form of distribution of current consumer goods. In addition to this distribution, the material and cultural needs of the masses are maximally met by social benefits - for example free medical care - and cultural institutions ignored by capitalism.

It should also be considered that the increase in production, which will make it possible to distribute consumer goods according to individual needs, is impossible without a considerable development of technology. Such a technical development demands that the qualification of workers and their culture reach a level much higher than that maintained by capitalism, which deprives the masses of education and science. However, as long as work has not become for the individual a need as natural as the need to breathe or to walk, one of the means of encouraging the progress and the qualification of workers is that each receives according to the quality of the work provided.

The illusory promises of capitalism, which wants to persuade workers that it can improve their standard of living if they improve their skills, become a reality under socialism, because exploitation has disappeared.

Thus, to understand the first phase of communist society, we must not forget its obligation to liquidate in all areas the heavy legacy of capitalism:

What we are dealing with here is a communist society, not as it developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, as it has just emerged from capitalist society; a society, therefore, which, in all respects, economic, moral, intellectual, still bears the stigmata of the old society, from whose flanks it emerged. (Marx-Engels: Critique of the Gotha and Erfurt Programs, p. 23. Social Editions, Paris, 1950.)

When we say that socialist society gives to each according to his work, we do not mean that each receives individually and directly the full product of his labor. This is a petty-bourgeois utopia. Indeed, if we consider all the product of social work, it is clear that we must first deduct a reserve fund, a fund intended to increase production, another intended to replace used machines. , etc. If we consider the means of consumption, a fund must be deducted for administrative costs, another for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, etc.

All of the above helps us understand the importance of Article 12 of the Soviet Constitution

Work is a duty and a question of honor for each able-bodied citizen, according to the principle: "Who does not work, does not eat".

This is precisely why, in a socialist society, equality consists in giving each person according to his work, that is to say unequally, once each has of course been assured of his means of existence (thanks to the abolition of the 'operation). We must therefore not equate socialism with utopian egalitarianism.

As for egalitarianism, which would consist in bringing all men under the same height, writes Maurice Thorez, it is a social impossibility: there are inequalities of nature between men, due to their biological and psychological aptitudes. The inequality that the Communists want to suppress is the inequality that results from the existence of classes. In capitalist society, individuals do not have an equal chance for the development of their personality. The millionaire and the unemployed are declared equal before the law and both free, but this freedom leads one to the palaces of the Riviera and the other under the bridges. The man of the future will not be a standardized and mechanized “robot”,it will be a free and strong individuality whose capacities and talents will flourish widely. (Maurice Thorez: Son of the People, p. 243.)

“Inequality” in socialist society consists in the fact that individuals whose needs are comparable, but whose capacities are unequal, each receive according to his work, according to his contribution to the community, that is to say unequally. The Stakhanovist receives more than the non-Stakhanovist - not by privilege (there are no longer the privileged in a society without an exploiting class), - but because, as an elite worker and innovator, he brings more to the whole. of society, therefore to each of its members. [Far from being a privilege, the remuneration of the Stakhanovist is an effect of socialist law; Lenin observed: “All law consists in the application of a single rule to different people, to people who, in fact, are neither the same nor equal. (The State and the Revolution, p. 84.)]

On the other hand, “inequality” in communist society will consist of this: individuals with unequal capacities and consequently providing society with different work (in quantity and quality) will nevertheless receive in an equivalent way, each according to his maximum needs. Why ? Because production will be high enough that it will be so now.

In socialist society therefore necessarily reigns a rigorous control of the measurement of work and, by this very fact, of the measurement of consumption. Work is an obligation, but it has the counterpart that everyone receives, in strict justice, according to the work provided. There are no longer any privileged or profiteers; work is sovereign.

In socialist society, there is still a certain inequality of goods. But in socialist society, there is already no unemployment, no exploitation, no oppression of nationalities. In socialist society, everyone is obliged to work, although he does not yet receive for his work according to his needs, but according to the quantity and quality of the work provided. For this there is still a salary, and even unequal and differentiated. It is only when we succeed in creating a system under which people will receive from society, for their work, not according to the quantity and the quality of the work, but according to their needs, that we can say that we have built the communist society. (Stalin: "Declaration to Roy Howard", Cahiers du communisme, n ° 11 (1948), p. 1315.)

The upper phase of communist society

In a higher phase of communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals to the division of labor, and with it the opposition between intellectual labor and manual labor, will have disappeared; when work will not only be a means of living, but will itself become the first vital need; when, with the multiple development of individuals, the productive forces will also have increased, and all the sources of collective wealth will flow in abundance, then only the limited horizon of bourgeois law can be definitively exceeded and society will be able to write about its flags: "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". (Marx-Engels; Critique of the Gotha and Erfurt Programs, p. 25.)

The main “argument” of the bourgeoisie concerning the allegedly “impracticable” character of communism is that society cannot give to everyone “according to their needs”, that is to say free of charge, without everyone immediately trying to "To do as little as possible" and so that the famine sets in quickly! For the bourgeoisie, man, in the grip of "original sin", is - eternally and by nature - a lazy person who works only when constrained and forced, trying to make the most of the work of others. The bourgeoisie thus only reflects its own conception of "work"! As for the mentality which is limited to "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law", to the calculation with the harshness of a Shylock [Shakespeare's character: usurer]:"I must not work half an hour more than another, nor receive a lower salary" [Lenin: The State and the Revolution.], It is only the product of the conditions of the capitalist exploitation and moreover perfectly understandable in this case!

The millennial conditions of the exploitation of man by man have created hostility to generally excessive and grueling work. The weak development of the productive forces until quite recently, and, under capitalism, the total absence of the concern to lighten the work of the workers by an appropriate technique, made work a painful activity. Finally, the division of labor, which was originally a condition for the progress of the productive forces, has riveted every man for life to the same work - in particular in modern industry where every man is a prisoner of a fragmented activity. ; let us add that the division between intellectual and manual labor, by depriving the manual worker of all creative activity, has stripped manual labor of all attraction.It is for these reasons that work has become a chore.

But such a situation is by no means eternal. Generated by given material conditions, other conditions will make it disappear. Helvétius already thought that a moderate and healthy productive activity is vitally necessary for man, for his happiness; evils, according to him, can only come from idleness or grueling work. Fourier celebrated the "attractive job" which, corresponding to the tastes, aptitudes and talents of the worker, would be the lot of future society. In societies divided into classes, artistic or scientific activity gives an image of what can be the work of any man in a communist society, a work that is no longer drudgery, but fulfillment. It should also be noted that the comparison is quite imperfect,for in a capitalist society, artists and scientists are not always immune to want and see their creative effort limited by the regime of exploitation.

In communist society, avant-garde technique combines manual work and intellectual work, at the same time as it allows working hours to be reduced, leaving the worker free to raise his qualifications and thus giving him the possibility of not being stuck on the same task all his life. Work will no longer mutilate the personality of man, but it will be its highest expression. It is through him that each one will develop his talents; work freed from exploitation will have become the basic need of every individual.

Everyone will give according to their abilities. Here again the bourgeois mentality is powerless to understand, because for it the motor of all human activity is private interest, opposed to the common interest. But the more the communist society progresses, the more the socialist conscience asserts itself, for which the personal interest and the common interest are identified. Awareness of the interests of society as a whole becomes as "natural" a habit as the harsh calculation of a Shylock is "natural" under capitalism. As private property is the way of life today, socialism and communism will become part of the way. Men will have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of life in society that they will work voluntarily and conscientiously according to their abilities,and will draw freely from the means of consumption, according to their needs.

The socialist revolution is thus, we see, only the beginning of a long transformation of society and of men.

What matters is to see how false is the current bourgeois idea that socialism is something dead, fixed, given once and for all, when in reality it is only with socialism. that there will begin in all areas of social and private life a movement of rapid, genuine progress, a real mass movement in which the majority will participate first, and then the entire population. (Lenin: The State and the Revolution, p. 90.)

But obviously communism supposes the disappearance of the "petty bourgeois of today, capable ... of wasting" unnecessarily "public wealth and of demanding the impossible". [Idem, p. 92. For the critique of the petty-bourgeois mentality, we recommend reading Gorki: Les Petits Bourgeois. (Editions de la Nouvelle Critique) and poetic works by Mayakovsky.] Of course, this petty bourgeois believes himself to be immortal. He is foolishly convinced that his selfishness and his narrowness sculpt the face of the Eternal Man. When Marxists say that man transforms and will transform with societies, he shrugs his shoulders and speaks of "utopia". Utopia is rather to believe that the ideology of the petty bourgeois will subsist indefinitely when its social conditionsexistence will be gone.

However, the "workshop discipline" which the victorious proletariat will extend to the whole of society is not an ideal, nor a final goal, but only a

necessary step to be able to radically rid society of the villainies and ignominy of capitalist exploitation and to ensure the subsequent march forward. (Lenin: The State and the Revolution, p. 92.)

Stalin, drawing lessons from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin listed the features of communist society as follows:

a) there will be no private ownership of the instruments and means of production which will be social, collective property;

b) there will be no classes and no state power [When the bourgeoisie as a class is defeated all over the world.], but there will be workers in industry and agriculture, administering themselves economically themselves, as a free association of workers;

c) the national economy, organized according to a plan, will be supported by superior technology both in the field of industry and in that of agriculture;

d) there will be no contrast between town and country, between industry and agriculture;

e) the products will be distributed according to the principle of the old French Communists: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs";

(f) science and the arts will enjoy conditions favorable enough to reach their full potential;

g) the individual, free from concern for daily bread and from the need to seek to please the "powerful of this world", will become truly free ... (Stalin: "Interview with the first delegation of American workers", in Les questions of Leninism, t. II., p. 38-39.)

And Stalin added: "And so on". Starting from the historical experience of the building of socialism in the USSR, Stalin, in the last year of his life, masterfully embodied the ideas elaborated by Marx, Engels and Lenin and defined the conditions for the transition from socialism to communism.

Productive forces and production relations under socialism

Socialism and communism have a deep kinship between them: social, collective ownership of the means of production. The fundamental economic law of socialism perfectly illustrates this continuity between the two phases of communism, since already in the first phase the aim of production is the maximum satisfaction of needs. There is therefore no "Chinese wall" between the two phases. However, social property takes various forms; we have seen that under socialism as it is realized in the USSR, there are two forms of social property. Communist society is characterized not only by the fact that there is no longer any class antagonism, but also by the fact that there are no longer any classes at all. It is therefore that there is onlya form of social property, the collective property of the whole people. We see that there is a difference between the two phases of communism: in the principle which governs the distribution of the products first; but also in the relations of production, which must allow such a development of the productive forces that it is possible to make abundance reign for all. Now, for the relations of production to change, the productive forces must first have changed, as we know.it is possible to make abundance reign for all. Now, for the relations of production to change, the productive forces must first have changed, as we know.it is possible to make abundance reign for all. Now, for the relations of production to change, the productive forces must first have changed, as we know.

Is this the way things are for socialism? Inevitably! The law of correspondence necessary between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces is a universal law valid for all modes of production without exception. It is the reciprocal action of the relations of production and of the productive forces which is the objective basis of the passage from socialism to communism. No Marxist can reason otherwise and believe that socialist society switches to communism at any time!

We know that the new, socialist relations of production are the main engine of the development of the productive forces. But the relations of production, in the case of the USSR, are characterized by the fact that alongside state property, good of the whole people, there is socialist group property, collective farm: the collective farm is the owner of its businesses, its buildings, its production.

The first form of property is entirely in conformity with the character of the productive forces; the socialist state, as the news shows, is perfectly able to undertake gigantic works, such as irrigating the deserts and transforming the climate of the steppes! But the second is not entirely: suppose a collective farm wants to electrify agricultural work, for example tractors, shearing sheep, milking cows, etc. There is obviously an interest in building a large power station which will serve 4 or 5 collective farms, rather than a small one which will only serve the considered collective farm and will cost it large costs. If the collective farm does not want to join forces with neighboring collective farms, the power plant may never be built. This means that the highly developed technique,both agrobiology and agricultural equipment, and developed thanks to socialist production relations, risks not being able to be implemented in small collective farms. [See the novel by G. Nicolaieva: La Moisson.] Marx taught that the productive forces develop only within the limits of the relations of production. Marxism cannot be reduced to a science of the organization of productive forces. It demands that we study the relations of production, the economy. However, in this case, the socialist ownership of the collective farm, which allowed a prodigious development of socialist agriculture, appears to be a brake on the further development of the productive forces in the countryside. This boom in agriculture and stockbreeding is necessary for the growth of consumer goods, and therefore forbuilding of communism. Socialist group ownership must therefore be widened, the collective farms should be regrouped to form larger collective farms. Otherwise the relations of production - the collective farm - which have hitherto favored the productive forces would slow down their development, would come into conflict with them. Thus they remain in conformity with the character of the productive forces.

But that's not all. As long as there is still the circulation of goods - by purchase and sale - between the countryside and the city, the collective farms have the possibility of selling their production and of disposing of the income thus acquired as they see fit; it is therefore not easy to predict their operations. Therefore it is not possible, at the very moment when the production of the means of consumption increases, to establish a rigorous proportion between the production of the means of production and that of the means of consumption, nor consequently to plan production entirely in line with identifying all the needs. However, this census is essential if we want to be able to move on to the abundance of products. Consequently, the circulation of goods (sale, purchase) risks becoming a brake on the planned development of the productive forces.On the contrary, a system of exchange of products by contracts between the State and the collective farms allows this planning, while being fully advantageous for the collective farmers who will receive from the State the products they need in much greater quantity and at cheaper.

It is indeed the reciprocal action of the relations of production and the productive forces, the internal dialectic of the mode of production which form the basis of the changes which take place. Only in socialist society, the necessary law of correspondence can make its way without reactionary classes seeking to oppose its action out of interest. There is no such thing as class antagonism. Both workers and collective farm workers have a class interest in the development of the productive forces, in the increase of production, in the transition to communism and abundance. This is why the - relative - disagreement between the relations of production and the productive forces may not end in a conflict; contradictions may not degenerate into antagonism,provided that a just policy based precisely on the science of contradictions is carried out.

In a socialist regime, things do not usually go as far as a conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces; society has the possibility of reconciling in due time the backward relations of production and the character of the productive forces. Socialist society has the possibility of doing this because it does not have within it declining classes capable of organizing resistance. Of course, in the socialist regime as well, there will be backward forces of inertia that do not understand the need to modify the relations of production, but it will obviously be easy to come to the end of it, without pushing things so far. a conflict. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 140.)

As for the Soviet state, far from being an obstacle to changing the relations of production like the capitalist state, it reflects the interests of the allied workers and peasants: far from opposing the action of the law necessary correspondence, it takes all necessary measures to clear its way and accelerate the modification of production relations. It is here that its immense role in the passage from socialism to communism appears. As Lenin put it: “Communism is the power of the Soviets, plus the electrification of the whole country”. So if the State is not an obstacle to the necessary changes, but promotes them, the passage from socialism to communism, unlike the passage from capitalism to socialism, does not happen by explosion. It doesIt is nonetheless a qualitative change in the relations of production, since we will pass from two forms of property to one, from two classes to classless society. But it will be a gradual qualitative passage, by accumulation of the new and the gradual disappearance of the old.

It must be said in general, for the benefit of comrades who have a passion for explosions, that the law which governs the passage from the old quality to a new quality by means of explosions is not only inapplicable to the history of development of the language, but that neither can it always be applied to other social phenomena which concern the base ... It is obligatory for a society divided into hostile classes. But it is not at all for a society which does not include hostile classes. (Stalin: "On Marxism in Linguistics", Latest Writings, p. 35.)

The transition from socialism to communism does not have as a condition the overthrow of the power of one class by an antagonist class, the passage from an opposite to the opposite pole, but simply the gradual disappearance of the differences between two classes; there is therefore no reason for it to be done by explosion. Where there is no longer any class antagonism, the class struggle is no longer the motor of history.

So is there no more engine at all? To believe that would be a mistake.

The interest of the workers is to pass to communism by relying on the laws of the economy. There is therefore a conscious part of the society which represents the new vanguard forces, while the late elements, by routine or for any other reason, do not understand the need to modify the relations of production, slow down the changes and represent old forces. The engine of history is therefore here also the struggle: the struggle between these forces of progress and these conservative forces, between the new and the old.

The transition from socialism to communism is not an idyll. [The beautiful Soviet film: The Knight with the Gold Star describes this struggle for the transition to communism within a collective farm.] This is why criticism and self-criticism are the real driving forces of Soviet society: critical in order to achieve real, objective, immediate changes; self-criticism because the struggle between the old and the new also takes place in the individual himself, and it is necessary to root out the survivals of capitalism in the consciousness of men.

In our Soviet society, where the antagonistic classes have been suppressed, the struggle between the old and the new and, consequently, the development of the lower to the higher, takes place not in the form of a struggle between the antagonistic classes and in the form of cataclysms, as is the case in a capitalist regime, but in the form of criticism and self-criticism, a real driving force in our development, a powerful weapon in the hands of the Party. This is certainly a new form of movement, a new type of development, a new dialectical law. (A. Jdanov: "Speech delivered during the discussion on the book by G. Alexandrov", On literature, philosophy and music, p. 62-63, Editions de la Nouvelle Critique, Paris, 1950.)

We see that the subjective conditions in the transition to communism are no less important than for the building of socialism, and that here again the feedback of ideas, of socialist consciousness on material conditions, is considerable.

Our writers and painters must stigmatize the vices, faults, unhealthy phenomena that exist in society and show in the positive characters men of a new type, in all the splendor of their human dignity, thus helping to form in men of our society of characters and habits free from the wounds and vices engendered by capitalism ... We need Soviet Gogols and Shchedrin who, by the fire of their satire, would burn everything that there is in the life of negative, rotten, death, anything that slows down the forward movement. (Malenkov: Report to the XIXth Congress of the CPSU, pp. 63-64.)

Given the role of the Soviet state and the role of ideas in the transition from socialism to communism, it is understandable that this transition cannot be carried out successfully without the political and ideological leadership of the Soviet Workers' Party, armed with theory. scientist. Communists must be able to cope with increased responsibilities: it is this historic requirement reflected in the new statutes adopted in October 1952 by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The conditions of the transition from socialism to communism

We can now understand the three major conditions which it is essential to fulfill in order to prepare the passage to communism, a real passage, and not "purely declarative", and which Stalin clearly defined in his last work. In accordance with the teachings of Marxism, the first concerns production, the second the economic base, the third the cultural transformation of society.

1. The first condition concerns production. We know indeed that, unlike petty-bourgeois theories, such as "distributive economy", "consumer communism" or "the economy of abundance", Marxism never separates consumption from production. If we want to be able to provide “to each according to his needs”, it is not enough to be enthusiastic about the objective, it is necessary to take the means to achieve it. It is therefore essential

to ensure solidly not a mythical "rational organization" of the productive forces, but a continuous growth of all social production with primacy for the growth of the production of the means of production. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 155)

We note that as far as production is concerned, it would be quite wrong to regard the organization, the planning, for an end in itself. The goal is the increase of production, and this goal is itself subordinate to another, the maximum satisfaction of needs, ie man. The law of harmonious development of the economy, which allows planning, is not the fundamental law of the socialist economy; the fundamental law of socialism is the law of the maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of the whole society.

The increase in production, as we know, takes place under socialism on the basis of a superior technique which makes it possible to raise the productivity of labor in such a way that it is not only possible to increase production in the same working time, but still reducing it. In addition, this superior, scientific technique gradually erases the differences between manual labor and intellectual labor, which is a feature of communism: the means here again is also an end; the man of communism who is, with all his needs, the final goal, is already present in the man who prepares communism and who develops all his talents. Nowhere is the dialectical truth of the identity of the goal and the means better illustrated, nowhere does one see better than theman is the beginning and the end of communism, its "most precious capital".

The increase in production also signifies that after the suppression of class antagonisms, the struggle which takes the foreground - although it is only deployed within the limits of the relations of production, within the limits of the struggle between the old and the new - it's the fight against nature: to prepare for communism, it is necessary to transform nature, the relief, the climate, develop the hydrographic network and the forests, drain the swamps, eliminate the deserts, regenerate soils, create new animal and plant species, extend the means of communication, fully mechanize arduous work, etc. The great construction sites of communism are an illustration of this grandiose struggle against nature.

But in order to be able to continue the development of the productive forces, it is necessary to modify the relations of production. Therefore:

2. The second condition concerns the economic basis, the property regime. It matters from what we've seen,

in gradual stages, with profit for the collective farms and, consequently for the whole society, to bring collective farm ownership to the level of national ownership and to substitute for the circulation of goods, also in gradual stages, a system of exchange of products , so that the central power or some other economic social center can dispose of all the products of social production in the interest of society. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 156.)

By these means is best achieved, at each stage of social development, the entire correspondence between the relations of production and the productive forces; Thus, from July 1, 1950 to October 1952, the number went from 240,000 to 97,000 collective farms. The regrouping of collective farm ownership by the merger of collective farms, that is to say without expropriation, thus prepares for the disappearance of the essential difference between industry and agriculture - a difference which concerns the mode of social ownership, - and therefore announces a classless society where only the socialist property of the whole people will reign, and where the sphere of the circulation of goods, progressively limited, will have given way to a system of exchange of products. But to get to this stage it is necessary thata new consciousness triumphs over the old. Therefore:

3. The third condition is cultural, since, as we know, there can be no communism if work does not become a vital need and if the fundamental rules of life in society do not become habits.

It is therefore important:

to achieve a cultural development of society ensuring to all its members the development in all areas of their physical and intellectual gifts, so that members of society can receive sufficient instruction to become active artisans of social development, so that 'they are able to choose a profession freely and are not bound, by virtue of the existing division of labor, to a single profession for their entire life. (Idem, p. 157.)

Transforming each citizen into an active craftsman of social development, this corresponds entirely to the high conception that Marxism has of the role of ideas which act in return on the material life of society, to the high conception that it has of the action of men in history, of the freedom of man as creator, it is clear that - if man does not become an active craftsman, aware of social development, and if he is not free to to choose one's work - social property will never become a habit nor work a need.

What does it take to achieve this result? We need "serious changes in the labor situation" (Stalin):

a) reduce the working day to at least 6 hours, then to 5 hours, which will allow everyone to have enough time available to receive a universal education; but for that you need:

b) instituting compulsory polytechnic education, provided for by Fourier and Marx; it is a matter of each member of society knowing, not superficially, but scientifically (theory and practice never being disjoint) the principles of work in the great branches of avant-garde industrial technique, and that he assimilates the social sciences and the best of universal culture. This is how everyone can freely choose a profession and not remain attached to one and the same activity all their life. However, to achieve the best study conditions, it is still necessary:

c) radically improve living conditions, and finally:

d) to double to the minimum and perhaps to increase still more the real wages of the workers, by the direct increase of the wages in cash, and especially by the systematic and continuous decrease of the articles of great consumption, which precedes the abundance of communism.

Note that the institution of polytechnic education, already initiated by the Fifth Five-Year Plan, concretely prepares for the disappearance of the essential difference between intellectual work and manual work, between industrial work and agricultural work. The age-old process of division of labor, which mutilates the human person, has been stopped and the steam reversed.

Concluding the statement of the three essential conditions, Stalin writes:

It is only when all these preconditions, taken as a whole, have been fulfilled, that we can hope that in the eyes of the members of society, work will cease to be a chore, and become "the first need." of existence ”(Marx); that "work, instead of being a burden, will be a joy" (Engels); that social property will be seen by all members of society as the immutable and intangible basis of the existence of society.

It is only when all these preconditions, taken as a whole, have been fulfilled, that we can move from the socialist formula: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work”, to the communist formula: “ from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs ”.

It will be the complete transition from one economy, that of socialism, to another, superior economy, that of communism. (Stalin: "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR", Latest writings, p. 158.)

Conclusion

Communism is not the reign of a technique that even its enemies now recognize as effectively superior, but that they present as indifferent or hostile to man. Communism is by no means a "rational organization of the productive forces". It is the reign of man finally master of his destinies thanks to the knowledge of the objective laws of nature and of society.

Production is subordinate to man and his needs. The aim of the Communists is not the equal distribution of misery, but the satisfaction of the needs of all.

The technique is there to alleviate and eliminate the pain of men: in three years in the USSR 1,600 new models of machines have been put into operation, reducing human effort.

Communism is man freed from the stigmata of private property and the spiritual constraints of the past. Convinced by experience that he no longer works for a minority of exploiters, but for the good of society, he gives substance to the most grandiose plans:

Communism is born as the result of the conscious and creative action of millions of workers; the theory of carelessness and spontaneity is profoundly foreign to the whole economic structure of socialism. (Malenkov: Report to the XIXth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 92.)

Through communism, each man conquers concrete freedom, which is "a positive force to assert his true individuality" (Marx-Engels). Associated with his peers in the exercise of complete democracy, he consciously participates in shaping his future.

At the same time that he becomes, through the enslaved machine, "master and possessor of nature" - as Descartes wanted -, he transforms his own life and becomes master and possessor of himself. Each individual reflects the most beautiful features of humanity, infinitely perfectible.

The enemies of socialism and their sub-orders of all kinds make socialism look like a system of crushing the individual. There is nothing more primitive and vulgar than this kind of conception. It is demonstrated that the socialist system has ensured the emancipation of the human person, the blossoming of individual and collective creation, that it has created the conditions for the development in all fields of the talents and gifts that the popular masses conceal. . (Idem, p. 58.)

It was this idea that inspired Eluard, writing:

We throw the bundles of darkness into the fire

We are breaking the rusty locks of injustice.

Men will come who are no longer afraid of themselves

Because they are sure of all men

Because the enemy with the face of a man disappears.

According to Engels' expression, recalled by Maurice Thorez at the XIth Congress of the French Communist Party, by socialism and communism,

the struggle for individual existence ends. Only then does man in a certain sense come out of the animal kingdom, leave animal conditions of existence for truly human conditions.

See: Control questions

The materialist theory of state and nation

The state

The state and the "public interest"

The constant doctrine of bourgeois politicians concerning the state lies entirely in the affirmation that the republican state is the servant of the general interest.

1. In lessons 12 and 13, the question of the State was not specially dealt with. We have reserved it for this lesson. However, we will profitably refer to the 12th and 13th lessons, as well as to the 19th, 20th and 21st in particular on the dictatorship of the proletariat (pages 391 to 399) and on the decline of the state (pages 395. , 398 and 411).

Historical experience, however, gives this "theory" a stinging denial. It is enough that citizens propose to remind the government of the requirements of the general interest, for example to protest against the rearmament of the Nazis, or simply to celebrate the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille, for them to come up against the Republican state police cordon. And if the workers want to defend their bread, whether in private industry or public services, they encounter police repression, and the use of arms by representatives of the republican state.

The "general interest" that is invoked therefore excludes in practice the interest of the proletariat and the broad popular layers. This "general interest" has class limits!

Let us go further: the State is no longer even the defender of "legality". Suppose that workers go on strike against an infringement of the Labor Code, workers or young workers to enforce the legal principle: "for equal work, equal pay", and that they require the support of the public force. to protect this constitutional means of action which is the strike against the illegality of the employers, one lets think the reception that the police would give them, although the public force is, in principle, at the service of the law!

Likewise, the non-application of the Civil Servants Statute shows that the State places itself above a law, voted unanimously!

Under certain historical conditions, however, it is quite true that the state is the servant of the general interest. This is the case, typically, in the Soviet Union. Thus, sometimes the State is the servant of the general interest, sometimes it is not. We must therefore necessarily conclude that the criterion of the general interest is not scientific; in fact some have an undoubted interest in giving the state an anti-scientific definition.

Also there was a time and countries where the State was presented as something supernatural: a kind of power without which humanity could not live, which brought to men something which did not emanate from the man, superior wisdom in short ... The State was regarded as of divine origin. It was the divine rule of law. This was still the case in the Japan of the absolute Mikado. Hitler, meanwhile, proclaimed "God with us". We also know, since Truman and Eisenhower, that the White House represents Providence directly on earth, which moreover is more likely to discredit Providence in the eyes of believers!

The state has long been, and still is for many people, the object of "superstitious respect." Hence the embarrassment when it comes to defining it. Most often the question of the State is mixed with the religious question. Even the positivist Auguste Comte, who flattered himself that he was done with the supernatural, in society subordinated “temporal power” to “spiritual power”. In reality, when a Church teaches that authority is of divine right, this is usually the sign of consummate servility before the State, as Francoist Spain gives the example. It is the Churches which have instilled in their faithful a religious respect for the State. And the difficulties that we encounter in understanding the question ofState have their roots in the stubborn holdovers of religious idealism.

For example in France, for a long time, the theory of divine right failed. There is no shortage of lay people to believe that they are immune from any ideological contamination on that side. For them, as for officials, the State is the emanation of the general interest. Mysterious emanation! The State is above classes, particular interests, parties, we are told; but if it is above the class struggle, that is to say an organism of class conciliation, it is clear that it cannot come from society itself; he will therefore come from above her; and if it is not from God, it will be of the spirit! The reformists' thesis is only a secularization of the medieval theory of divine right; it is vulgar idealism, a subtle form of religion. Socialists, MRP,reactionaries of all kinds, find there common ground: the supremacy of "the spirit", the sickening idealism of the State, in whose name are committed the bloodiest crimes against the masses, and the most violent violations. crying out for justice, like the liberation of war criminals. In truth if the State is the incarnation of "the spirit", it is the bourgeois spirit, of bourgeois ideology!of bourgeois ideology!of bourgeois ideology!

Speaking of the United States' atomic plan, US Secretary of State Foster Dulles said he wanted "the destructive power inherent in matter to be controlled by idealism". But in the United States the signatories of the Stockholm Appeal are in prison!

In the course of the history of philosophy, the question of the state has been, along with that of class exploitation, one of the most confused. It is because, as Lenin noted, it affects the interests of the ruling classes more than any other. Only Marxism-Leninism can afford objectivity on this issue.

It is of particular importance for the proletariat at the time when monopoly capitalism is being transformed into state monopoly capitalism. The masses of workers are then directly oppressed as producers (and no longer just as citizens) by the state, increasingly subordinated to all-powerful capitalist groups. In the war economy - from peacetime - the imperialist countries become military prisons for the workers. In its - economic - struggle for bread, the proletariat faces head-on the question of the State, the political question. Conversely, the bourgeoisie uses the pretext of war, the political pretext, to destroy the organizations of economic struggle of the proletariat: the unions, as was the case in 1939-1940.

Lenin wrote:

At the time of the victory of the Revolution in certain countries, when the struggle against world capital takes on a particular acuteness, the question of the State acquires the greatest importance, and has become, we can say, the most important question. burning, the hotbed of all contemporary political questions and discussions. (Lenin: "On the State", in The State and the Revolution, p. 121. Social Editions, Paris 1947.)

The state, a product of irreconcilable class antagonisms

The study of materialism, especially in lesson 12, already shows us that the State cannot come from outside society, from "the spirit", from "God". The dialectical method on the other hand tells us that the state must be studied in its development, historically.

But it remains too general. The positivist bourgeois "sociologists" also claim to treat the question of the State scientifically: for them, it is the growing complication of social life, the passage from small isolated human groups to much more numerous societies, the "differentiation of social functions ”which make the state necessary. The State would be the nervous system of society: the more the organism becomes complicated, the more the role of the brain increases. The state fulfills the "organizational function" in society. We will see what to think about it.

Origin of the state

The first thing to consider is that the state has not always existed.

At the time of the primitive commune, when men lived in clans, tribes, patriarchal or matriarchal families [See the 17th lesson, points I and II.], There was no special apparatus to systematically exercise the constraint. Now it is precisely such an apparatus that we call the state.

Certainly there were customs, the authority of the leader, respect for his person and for his power, respect for the authority of women, but there were no men specially and exclusively occupied with governing others and permanently having armed force for this.

Should we conclude from this that there was neither discipline nor organization in the work? Not at all, because the force of habit and traditions, the authority of elders or women, natural respect were sufficient.

And yet the weapons existed. As soon as there were tools, that is to say as soon as the man appeared, there was obviously the possibility of using them as weapons. Work is "violence" against nature which includes the possibility of violence against man. These weapons, however, posed no danger to society. The armed men of a given tribe did not turn their guns against each other. The ideology of the primitive commune, about which we said a few words in the 17th lesson, point I, sufficed to regulate social life, and individuals who thought of deviating from the rule were brought back to respect for order. by the collective action of armed men. No one was specialized in this task: there was no state.

Why then can the "organizational function" dear to our sociologists not be assured today as then by the spontaneous organization of the population, ensuring the discipline of work and social life? , and by a planning center of economic activity, controlled by it?

Could it be as a result of original sin that the golden age of ancient legend disappeared?

We note that at a certain point in history the ancient respect was no longer sufficient to maintain the discipline of work. It was necessary to substitute for the force of habit, of tradition, for authority based on experience, a special force, physical, exercising restraint, inspiring fear. It was necessary to establish a monopoly on arms and their use for the benefit of a group of men raised to a special rank and distinguished from others. Why were these changes necessary?

This is the real question that our "sociologists" avoid. Because, if the old respect for natural authority has disappeared, if the spontaneous organization of the armed population has been considered a threat and prohibited, it can only be because collaboration and mutual aid in the work had ended, that the relations of production based on common property had given way to new relations of production based on private property and the exploitation of man by man. Only historical materialism can therefore give a scientific answer to the question of the origin of the state.

It is quite understandable that, from the day the exploitation of man by man began, the old authority based on natural respect crumbled, giving way to authority based on fear. From that day on, the spontaneous organization of the entire armed population ceased, since the prisoners of war, transformed into slaves, were disarmed. Only the masters, holders of the means of production, were henceforth also owners of the weapons. So nowadays, in countries subject to imperialism, in Madagascar, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, etc., we see the settlers arming themselves against the colonial slaves. [We are talking here about the issue of weapons, but it should be noted that theColonialist oppression is characterized more fundamentally by the fact that all the police, army, justice, administration, education, are at the service of the colonist against the colonized.]

The free patriarchal or matriarchal tribes never spontaneously accepted slavery. The slaves never let themselves be obediently led to the market.

In order to obtain from slaves the work expected of them, coercion was necessary. In addition, if the masters wanted to guarantee the social system thus created the stability essential for any production, it was necessary to persuade the slaves that such a system was just, represented order; it was necessary to fix inviolable rules determining the behavior of men in social relations, perpetuating, so to speak, the new relations of production. Thus arose the metaphysical notion of the absolute right of masters over their slaves, deriving from the old right of the victor over the vanquished. To represent the interest of the class of masters, as a class, independently of the will of the individuals who compose it, it became necessary to establish laws,prescribing the obligations of the exploited and the rights of the exploiters, serving as an intangible basis for repression and thus guaranteeing it an unconditional realization, independent of the "hazards" of the class struggle, of the temporary fluctuations of force. Thus, the momentary failures of the material strength of the ruling class could be compensated for by fear of the laws.

It was still necessary that these were respected for themselves. An ancient thinker, Critias, indicates that

to bring about justice, men established laws which could only partially achieve their purpose: they could prevent violence from being committed in public, but not from doing so in secret. It was then that a wise man with a shrewd mind had the idea of ​​inspiring in men the fear of omniscient gods. When he had convinced them that even bad plans formed in silence could not escape them, anomie [that is, chronic law breaking] ceased. (Cited by Sextus Empiricus, “Sisyphus”. IX, 54.)

Critias' apologue reflects a profound truth: with the appearance of classes, the gods, through whom the human imagination hitherto explained the forces of nature and the fluctuations of fate, acquire a new function: they become the guarantors social order, the mysterious guarantee of class inequality, the judges of the oppressed in the Hereafter and these judges are linked with the oppressors. These instill in the masses the fear of the gods and give credence to the legend that they are in mysterious communication with them.

Thus law completes and consecrates force, and religion completes and sanctifies law. Also when the slave mode of production had developed and the slave society was built, when superstition kept the slaves in obedience and they had taken, with the habit of servitude, as Rousseau indicated, a mentality of slaves, special detachments of armed men, a police force responsible for punishing escaped slaves, were sufficient and advantageously replaced the permanent armament of the owners. However, the owner never lost the right to have his own armed guards on his estate. So nowadays the big American capitalists have their own police force on their oil and agricultural exploitations.

From the examination of historical facts it follows, therefore, that in all antagonistic class societies, the State comes down to this: an apparatus for governing the exploited which has emerged from human society and has gradually distinguished itself from she. It presupposes the existence of a special group of men, the politicians, occupied solely in governing, and for that using an apparatus designed for "the subjugation of the will of others to violence" [Lenin: "From the State ”, in The State and the Revolution, p. 113.]; this apparatus includes the police, the standing army, the prisons, the courts; to this must be added the organs of ideological pressure: education, the press, broadcasting, etc.

In summary:

1. The state has not always existed.

2. The state apparatus arises only at the place and at the moment when the division into antagonistic classes, class exploitation arises in society.

Engels wrote:

The State is therefore not a power imposed from outside on society; nor is it the "reality of the moral idea," "the image and reality of reason," as Hegel claims. Rather, it is a product of society at a determined stage of its development; it is the admission that this society gets entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, having split into irreconcilable oppositions that it is powerless to ward off. But so that the antagonists, the classes with opposed economic interests, do not consume themselves, they and society, in a sterile struggle [In fact, the law of correspondence necessary between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces shows that The exploitation of man by man fulfills, at certain times, a historical mission.],there is a need for a power which, apparently placed above society, must blur the conflict, keep it within the limits of "order"; and this power, born of society, but which places itself above it and becomes more and more foreign to it, is the State. (Engels: The Origin of the Family, Property and the State, pp. 155 and 156. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1954.)

Lenin summed up the scientific conception of the origin of the state in a decisive phrase:

The State is the product and the manifestation of irreconcilable class antagonisms. (Lenin; The State and the Revolution, p. 12.)

To understand the origin of the state, we must therefore consider the objective laws of production which, at a certain stage of development of the productive forces, engender private property, the exploitation of man by man and by therefore the obligation to consolidate this private property. The State is therefore a historically necessary product of the economic development of society; it is in no way explained by "original sin", the divine will, "the moral idea", or the "function of organization".

This is what the anarchists do not understand, prisoners they are, on the theoretical level, of idealism. Just as the defenders of the bourgeois state explain that the state is essential to contain within limits the original wickedness and malignancy of man, so the anarchists see in the state the product of an evil power, of an “instinct for domination”. They detach the state from its class base, they regard it as an autonomous force which is exercised in the interest of those who manage to dominate it, to seize it. They deny the historical origin of the state and the objective necessity of its appearance at some point.

Important consequence on the practical level: the anarchists separate the struggle against the bourgeois state from the class struggle, from the mass struggle. In front of the State-in-itself, they train the individual and recommend, as a method of struggle, individual acts. The political consequence is that anarchism quickly became a most convenient alibi for the bourgeoisie's provocateurs in the workers' movement. On the other hand, the anarchist opposition to the State-in-itself, the opposition of the individual and the mass, leads straight to hostility towards socialist power, the power of workers and peasants. The political consequence is that anarchism serves as an alibi for anti-Soviet terrorism. Thus come together, despite appearances,the “theories” of bourgeois historians who see for example in the war of 1914 an effect of “the will to power of the State” (!), and the praise of the revolt for the revolt in the Antisovietic Book of Camus: The rebellious man.

Let us note however that the mystification which makes of the State an autonomous force, an incarnation of the “idea”, in short the idealistic prejudice, rests on a particularity which Engels underlines in the text above. Let us remember that the physical strength of the state alone is not enough. All the great revolutions have shown this: they have put on the agenda the problem of the relationship between "special detachments of armed men" and "the spontaneous organization of the armed population". They have shown that when this is the case, the outcome of the struggle was swift and in no way favorable to the exploiting class. If, on the contrary, the strength of the State is supported by a part of the population, history shows us long civil wars of dubious outcome. Which means that,if the exploited saw the state as what it is, an instrument of their enslavement, the domination of the exploiters would be seriously compromised. They therefore need not only the power of the state apparatus, but also to make it appear as higher in essence, to inspire superstitious fear. The state must apparently place itself above society, above social struggles. He must move further and further away from society, surround himself with mystery, secrets, appear as a celestial power perched on a Sinai of clouds and lightning, before which every knee must bow . Whenever possible, the ruling classes have deified the head of state. When this is no longer possible,they invoke the mysterious "general interest", inaccessible to the intelligence of ordinary people! This is what the idealistic theories of the state are based on. And this insistence of the ruling classes on presenting the State as the embodiment of a superior force proves that they are well aware that the real strength of a State lies in the support that public opinion grants it, the credit it receives. has with the masses, the confidence which it enjoys, in short on ideas. Let us listen to Laniel, capitalist and head of government, addressing the strikers in August 1953:a superior force proves that they know very well that the real strength of a State lies in the support that public opinion grants it, the credit it has with the masses, the confidence it enjoys, in short, on ideas. Let us listen to Laniel, capitalist and head of government, addressing the strikers in August 1953:a superior force proves that they know very well that the real strength of a State lies in the support that public opinion grants it, the credit it has with the masses, the confidence it enjoys, in short, on ideas. Let us listen to Laniel, capitalist and head of government, addressing the strikers in August 1953:

I must now speak to you the language of the State ..., because it is the State and the State alone which, in a democracy, must arbitrate the quarrels between particular interests.

Thus the private interests of the capitalist Laniel are those defended by the state. By advocating the “arbitration” of the State, he admits it! But do the legitimate demands of millions of workers express only specific interests? As if the interests of those who work were not the most authentic expression of the general interest!

By thus reversing the terms of the problem, Laniel seeks the support of the masses, or of a part of them, without whom the power of the ruling class could not be maintained. This is why it is necessary for the capitalist state to defend private capitalist interests in the name of the general interest. For the masses to stop supporting the bourgeois state, two things are needed:

1. that they realize that the so-called "general interest" defended by the state is only the interest of the capitalists;

2. that they understand that the interests of the capitalists have long since fallen out of line with that of the nation.

The historical role of the state

Dealing with the origin of the state, we inevitably spoke of its role. The dialectic wants it so since the State was born precisely to face up to a problem that arose in society, to consolidate the social supremacy of the exploiters, the property regime which guarantees their privileges. The state is a reflection of the economic base, but it is not a passive reflection, it is an active reflection. This is why, without separating its role from its origin, it is useful, as well as for the study of ideas in social life, not to confuse the role and the origin. Because from the point of view of origin, the State is derived from the economy, but from the point of view of the role, there are cases where the importance of the State is primordial, decisive, determining. To say that the state is a reflection ofeconomy should therefore not lead to underestimating its feedback on the economy.

The task of the state, says Engels, is to "moderate the class conflict", to keep it within the limits of "order". As Lenin showed, this does not mean at all that the state is a class conciliation body. It just means the opposite!

If class "reconciliation" was possible, there would never have been a need for a state, a repressive body.

"To moderate the class conflict" means to remove its acuteness, in other words to deprive the exploited classes of the means of struggle allowing them to get rid of their exploiters. It is therefore a question of limiting, of curbing, of stifling the struggle of the exploited classes. How? 'Or' What ? by leaving the field open to the action of the exploiters, by widening, by developing, by reinforcing oppression, in particular when the relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of the productive forces.

Such is in fact the dead end of the reactionary classes: filling the prisons to "be quiet"; and, to kill the fear that full prisons cause them, fill them even more! Here is for them “order” and “peace”, an order which legalizes oppression, which is made to strengthen it and at the same time which shakes it. Moderate the conflict by making it worse. [We then understand the meaning of Stalin's famous warning concerning fascism, an indisputable sign of the relative weakness of the workers' movement, but also a sign of its strength and of the general weakness of capitalism.]

The conclusion is that

According to Marx, the state is an organism of class domination, of oppression of one class by another. (Lenin: The State and the Revolution, p. 13.)

The state represents violence, established and organized, legal violence. It is an instrument, not of conciliation, but of class struggle.

A question then arises: what is, at each stage of historical development, the class that is able to create, maintain and use this instrument? Every exploiting class needs the state, but it cannot always support it.

Engels responds:

As the state was born out of the need to curb class oppositions, but as it was born, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful class, of that which dominates from the economic point of view and which, thanks to it, also becomes a politically dominant class and thus acquires new means to subdue and exploit the oppressed class. (Engels: The Origin of the Family ..., p. 157.)

In each era, historical science must therefore give a concrete answer.

For example, the maintenance of the modern state (army, police, civil servants) requires expenditure.

The ruling class can therefore only keep this instrument in its hands and use it insofar as the relations of production that it personifies and that it wants to safeguard allow it to maintain it. This is why, as a rule, the politically dominant class is the one which is economically dominant.

From there, some consequences:

1. When two struggling classes achieve a certain economic equilibrium, the State can acquire for a certain time a semblance of independence with regard to these classes. The absolute monarchy of Louis XIV seemed able to be the arbiter between the feudal, exploiters of the serfs, and the bourgeois; the king could say: "I am the state!" "

In fact, it meant that the bourgeois had acquired some influence in the feudal state because they maintained it, because they lent money to the king; but reciprocally, they could not without the protection of the feudal state develop trade and manufactures. In exchange for the financial support they gave to the feudal system, the bourgeoisie obtained the commercial privileges which germinated the end of the feudal system! The struggle between the two exploiting classes at that time presented itself in such a form that each of the two classes needed the other. A century later, in 1789, it turned out quite differently: the bourgeoisie, which had become economically dominant, cut off food for the feudal state and caused it to fall. NOT'Let us not forget, however, that provisional agreements between nobles and bourgeois have always been forged on the backs of the peasants, the exploited class.

2. In the hands of an exploiting class, the state is an additional means of exploitation of the oppressed classes. Taxes, fines, court costs, etc., are all means of making the oppressed pay the costs of their oppression, under the guise of contribution to the general costs of society. It appears even better nowadays when France's huge war budget means the nation is paying the costs of a war (the war in Vietnam) and rearmament (as part of the Atlantic Pact of aggression) undertaken in the exclusive interest of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Likewise, it is the broad masses who pay the maintenance costs of the police who bludgeon them in the name of the general interest. Thus the state bludgeons workers "in their interests" and ...at their expense! However, this additional exploitation can only be done by the State of the exploiting classes and derives in its essence from the exploitation itself. Exploitation, contrary to what Blanqui believed, is not the tax, but the private appropriation of unpaid labor.

3. The class in power necessarily begins to tremble for its political supremacy as soon as the relations of production which it personifies, and by which it is economically dominant, begin to age, that is to say as soon as the disagreement between the relations of production and the character of the productive forces. It is when this disagreement worsens that the question of the State becomes acute. And it is at this moment that the material possibility arises that state power escapes the hands of the ruling class.

Also, when we talk about the economically most powerful class, we should not understand this expression in a schematic way. In a sense, the most "powerful" class is that which is capable of pushing forward the development of the productive forces, that which personifies the new relations of production. When the bourgeoisie is no longer able to develop the productive forces, it can no longer be said to be economically "powerful", nor that the capitalist economy, which still dominates society, is healthy. On the contrary, it is a declining economy, and this means that the domination, both political and economic, of the bourgeoisie is coming to an end.

But it is then that the action in return of the State on the economy appears in full light, because the State is not passive in front of the fate of its base, it is active, it defends it energetically.

When the relations of production are in accord with the character of the productive forces, the economic policy of the class in power which personifies these relations of production tends to the development of production, to the extension of industry: let us quote for example the struggle of the bourgeoisie for free trade. But when the relations of production no longer correspond to the character of the productive forces, the economic policy of the exploiting classes tends to stop the play of the necessary law of correspondence, for example by taking measures to slow down the development of the productive forces.

At the time of the decline of capitalism in particular, finance capital, tightly controlling the State which is only its instrument, tries to give to the economic problems of capitalism a solution in accordance with its interests, to the detriment of those of the nation. The state, subordinate to monopolies, strives to dominate economic life, not that it is possible to "plan" capitalism, but only to protect the interests of the financial oligarchy. This secures enormous advantages: the state it controls assures it a monopoly on the issuance of state funds, places it orders for armaments and military supplies, exempt from taxes. , fixes the wholesale and retail prices to his advantage, sells him the products of thenationalized industry (electricity, coal), takes measures to eliminate its competitors, grants it subsidies, manipulates the currency, negotiates on its own behalf with other countries, finally fixes wages at its convenience, so that any proletarian inevitably meets the 'State on its way, in its struggle for bread.

In the era of imperialism, the action of the state is guided by the need to save capitalism and in particular to delay the hour of economic crisis. The state is the main instrument of the ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the country, of the enslavement and systematic plundering of the colonized peoples, of the struggle of the monopoly capitalists against the non-monopoly capitalists and of the struggle of the monopoly capitalist groups among themselves, the instrument finally of the struggle between rival imperialisms, of wars and of the militarization of the national economy. In order to be able to fulfill all these tasks, it remains more than ever, and on the front line, the instrument of oppression of the proletariat and the broad working masses.

Thus the State is the bulwark of the exploiting class and its role is decisive in the defense of the mode of production which has had its day. The state, which was the instrument of domination of the economically most powerful class, becomes the instrument of conservation of this economic power even though it is undermined at the base by the contradictions of the mode of production. The objective conditions for changing the mode of production exist. But the action of the exploiting class which opposes the application of the necessary law of correspondence, the action of the bourgeois state, becomes the main obstacle to the necessary changes. This obstacle must be broken, but for this there must be subjective conditions, namely the whole political struggle of the working class toorganize politically into a class party, organize the popular masses, defend and expand democratic freedoms, and finally create its own state power.

This one does not yet have, in its beginnings, any economic base of its own, socialist: it will have to create its own base. Moreover, it can only be established with the conscious support of the working masses. It is therefore necessary that the new political ideas, put forward by the working class, have won the majority among the masses, that is to say that the majority of the nation has ceased to give its support, its confidence to the bourgeois politics. This is why Marxism rightly places the question of the state among the subjective conditions for changing the mode of production.

Here is what the dialectic teaches us: although a given State is always the reflection of a given economic basis, the solution of the problem of the State, of the political problem, must, in specific cases, historically precede the building of the economic base which will be specific to the new State.

This is precisely what vulgar materialism cannot understand: starting from the idea that the State is a product of the economic development of society, it concludes that economic contradictions must automatically, inevitably, lead to transformations in the mode of production, that socialism will arise spontaneously from the "decomposition of capitalism". He forgets that the action of men can hamper the application of economic laws, which the bourgeoisie can extend through its political action and the immense means given to it by the modern state, the agony of the economic base. In this way, he plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. The current economist in the workers' movement achieves the same result by denying the necessity of the political struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeois state, and thus it feeds theopportunism, it puts the working class behind the bourgeoisie. At the same time, it protests against the political power of the working class and sinks into anti-Sovietism. It is therefore cultivated by the agents of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement, the reformist Social Democratic leaders.

The conclusion is therefore the pressing need for political struggle. But let us not forget on the other hand what we have seen above: the State can only play its role if the masses (and also the servants of the State) accept the idea that it is at- above the classes, if they have the superstition. The physical strength of the state ultimately rests on an ideological element, the underestimation by the masses of their own power. Napoleon recognized that you can do anything with bayonets, provided you have public opinion on your side. Whatever means of pressure at the disposal of the bourgeois state, for example corruption, historical experience has shown that they could do nothing against the firmness of the ideologically armed masses.Only one thing matters in the end, is that the masses see clearly in the game of their enemies, believed they do not manage to deceive them. This is why Marxism ranks political institutions among the phenomena of the spiritual life of society: their power is indeed none other than the force of ideas, a force which can become material on condition that ideas seize hold of them. masses.

Consequently, the political struggle necessarily includes the ideological struggle, the struggle against the ideas which support the politics of the class adversary, the struggle to remove the ideological obstacles which prevent the masses from uniting in the political struggle against the bourgeois state. .

This analysis only demonstrates once again the need for the class struggle of the proletariat to be guided by a conscious vanguard organized as an independent political force, a political party based on a class ideology, of struggle. revolutionary, which scientifically reflects the vital, immediate and long-term interests of the working class and of all of society.

The content and form of the state

One of the main means employed by the ideologues of the ruling and exploiting classes to confuse the question of the state is to confuse the form and the content of the state. When they define the various types of state, they always start from the number of men who exercise the prerogatives of power: they distinguish the monarchical, aristocratic, democratic state. They limit the debate to questions of form, to the nature of the bodies which exercise power: for example the existence of a Parliament, the “separation of powers”, the “independence of the judiciary”, etc., thus showing that for them the content is untouchable. For Marxism, the question that takes precedence over all others is the following: in the interests of whom and against whom this power isdoes he exercise? Marxism distinguishes the social content of the state from its form.

The social content of the state

The character of a state is given to it by its real social content, its class content. A state is slavery or feudal, bourgeois and capitalist or proletarian and socialist. Any state is a class dictatorship: this results from its origin and its role. The content represents the essence of the State, it precedes the form and determines it. Each ruling class chooses the form that best suits its class dictatorship.

Consider a few historical examples:

Is the ancient state a slave state? Yes, whatever its form, because the slave has never been a citizen there. Is the state in the Middle Ages a feudal state? Yes, whatever its form, because never a serf had the slightest political right to it; as for the bourgeoisie, they conquered their franknesses there by hard struggle. The contemporary French state, since 1789, is it the state of the capitalist bourgeoisie? Yes, whatever its form, because the proletariat has never had any other political rights there than those which it wrested from the bourgeoisie by the struggle and whose respect it imposes by a constant struggle.

Is the Soviet state the state of workers and peasants? Yes because

... the political base of the USSR is the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, which have grown and consolidated as a result of the overthrow of power of the big landowners and capitalists, and thanks to the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Article 2 of the Constitution of the USSR)

All power in the USSR belongs to the workers of the city and the countryside in the person of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. (Article 3 of the Constitution of the USSR)

The first question to ask in order to appreciate the character of a state today is therefore this: is it a bourgeois capitalist state, or a socialist state of workers and peasants?

The question cannot be asked otherwise. The State cannot be the State of a man, or of a party; it is always the state of a class. A state cannot be maintained, as we have seen, without an economic base, and the economic base, as we know, is characterized by the ownership of the means of production. The social force which incarnates property, which disposes of it and uses it, is nowhere a man or a party, it is always and everywhere a class, here that of the bourgeois capitalists, there that of the workers allied to that working peasants.

The social content of a State is therefore given by the answer to the following question: at the service of what relations of production, of what form of property (private or social), of what class is it?

You have to ask this question about all political notions.

For example, on freedom, Lenin hastily threw down the following notes on paper:

"Freedom" = freedom of the owner of goods. Real freedom of wage workers - peasants. Freedom of the exploiters. Freedom for whom? »In relation to whom? to what? " in what ? (Lenin: "On the dictatorship of the proletariat," in The State and the Revolution, p. 149.)

And about equality:

"Equality". Engels in the Anti-Dühring (prejudice if by that we mean more than the suppression of classes). Equality of owners of goods. Equality of the exploited and the exploiter. Equality of the hungry and the well-fed. Equality of the worker and the peasant. Equality of whom? with whom ? in what ? (Idem, p. 150.)

The means of government of a state are those of the class of which it is the instrument and, as such, they are significant, they bear witness to its content. For the capitalist state, these are capitalist means, and in the first place money.

Engels writes about this:

The Democratic Republic no longer officially recognizes differences in fortune. Wealth exercises its power there in an indirect way, but all the more certain. On the one hand, in the form of direct corruption of officials, which America offers a classic model, on the other hand, in the form of an alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange; this alliance is all the more easily realized as the state debts increase more and that the joint-stock companies concentrate more and more in their hands not only the transport, but also the production itself, and in their turn find their central point in the Stock Exchange. (Engels: The Origin of the Family ..., p. 158.)

Nowadays, the domination of wealth in the bourgeois republic is no less evident. Although there is no legal or legal provision reserving for members of the financial oligarchy the positions of command of the State, the "subordination of the state apparatus to monopolies". [Stalin: Economic Problems ..., p. 37.] is nonetheless a fact. On the one hand, the 200 families have the means to place some of their members in the state apparatus as senior officials: whatever the rules for recruiting them, we know that ultimately it is the "Love rating" which regulates admission to "large bodies of the State", such as the Inspectorate of Finances and others. On the other hand, thefinancial oligarchy organizes a regular migration of senior officials to the private sector, a real poaching which allows it to ensure a continuous recruitment of its executives and which tends, through ambition, thirst for gain, corruption, to control the entire hierarchy administrative. This corruption breaks out in the inevitable and periodic scandals of the capitalist state. It also takes the form of direct distribution of places on the boards of trusts to deputies, diplomats, generals, etc.This corruption breaks out in the inevitable and periodic scandals of the capitalist state. It also takes the form of direct distribution of places on the boards of trusts to deputies, diplomats, generals, etc.This corruption breaks out in the inevitable and periodic scandals of the capitalist state. It also takes the form of direct distribution of places on the boards of trusts to deputies, diplomats, generals, etc.

We saw above (p. 222) the historical role of the State in the service of finance capital. Through the credits of the Marshall Plan, the French state found itself subordinated to the Yankee monopolies and some of its cogs, for example the Quai d'Orsay, closely controlled by their agents. The big bourgeoisie also has the "financial crisis" as a means of blackmailing Parliament: the increase in state debts is good political business for it: financial blackmail which was for it a means of pressure on kings , remains a practice that can be used with its own State and foreign States in difficulty.

The political role of wealth in the bourgeois state appears again in a series of questions: what is the content of freedom of the press, if not that the capitalists, who alone have the material possibility of founding a newspaper and of financing it, have any latitude to create it? - what is the content of everyone's right to education, if not that the real possibility of learning exists only for the classes and social layers which can pay the costs of education? - what is the content of freedom of opinion and political rights, if not that the real possibility of presenting candidates exists only for capitalist groups which can finance an electoral campaign? Let us not forget that the existence of an independent working class partyis not an effect of bourgeois liberalism, but of the active solidarity of the masses.

The features of the class state appear clearly in the question of justice. Let us note first of all that justice is not done, it is sold by the bourgeoisie: theoretically free, it is however only given to those who can incur the costs of a procedure; how can a worker obtain damages for an industrial accident? How can he obtain an appeal before the Council of State against an administrative illegality? Justice is done in a jargon inaccessible to the popular masses, which dates back to the early days of the bourgeoisie. Finally, above all, the principles which guide it are those of bourgeois law founded on the defense of property, the defense of Capital; the repression of thieves of personal property serves as aalibi for the repression of workers in struggle against their exploiters; in political affairs, the means of pressure of the bourgeois state on magistrates are manifold, from blackmail to advancement to the threat, barely disguised, by agents provocateurs; even with regard to crimes, we know that bourgeois ideology appreciates them very differently depending on whether they are committed by a downgraded wretch or by an “honorable” son of a family; finally, the corruption of the decadent bourgeoisie renders justice practically powerless in the face of high-level traffickers and gangsters who scour the "upper" spheres of society.advancement to the threat, barely disguised, by agent provocateurs; even with regard to crimes, we know that bourgeois ideology appreciates them very differently depending on whether they are committed by a downgraded wretch or by an “honorable” son of a family; finally, the corruption of the decadent bourgeoisie renders justice practically powerless in the face of high-level traffickers and gangsters who scour the "upper" spheres of society.advancement to the threat, barely disguised, by agent provocateurs; even with regard to crimes, we know that bourgeois ideology appreciates them very differently depending on whether they are committed by a downgraded wretch or by an “honorable” son of a family; finally, the corruption of the decadent bourgeoisie renders justice practically powerless in the face of high-level traffickers and gangsters who scour the "upper" spheres of society.finally, the corruption of the decadent bourgeoisie renders justice practically powerless in the face of high-level traffickers and gangsters who scour the "upper" spheres of society.finally, the corruption of the decadent bourgeoisie renders justice practically powerless in the face of high-level traffickers and gangsters who scour the "upper" spheres of society.

The content of the law derives from the fact that its function is to sanction the existing regime of property. Far from being the embodiment of eternal principles, of "natural laws", or of the wills of the "collective conscience", the law is a constitutive element of the superstructure, the reflection of the form of dominant property, which it attempts. to eternalize, by bringing it to the absolute, by justifying it by an alleged immutable "principle": bourgeois legal thought is one of the best examples of the application of the metaphysical method.

A simple example will illustrate the class content of law. The Code obliges children to provide for their parents, if necessary, and parents to bring up their children. Is it not clear that this rule only generalizes to the whole of society an obligation which has meaning only within the framework of the bourgeois family, and that this abusive generalization exempts the exploiters, the bourgeoisie, from obligations towards those elements of the proletariat incapable of working: old workers, infirm, sick, children of proletarians?

The “democratic” bourgeois state is still characterized by the following features:

- bureaucracy: the administration is conducted exclusively from above according to the hidden directives of the big bourgeoisie; the senior administration is practically irresponsible and directly controlled by the financial oligarchy; senior officials form specialized and closed “bodies”, depositaries of the “skills”, that is to say of the secular class experience of the bourgeoisie; this administration is exempt from the control of parliamentary committees by “professional secrecy”; the prefectural administration supervises the local assemblies and subordinates their decisions to the class interests of the big bourgeoisie. [In his report to the IXth Congress of the French Communist Party (Arles, 1937),Maurice Thorez illustrated this omnipotence of offices in the field of foreign policy. He said, quoting a democratic weekly: “Mr. Léger, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entered the Quai d'Orsay in 1914. In 1916, he was in Shanghai. In 1921, in Paris. And, from 1921 to 1937, Mr. Alexis Léger remained in Paris. In 1929 he was Director of Political and Commercial Affairs. Since this appointment, Mr. Briand has succeeded Mr. Briand, Mr. Laval to Mr. Briand, Mr. Tardieu to Mr. Laval, Mr. Herriot to Mr. Tardieu, Mr. Paul-Boncour to Mr. Herriot, Mr. Daladier to M. Paul-Boncour, M. Barthou to M. Daladier, M. Laval to M. Barthou, M. Flandin to M. Laval, and M. Yvon Delbos to M. Flandin. But Mr. Léger is still Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.“Who is the real Minister of Foreign Affairs? Who represents, in the eyes of its representatives, France? Mr. Delbos? Come on! Mr. Alexis Léger, permanent minister. »M. Thorez: Works, t. XIV, p. 269. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1954.]

- militarism: the excessive length of military service, a consequence of imperialism, for which peace is only a truce between two attacks, has, among other goals, that of training the youth in the blind service of the State bourgeois; discipline is conceived of as passive obedience without discussion, imposed from above; the bourgeoisie cannot clearly confess its class goals to its soldiers;

- parliamentarism: the elections are conceived in such a way that they only have to decide every 4 or 5 years which man of confidence of the bourgeoisie will represent and oppress the people in Parliament; the representatives of the people are not revocable by their electors and do not hold executive and administrative power, by virtue of the bourgeois fallacy of the “separation of powers”; the definition of parliamentarism is that the elected assemblies themselves do not control the execution, the application of their decisions: they are not active.

Finally, a more recent phenomenon in France, the political personnel themselves are directly recruited from among the capitalists who, with a Pinay, a Mayer, a Laniel, are no longer content to have the political personnel under their control, but ensure in person. government leadership. In the United States, the phenomenon is older and more extensive: generals, diplomats, judges are capitalists who carry out these functions themselves.

We now see in what sense any state is a class dictatorship; this means that the reality of power belongs to a class which exercises it in its interests and with its own methods. The bourgeois state can be a democracy for the capitalists, it is always a dictatorship over the working class; the socialist state, on the contrary, is democracy for the workers and a dictatorship over the overthrown former exploiting classes. Lenin said: “Dictatorship, negation of democracy. For who ? ". [Open. cited., p. 149.]

It is therefore wrong to define fascism as a "party dictatorship". Fascism is the "open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialist elements of finance capital" (Dimitrov). The single party is only the instrument of this class dictatorship.

Finally, the social-democratic gossip on the "penetration of proletarian elements" into the modern state, which supposedly ensures it an "intermediate" character since, "not completely proletarian", it would no longer be "fully bourgeois", could hide this: if the proletariat has had to bring down, with great difficulty, some of the »advanced bastilles of the capitalist state, does this prevent the latter from remaining the capitalist state or, on the contrary, does it prove? is it not precisely that it is?

The form of the state

The form of the state is the expression of its real social content, it is determined by the development of the class struggle.

Lenin distinguishes various forms of the State, which appeared in antiquity:

- the monarchy, as the power of one;

- the republic, as a state where unelected power does not exist;

- the aristocracy, as the power of a relatively small minority;

- democracy, as the power of the people.

These various forms were combined with one another; for example, the Republic can be aristocratic or democratic, and at the same time include vestiges of the monarchy.

The form of the state is often changeable: often lagging behind in content, it expresses in its own way the internal contradictions of society. In antiquity, all forms of state had a slavery content. However, the transition from one to the other, from the aristocratic republic to the democratic republic, in Rome for example, necessarily reflected a new phase of the class struggle between landowners (patricians) and merchants (plebeians).

Under feudalism, the forms of the state were just as varied: there were aristocratic republics where the feudal lords elected the head of state, the emperor; some turned into hereditary monarchies. Charlemagne assembled each year a Parliament of the Carolingian nobility, a survival of the "republican" customs of the Franks. The first Capetians were elected, and at a certain period, in the Holy Roman Empire, the emperor was elected by the great feudal lords. But in all cases the content of the state was feudal. The Estates General of the Ancien Régime were an institution of a “republican” character, since it was made up of elected delegates, and at the same time aristocratic, since the feudal lords automatically had a two-thirds majority there [The nobility,the clergy and the third estate each having one voice, and the clergy usually adding its voice to that of the nobility.]: at the same time it was a feudal institution, serving the interests of the feudal lords!

When the bourgeoisie was able to acquire influence in the feudal monarchical state, by financial means, it held in check this feudal institution which were the States General and in which it was in the minority. This is why under the "absolute" monarchy of Louis XIV, and of Colbert - a bourgeois, - the States General were never united.

But in the 18th century, because of the progress of the bourgeoisie which called into question the very existence of the feudal system, the point of monarchical absolutism which, after the Fronde, was directed against the feudal lords, was turned against the bourgeoisie.

She then thought of using the States General. The situation had changed: with some reforms, they could now serve the bourgeoisie! The nobility was isolated in the country; the clergy was divided, by the class struggle, into the upper feudal clergy and the lower clergy from the people; the bourgeoisie was the class on which rested the wealth of the national economy: it campaigned among the masses for the doubling of the number of deputies of the third estate, (which traditionally was equal to that of each of the other two orders) and for a vote within the States, no longer by order, but by head; in this way, with the support of the deputies of the lower clergy, the bourgeoisie certainly had the absolute majority in the States General! When they were assembled, the deputies of the third estate,sitting on their own authority, called on the deputies of the clergy to join them and proclaimed themselves the National Assembly.

We see that, according to the ups and downs of the class struggle, the bourgeoisie was able to use sometimes the monarchical institutions of the feudal state (the king), sometimes its "republican" institutions (the States General).

It was the development of the class struggle which made it possible to give this feudal institution a new, bourgeois content; the new content assumed for a time an old form and determined its modifications. Finally, let us note that a quantitative evolution, the increase in the power of the bourgeoisie in the country, leads dialectically to a qualitative change in the form of institutions, the transformation of the States General into a National Assembly, and at the same time a complete overthrow from the general political situation, to the political revolution. All this had been done on the basis of the development of the class struggle.

In turn, the bourgeoisie, which had become the dominant class, used various forms of state:

- the constitutional monarchy, that is to say narrowly limited by a republic, not democratic, "censitaire", where only "active citizens", rich enough to pay a given tax, were voters;

- the censal republic;

- the democratic republic, with “universal” suffrage.

But the first form represented a compromise with the old regime in times when it was necessary.

The second had the preference of the bourgeoisie, as corresponding exactly to the economic base of the regime: it was the republic of the owners.

The third became necessary when the class struggle of the proletariat developed and the class dictatorship had to be disguised in order to "moderate the class conflict", to dampen and channel the revolutionary impetus of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie would have liked to accredit the idea that the democratic republic was the ideal and definitive form of State, the last word of "progress of conscience", of civilization, of humanism, the incarnation of "natural law" , the end of the story in a way. Thus she hoped to be able to perpetuate the reign of Capital.

The contradictions of capitalism, the aggravation of the class struggle and economic crises, the preparation of imperialist aggressions, the opening of the general crisis of capitalism did not allow it. The bourgeoisie had to throw away the democratic mask, violate its own legality, to perpetuate its class domination, tottering on its rotten economic base and prepare for war. She then showed the hideous face of fascism, the dictatorship of Capital in its bloodthirsty brutality. In this way, it proved that the class content of the state came before the form, that the democratic republic was a historical, transitory state form, subordinated to its class interests, neither sacred nor eternal. She herself proved thehypocrisy of his statements about his selfless and unconditional love for freedom and civilization

Class struggle and freedom

The bourgeoisie and "freedom"

The historic struggle of the bourgeoisie for "freedom" had a class content.

If the bourgeoisie, at the time of the bourgeois revolution, championed freedom, it was:

a) because it needs to find on the market a free labor force, freed from feudal ties, not dependent on a lord, labor that it can include in the industrial cycle or in the on the contrary, reject unemployment according to the needs of capitalist production;

b) because the development of new productive forces requires freedom of commerce, freedom of enterprise, the removal of the restrictions of the feudal economy;

c) because “individual freedom” is the legal and political form which best expresses the form of private property which is the basis of the bourgeoisie, the wealth represented by money which removes all personal ties between members of society ; the basis of the idea of ​​individual freedom is bourgeois private property, although the bourgeoisie wants to make people believe, on the contrary, that it is the absolute notion of individual, the supreme value, which justifies private property!

d) because by making itself the champion of freedom, the bourgeoisie creates an ideological basis for the political alliance with the other classes of the population in struggle against feudalism: peasants and various layers of the petty bourgeoisie. The bourgeois democratic revolution is the proper method to lead to success in the struggle against feudalism.

Note that this bourgeoisie which proclaims itself "liberal" is the same which denies the right to vote to "passive citizens", the right of association to workers in 1791! The limits of its "liberalism" are exactly those of its class interest.

The bourgeoisie, which is divided by reason of the peculiarities of capitalism and competition, into fractions whose interests may be divergent, creates appropriate forms of political organization: the diversity of bourgeois parties, parliamentarism.

However, as the particular interests of such a fraction of the bourgeoisie must be subordinated to the general and permanent interests of the class, the bourgeoisie limits the rights of Parliament, separates the executive from the legislature, and removes the administration of the state from control. of Parliament.

If the bourgeoisie then turned towards universal suffrage (in the middle of the 19th century), towards democratic parliamentarism, this is also due to very clear reasons:

the class struggle, in fact, is developing, the proletariat claims political rights; the importance of public opinion is growing, because it is spreading to new and active layers, developed by big industry; the democratic republic then conceals class domination just as the salary, paid at the end of the day, conceals class exploitation; moreover, the democratic republic does not yet offer any dangers for the bourgeoisie, for the proletariat was not at that time ideologically independent from it. It is therefore easy to gain votes by means of demagogues held in check by the bourgeoisie and to cancel the effect of universal suffrage by an appropriate voting system. Besides, don't you need a minimum of education to become a deputy,and the "democratic" bourgeoisie is careful not to do anything to politically educate the masses in a democratic sense! Later, the compulsory primary school will have the task of educating them with respect for the bourgeoisie.

Finally, it is a rule of bourgeois politicians that the contradiction between their promises to the voters and their actions in Parliament, a contradiction which reflects the opposition of interests between the masses and the bourgeoisie.

In short, at this time, universal suffrage offered the bourgeoisie more advantages than disadvantages. By granting it, it strengthens its links with the masses, it makes itself popular with them and thus strengthens itself politically.

Cavour, a liberal big bourgeois, was he not in the habit of saying:

"The worst of the Chambers is better than the best of the antechambers", wanting thereby to indicate the interest for the bourgeoisie of a parliamentary facade of a support of the opinion. So he still said:

“I have never felt so weak as when the Chambers were on vacation. "

Lenin wrote:

The omnipotence of "wealth" is all the more certain in a democratic republic because it does not depend on a bad political envelope of capitalism; also Capital, after having seized this envelope, the best, asserts its power so solidly, so surely, that there is no change of people, or institutions, or parties, in the democratic republic bourgeois who can shake this power. (The State and the Revolution, p. 18.)

This means that universal suffrage, in the bourgeois state, is incapable of fully translating the will of the majority of workers and of ensuring its realization. This is so true that, when it risks becoming capable of it, the bourgeoisie hastens to destroy its effect, for example by abolishing proportional representation: majority ballot, "related parties", even more shameless rigging, including de Gasperi in Italy. and Adenauer in Germany set the example, everything is good for him to prevent universal suffrage from translating the will of the people.

Maurice Thorez characterized as follows the contradiction which exists in the bourgeois democratic republic between the content and the form of the state:

In the most democratic capitalist States, the contradiction between the equality recognized by the laws and suppressed by the facts, between the Constitutions, which grant democratic freedoms to the people, and poverty, which prevents them from making one, constantly breaks out in the most democratic capitalist States. full use, between formal freedom and effective subjection. (Maurice Thorez: Cahiers du bolchévisme, Nov. 1, 1936. “Declaration to a journalist of Time”. Works. L. III, t. XIII, p. 101.)

This does not mean, however, as we shall see, that the proletariat should be indifferent to the democratic character of the bourgeois state, as the opportunist Social-Democratic leaders, the fenders of fascism have argued.

The proletariat and freedoms

At the time of the general crisis of capitalism, when the contradictions of imperialism deepen still further, the preparation of wars of aggression is more than ever on the agenda for the bourgeoisie. To the preparation for war between imperialist states must be added the preparation for war against the Soviet Union, against the country where the power of the working class has been established. The imperialists cannot help but want war, at the least risk for capitalism of course, as a means of saving capitalism, as a solution to the crisis, to the contradictions of the regime. But, if it is true that imperialism is the objective cause of wars, the outbreak of aggression presupposes subjective conditions: the bourgeoisie must prepare foraggression against future soldiers, he must win the majority of the nation to the cause of imperialism. For this, it is necessary to silence the conscious part of the working class which struggles for peace, stands against imperialism, defends the country from socialism. No bourgeoisie can at this time launch into war without having secured its rear, subdued its working class and the colonial peoples it oppresses and who serve as its reserve. To this need responds fascism.No bourgeoisie can at this time launch into war without having secured its rear, subdued its working class and the colonial peoples it oppresses and who serve as its reserve. To this need responds fascism.No bourgeoisie can at this time launch into war without having secured its rear, subdued its working class and the colonial peoples it oppresses and who serve as its reserve. To this need responds fascism.

This, moreover, provides the means of an economic policy which consists in an attempt to save capitalism by accelerating capitalist concentration, by making fall on the middle bourgeoisie the effects of the economic crisis and by brutally forbidding it any means. political expression. This ruin of the middle bourgeoisie fuels a social demagoguery: addressed to the working class, fascism proclaims itself revolutionary, anti-capitalist; but to the ruined middle classes, it offers compensation through war, imperialist expansion, "living space", and offers national demagoguery, chauvinism.

This is why, uniting the two demagogues, he proclaims himself a National Socialist. Anti-Semitism is just the quintessence of the two, since it combines anti-capitalist demagoguery with national and racial hatred.

Fascism represents the undivided reign of the financial oligarchy, "the open terrorist dictatorship of its most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialist elements". These impose their diktats not only on the working class, but on the entire capitalist economy. The bourgeoisie, by inaugurating this form of state, puts itself in a position to prolong the agony of capitalism, thanks to the return action of the state on the economy, action whose essential form here is war, brutal. , destroyer of productive forces. Fascism is preparation for war, and war itself. [From 1914, in order to conduct the imperialist war more freely, the bourgeoisie proclaimed the suspension of normal parliamentary activity.] Fascism, it isis the liquidation of bourgeois democracy from the period of preparation for war. The fascist state is the "insurmountable" barrier that the bourgeoisie would like to raise before the rising forces of society, in order to impose on them, - in the now inevitable alternative of the last stage of capitalism: to go to socialism or to experience the periodic imperialist wars, - the choice of war.

Fascism, said Maurice Thorez, is bloody terror against the working class, it is the destruction of workers' organizations, the dissolution of class unions, the prohibition of Communist Parties, the mass arrest of militant workers and revolutionaries, torture and murder of the best sons of the working class. Fascism is the unleashing of bestiality, the return to the pogroms of the Middle Ages, the annihilation of all culture, the reign of ignorance and cruelty, it is hideous war ... (M. Thorez: “Speech to the VIIth Congress of the Communist International”, August 3, 1935. Œuvres, L. II, t. IX, p. 121.)

Resorting to fascism is a sign that the bourgeoisie feels that it is going to lose the majority among the masses, a condition without which it cannot start war. This is why resorting to fascism is a sign of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, the sign that instead of relying on usurped credit among the masses, it now only has terror left. But the triumph of fascism signifies that the bourgeoisie has succeeded in isolating the working class, that it has succeeded in its political maneuver, that it has organized its class terror, that it will be able to start war, delay in order to long years the hour of its inevitable downfall.

The bourgeois democratic state and the fascist state have the same class content, but they correspond to different stages in the development of the contradictions of capitalism and of the class struggle. This is why fascism, in order to gain accreditation among the masses, tries to camouflage itself as a national and social revolution: "proletarian socialism is an old myth, said Mussolini, fascism is a new myth". If the bourgeoisie resorts to fascism, it is obviously because it is, in the state of weakness in which it finds itself, the best means of saving its regime: it is therefore that the role of the fascist state takes on a of utmost importance to her. It is therefore appropriate that the working class does not leave it the possibility of forging this instrument of its own enslavement.This is why the working class cannot be indifferent to the form of the bourgeois state. Relying on vulgar materialism, the Social Democratic leaders try to spread the idea that the form of class domination does not matter to the working class since, "anyway", it is dominated. But the working class, for its part, is concerned with ending this domination as quickly as possible! By their specious reasoning, the Social Democratic leaders try to disarm the working class in the face of the threatening fascism: they work on behalf of the bourgeoisie.idea that the form of class domination matters little to the working class since, "anyway", it is dominated. But the working class, for its part, is concerned with ending this domination as quickly as possible! By their specious reasoning, the Social Democratic leaders try to disarm the working class in the face of the threatening fascism: they work on behalf of the bourgeoisie.idea that the form of class domination matters little to the working class since, "anyway", it is dominated. But the working class, for its part, is concerned with ending this domination as quickly as possible! By their specious reasoning, the Social Democratic leaders try to disarm the working class in the face of the threatening fascism: they work on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

It was Maurice Thorez who in France put a stop to the underestimation of the importance of the forms that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie takes. In the speech already quoted to the VIIth Congress of the Communist International, he showed the importance of bourgeois democracy, despite its narrow nature, for the working class:

Bourgeois democracy is a minimum of precarious, uncertain freedoms, ceaselessly reduced by the bourgeoisie in power, but which nevertheless offer the working class, the toiling masses possibilities of mobilization and organization against capitalism. (M. Thorez: Oeuvres, L. II, t. IX, p. 121.)

It would be radically wrong to think that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from its historic mission. The democratic republic, Lenin emphasized:

although it in no way suppresses the domination of Capital nor consequently the oppression of the masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to an extension, to an impetus, to a development, to an aggravation of the struggle such as, the possibility since the essential interests of the oppressed masses have arisen, this possibility is inevitably realized and only in the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Lenin: Selected Works, t. II. P. 218.)

This is, moreover, a remarkable example of dialectics:

... a case of "transformation of quantity into quality": carried out as fully and as methodically as it is possible to conceive, democracy, from the bourgeoisie, becomes proletarian. (Lenin: Selected Works, t. II, p. 194. - See also p. 244.)

Also the “Thesis on the political situation and the tasks of the French Communist Party”, adopted by its XIIIth Congress, recalls in point 15 the teaching of Lenin:

The proletariat cannot prepare to defeat the bourgeoisie without leading a struggle in all areas, a consistent and revolutionary struggle, for democracy. (Lenin: Complete Works, 4th Russian ed., T. XXII, p. 133-134. Quoted by Dimitrov: Selected Works, p. 138-139. Soc. Ed.)

We must be attentive nowadays to all the underhand forms which the liquidation of its own legality takes by the bourgeoisie. Forced by the masses to maintain the democratic form, the bourgeoisie is concerned with reversing its effects. This is the fascization of the state, the point of which is directed against the working class. Desirous of evading the verdict of public opinion, the bourgeoisie plots. And in the event of elections, it organizes a whole mechanism of repression of the working class, of which the historical forms are varied: guarantees, two-round ballot, majority-list ballot, first-past-the-post majority ballot, ballots and withdrawals, kinship, reshuffle of electoral districts, rigging of electoral lists, artificial contribution of votes, interventions of the prefect,ban on democratic newspapers, indictment of candidates, etc.

We also remember the series of artifices and sophisms by which the immediate convocation of the National Assembly demanded by the workers in struggle and constitutionally obligatory when a third of the deputies demanded it was postponed in August 1953:

a) as soon as he received the request from the Communist group, the President of the Assembly declared it to be of no value, and demanded individual requests;

b) on August 21, seized of 229 requests, the majority of the Bureau of the Assembly declared null and void the requests sent by telegram (the prefects did not do the same with the repression orders sent by telegram and emanating from the ministry);

c) on August 24, 211 written requests were received: the majority of the Bureau arbitrarily refused to consider four signatures, thus reducing their number to less than the 209 required;

d) on September 5, 214 new requests were gathered: the Bureau then suddenly discovered that the masonry work in progress at the Assembly "forced" it to postpone the convocation to one month, that is to say on the eve of the regular start of the school year.

Do we want other examples: candidates for the National School of Administration are prohibited from competing because of their opinion or their Algerian origin, while the preamble to the Constitution stipulates that "no one may be injured in his work or employment because of his origins, opinions or beliefs ”. This illustrates the famous “permeability” of the bourgeois state dear to the socialist leaders, who claim that the working class can “penetrate” into the bourgeois state!

The workers are on strike, using a constitutional right: the government sends them illegal requisition orders in peacetime under a wartime law. But case law is quite different when it comes to requisitioning apartments!

Do laws harm the interests of the bourgeoisie? His government refrains from applying them, supports the employers who do not apply them: this is the case for wages and salaries, the Civil Service Statute, the laws on Social Security.

In the process of fascization, the bourgeoisie uses all means: it organizes electoral rigging, it postpones parliamentary debates sine die, it tries to place all the officials under the control of its prefects, it organizes corruption and blackmail. as a police officer, it demands the reactionary revision of the Constitution, it protects the activities of adventurers in favor of military coups, it inaugurates the system of decree-laws.

Finally, it turns to a plot against the working class and its organizations; it tries to hinder its legal functioning, starting from the "principle" that legal guarantees do not apply to the working class; it suppresses the security of the person of the citizens, carries out preventive arrests, arrests without charge, without file, to searches without the presence of the interested parties, to the theft of the papers of the arrested persons, to the invention from charges after arrest, to detentions without investigation, without questioning, to changing charges during investigation! At the same time, it raises the threat of the lifting of parliamentary immunity over elected representatives of the working class,it claims to drag civilians before military tribunals, it exercises blackmail on the judiciary, it protects the perpetrators of attacks against the magistrates. As Barbusse already said: "The Charter of Human Rights has long since fallen out of its hands." [H. Barbusse: Words of a fighter, p. 24.]

We can therefore see that under these conditions, the struggle of the working class against the bourgeois state, against its fascist enterprises, is one with the struggle for the defense of bourgeois democratic freedoms, trampled underfoot by the bourgeoisie, but that the working class is strong enough to enforce if it is united. For example, on August 21, 1953, it would have been impossible for the Bureau of the Assembly to oppose the convening of Parliament if a few hours earlier the Social-Democratic leaders of the split-off unions had not dealt a blow to the strike by ordering the return to work. United, the working class is henceforth strong enough to develop its action in all fields with the aid of bourgeois democratic legality.

The working class has class reasons, of principle to defend, against the bourgeois State, bourgeois democratic freedoms, the freedom of trade union association that it has won and which is of capital importance in its economic struggle, freedom to organize itself into an independent political force capable of pursuing a policy in accordance with the historic mission of the proletariat.

Today, the problem for the millions of workers who live in the conditions of capitalism is to determine their attitude towards the forms that the domination of the bourgeoisie assumes in the different countries. We are not anarchists, and we are not in the least indifferent to the question of knowing what political regime exists in a given country: the bourgeois dictatorship in the form of bourgeois democracy, albeit with rights and rights. democratic freedoms, or the bourgeois dictatorship in its declared fascist form. Supporters of Soviet democracy [Or any form of democracy which supposes the victory of the proletariat and the passage of the overwhelming majority of the people on the road to socialism.],we defend every inch of the democratic conquests which have been wrested by the working class during long years of stubborn struggle, and we will resolutely fight for their extension.

What sacrifices the working class of England must have made before conquering the right to strike, the legal existence of trade unions, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, extension of the right to vote, etc. ! How many tens of thousands of workers gave their lives in the revolutionary battles fought in France in the 19th century to conquer elementary rights and the possibilities of organizing their forces for the fight against the exploiters! The proletariat of all countries has shed a lot of blood to conquer bourgeois democratic freedoms, and it is understandable that it wants to fight with all its might to preserve them. (Dimitrov: “The VIIth Congress of the Communist International (August 13, 1935).” Selected Works, p. 136-137. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1952.)

By conquering bourgeois democratic freedoms for itself, when the bourgeoisie had designed them for its own use, the proletariat ensured its own political development. Lenin wrote:

The democratic republic and universal suffrage have marked an enormous progress in comparison with serfdom: they have given the proletariat the possibility of arriving at this union, at this cohesion, which it now enjoys, of forming its ordered and well-disciplined ranks which lead a systematic struggle against Capital ... Without parliamentarism, without electivity, this development of the working class would have been impossible. (Lenin: "Of the State", in The State and the Revolution, p. 123.)

It is therefore slander to say, as the Social Democratic leaders do, that the Marxist-Leninists practice the politics of the worst and prefer fascism to the republic. We have seen on several occasions how much importance Marxism attaches to the role of ideas which, penetrating the masses, become a material force, and are the decisive factor of the political changes necessary for social transformation when the objective conditions are realized. Now, how to best disseminate the ideas of Marxism among the masses, if not through the open propaganda of these ideas which makes it possible to mobilize and organize the masses for political action? The best conditions for revolutionary proletarians are therefore, in capitalist society,those of the democratic republic in which their Party can openly explain its policy to the broad masses. Only vulgar materialists, ignoring the dialectic, the role and the importance of ideas, can be, with the anarchists, indifferent to the form of the bourgeois state.

Commenting on a remark by Engels in his critique of the 1891 Social Democratic Draft Program, Lenin writes:

Engels repeats here, with particular emphasis on it, this fundamental idea which marks all the works of Marx as with a red line: that the democratic republic is the shortest road leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Lenin: The State and the Revolution, p. 66.)

In the rest of the text cited above, Dimitrov observes that the attitude of the working class towards bourgeois democracy is entirely dictated by class reasons, that it is determined by the attitude of the counter-revolutionary forces. with regard to bourgeois democracy. He notices:

Today, it is the fascist counter-revolution that attacks bourgeois democracy, in its effort to subject workers to the most barbaric regime of exploitation and crushing. Today, in a series of capitalist countries, the working masses have to make a concrete choice for the moment, not between the dictatorship of the proletariat and bourgeois democracy, but between bourgeois democracy and fascism. (Dimitrov: work cited, p. 137.)

Maurice Thorez summarized the teachings of the Marxist dialectic on this point in 1934 at the National Conference of the French Communist Party, in the following terms:

The Communists fight against all forms of bourgeois dictatorship, even when this dictatorship takes the form of bourgeois democracy. But the Communists never lose interest in the form of the political regime of the bourgeoisie. They unmask in a concrete way the process of the reactionary degeneration of bourgeois democracy, paving the way for fascism. But they have defended, defend and will defend all the democratic freedoms won by the masses themselves, and first and foremost all the rights of the working class. (M. Thorez: Œuvres, L. II, t. VI, p. 170-171.)

By fighting against fascism for the defense of bourgeois democratic freedoms, the working class creates a basis for alliance with the middle classes and the working peasantry, attached to democratic freedoms and victims of the dictatorship of big capital. It helps to detach them from the big bourgeoisie, to isolate the latter, to make it lose its support in the petty bourgeoisie. The fight against fascism therefore strengthens the alliance of the proletariat, the peasantry and the middle classes, this social force without which we cannot put an end to the barrier that the reactionary forces oppose to social progress.

In fighting for the defense of bourgeois democratic freedoms, the working class does not forget that it is thereby fighting for a freedom of a superior type, the freedom of workers, freed from the exploitation of man by the man, to exercise themselves a state power of a new type, expression of the will of the immense majority of the nation, and to make it serve the conscious application of the laws of nature and of society for the benefit of society. This is why the working class fights for the defense and also for the expansion of bourgeois democratic freedoms. This struggle therefore has a qualitatively different social content from the struggle of the bourgeoisie for “freedom”.

The creation of new, socialist relations of production, which signify the passage of humanity to effective freedom, is only possible through the blossoming of the broadest democracy.

We now understand what link unites the political question of the struggle of the working class for democratic freedoms with the theoretical question of the application of the law of correspondence necessary between relations of production and productive forces, what link unites the last theoretical work of Stalin (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR) to this passage from his speech at the XIXth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

Formerly, the bourgeoisie allowed itself to play at liberalism, it defended bourgeois democratic freedoms and thus created popularity. Now there is no trace of liberalism. The so-called “individual freedoms” no longer exist, the rights of the individual are now recognized only to those who have capital, and all other citizens are seen as raw human material, good only to be exploited. The principle of equality in rights of men and nations is trampled underfoot, it is replaced by the principle which gives all rights to the exploiting minority and deprives the exploited majority of citizens of rights. The flag of bourgeois democratic freedoms is thrown overboard. I think this flag is yours,representatives of the Communist and Democratic Parties, to take it up and carry it forward if you want to gather around you the majority of the people. None other than you can meet it. (Stalin: Latest Writings, p. 187 and 188. Editions Sociales, Paris, 1953)

See: Control questions

The nation (i)

Nation and social class

There is no question more current than the national question. Whether it is the struggle of the French people for its independence, and for its very existence, whether it is the glorious struggle of the peoples of Vietnam, Morocco, the Middle East, etc. for their national liberation, we can say that the national question arises with increasing force. This is a very difficult question; it can only be approached and resolved on the basis of historical materialism.

Walking in the streets of London in 1902, a city which owes its power to the capitalists, Lenin said: "Two nations". Thus he underlined the contrast between the luxurious streets of the bourgeois districts and the miserable alleys where the working population is crowded. The bourgeoisie would like to make people believe that history is only made up of struggles between nations; it thus seeks to conceal its class oppression, to convince the workers that its interests are those of the whole nation. But historical materialism, by discovering that history is driven by class struggle, has shown that the division of men into antagonistic classes is deeper than the division of men into nations; the struggles between nations are thus explained by the class struggle, by the class content of nations.

The primacy given by the Marxists to the social class in no way means that they ignore the nation. The nation is a historical reality, it arose and is developing on a class basis, as we will see; it will disappear in the classless society. But during the long period in which it exists, it plays a considerable role, which explains the importance given by Marxists to national movements. The thesis of national "nihilism" - negation of national reality - is anti-materialist. It is supported by the enemies of the workers' movement, first and foremost the right-wing socialist leaders, who preach to the workers the abandonment of national sovereignty on behalf of American imperialism. Conversely, the true Marxists, faithful to historical materialism,vigorously support the national liberation movements of oppressed and dependent peoples. But they do not consider the national question in itself: they subordinate it to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, to the question of the liberation of the proletariat from the class yoke.

The scientific conception of the nation

What is a nation?

The Nation is an Objective Reality The Hitlerites who believed they could wipe out the nations of the face of the globe learned the hard way that this reality exists and that it has a considerable force of resistance.

What are its characters?

1) The language community.

Members of the same nation communicate using the same language, the national language. This is why the conquerors who wanted, in history, to destroy a nationality tried to impose on it the language of the victorious state. Linguistic assimilation is thus a form of national oppression. The czars of ancient Russia practiced it with regard to small colonized peoples. The French colonialists in North Africa do the same. But you cannot impose a language on a people: the only one it recognizes is its mother tongue.

And drink and drink the words Where the fatherland flames and trembles. (Aragon: "Le Conscrit des cent villages", in La Diane française.)

The struggle of the oppressed nations for their independence is therefore also a struggle for their language: this is the case of the Arab-speaking peoples colonized by the French imperialists.

Language is a powerful instrument of national culture: thus the full freedom given to the various national languages ​​in the USSR since 1917 has fostered the cultural development of peoples formerly stifled by the imperialism of Tsarist Russia. Language is the good of the nation as a whole, not of a class. How else could the members of the classes present communicate? In his remarkable work On Marxism in Linguistics [Stalin: “About Marxism in Linguistics”, in Latest Writings.], Stalin combats the anti-Marxist thesis of those who, starting from the diversity of classes, conclude, for a given nation , to the diversity of languages. Of course, there may be jargons used by this or that fraction of the privileged class,who wants to distinguish themselves at all costs (thus the "golden youth", at the time of the Thermidorian reaction, affected not to speak like the people). But a few strange expressions, a few unusual expressions are not enough to constitute a language. Language (grammatical system and vocabulary) is the product of the history of a people; it changes only very slowly and its structure remains the same through different social systems, although its vocabulary is gradually enriched (thanks to technical progress in particular). All members of a nation, whatever their class, therefore use the same language, each class, of course, trying to use the language to its advantage. Example: by creating compulsory school at the start of the Third Republic,the bourgeoisie ensured a wide dissemination of the French language, especially among the peasants. This was in his class interest, since the taxpayer had to know how to read the tax forms drawn up by the bourgeois state; the peasant called up for the service must be able to understand the NCO's orders. But the proletariat, which also spoke French, the language of the whole nation, also knew how to take advantage of this wide dissemination of the language: not only because the study of French reinforced its own class struggle; but because the massive diffusion of French facilitated the revolutionary alliance with the working peasantry: such a young peasant who learned in class to read French would be able to read to family and friends the revolutionary newspaper printed in town. [On the importance ofstudy of the national language in the training of the revolutionary militant, see the beautiful pages of M. Thorez: Fils du peuple, p. 23 and 27.]

The importance of language, as a constituent element of the nation as a whole, does not mean that language is sufficient to constitute the nation. Different nations can speak the same language: thus the English and the North Americans speak the same language, but make two distinct nations; these two nations developed on the basis of different territories. [As for Switzerland, it brings together, on the same territory, various nationalities, each speaking their own language; the historical development of this country (the peasant democratic traditions and, as Stalin says in Le Marxisme et la question nationale et coloniale (p. 49, Editions Sociales, Paris, 1950), the "high democratism, although bourgeois" reached by the Switzerland) has allowed the nationalities that form it to coexist freely.]

2) The community of territory.

Linguistic community, the nation is indeed also a community of territory. Every nation is a product of history; it is therefore not possible without a long life in common. This is why the peoples consider any annexation of a fraction of the national territory as an attack on the nation.

It should be observed that the Korean War can only be properly appreciated if one understands the importance of the territory as one of the constituent elements of the nation. South Korea, North Korea, that makes two states, but it is only one and the same nation. The thesis defended by Soviet diplomats at the UN: “No intervention! The Korean War is an internal affair, a civil war ”was right. This war was a war within one nation. The sending of American troops, on the other hand, was an act of aggression against the Korean nation as a whole.

We can also notice that the community of territory makes the national question particularly sensitive to the peasantry: in certain cases, the peasant question is at the forefront of the national question, because the peasants are deprived of ancestral land (example of colonial peoples ).

But the community of territory, whatever its importance, is not enough to constitute the nation. In the Middle Ages, the geographical conditions existed for a national territory to be formed in one piece; but to bind the various parts together was lacking that glue which is the unity of economic life. In order for the nation to be constituted, there must indeed be an internal economic link between the various parts of the territory.

3) The community of economic life.

A nation is a market.

Feudal France was an aggregate of provinces, with their separate economic life, their currency, their measuring and weighing instruments; customs cords isolated them, hampering trade. The unification of the French nation in 1789 could only be accomplished by the removal of these obstacles to unity (in particular internal customs).

Likewise, in the 19th century, the economic unification of Germany, the Zollverein, prepared for its political unification.

The market ensures the exchange between the products coming from the various parts of the territory. The common economic life thus created (with a single currency) is reinforced by the development of the means and means of communication.

These are the material bases without which no nation can exist. This is why, in 1940, the Hitlerites and the French anti-national big bourgeoisie set out to enslave our country, to break up its community of economic life: they divided the territory into two "zones", and above all they fought against our national industry, trying to transform France into a purely agricultural country, dependent on industrial Germany.

Nowadays, the initiators of the Schuman pool (for coal and steel) pursue a similar goal: they want to liquidate French national industry, the basis of our country's independence, for the benefit of American imperialism and of the Ruhr magnates.

Let us observe that conversely the national rise of popular democracies like Romania and Bulgaria is conditioned by the considerable progress of their national industry.

Note: The struggle between classes within a nation is in no way contradictory with the community of economic life since the existence of classes is itself based on an economic fact par excellence, production.

As long as capitalism exists, bourgeois and proletarians will be tied together by all the ties of economic life, as constituent parts of a single capitalist society. The bourgeois cannot live and enrich themselves if they do not have salaried workers at their disposal; the proletarians cannot subsist if they do not hire themselves with the capitalists. The rupture of all economic links between them means the cessation of all production; however, the cessation of all production leads to the death of society, to the death of the classes themselves. It is understandable that no class wants to devote itself to destruction. This is why the class struggle, however acute it may be, cannot lead to the disintegration of society. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 13.Social Editions)

4) The community of psychic training and culture.

Dialectical materialism allows us to understand that the lasting community of living conditions results in psychological peculiarities common to the members of a nation.

The nation is a psychic training community. There is a national character which distinguishes each nation from the others, and this difference stems from the fact that each people has lived, for a long time, in specific conditions. It should also be noted that the language community necessarily generates common psychological characteristics over time.

Do not confuse ideology and psychology: the warring classes have opposing ideologies, but there are nonetheless character traits specific to the French (for example) as a whole: such as liveliness of mind, taste for ideas clear. Likewise, the love of freedom is very much alive among the mass of the French: this is explained by their old revolutionary traditions.

The community of psychic formation finds its highest expression in the community of culture. Each nation has a cultural heritage which reflects its physiognomy. This cultural community creates a powerful bond between the members of the nation.

The peoples recognize the value of cultural heritage as part of the national community. England is Shakespeare, Newton, the great landscape painters - France is Voltaire, Pasteur, and the cathedrals, and the castles of the Loire. Germany is Goethe and Beethoven's symphonies. Russia is Pushkin, Tolstoy, Mussorgsky, Pavlov, Gorky.

By watching over its culture, each nation indirectly defends its material nation existence! Thus the prestigious cultural brilliance of Paris and Rome constitutes a serious obstacle to the "war in Europe" of which the potentates of Washington dream. Because they know and love only the dollar; but millions of men of all convictions agree, all over the world, to condemn a war which would destroy the wonders of Rome and Paris.

It is thus understood that the reactionary big bourgeoisie, by creating material conditions contrary to the development of French culture, struggles, objectively, against the very existence of the nation. This shows us that we cannot speak of a cultural community in the absolute, and apart from class relations. When the class struggle reaches such a high degree that the exploiting class comes to betray the national interest, then this class excludes itself from the cultural community. This is the case in France; betraying national interests, the reactionary bourgeoisie fell out with the best cultural traditions of our country. We saw it in particular for the birthday of the great national poet Victor Hugo: it made every effort to restrict thescale of the commemorative ceremonies, because the immense and popular work of Victor Hugo, in the service of freedom, fraternity and peace, highlights his depravities. Symbol: we live in Paris, place Victor Hugo, a Ford star replacing the statue of the poet. It is the revolutionary class, the working class, which collects and preserves the cultural heritage.

5) A stable, historically constituted community.

These various elements (language community, community of territory, community of economic life, community of psychic training and culture) have not always existed. They have been formed through history. The national community is a historic product. This is why, wanting to weaken the national consciousness of our people, Hitler's accomplices, from 1940 to 1944, distorted his history: for example, they preached hatred for the Revolution of 1789, without which national history is unintelligible and whose memory constitutes a powerful link between the French.

We will come back to the last part of this lesson on the historical formation of the nation.

For there to be a nation, however, the historically constituted community must be stable. The empire of Napoleon I was not a nation: it was "a conglomerate of accidental groups which are not closely linked" (Stalin). It extended beyond the borders of France to Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. This empire, made by the sword, was defeated by the sword. But the military disasters which liquidated it did not and could not destroy the French nation. The same goes for the German nation; Hitler's collapse did not mean the end of this nation, and his claim for unity is legitimate.

We are now able to understand Stalin's famous definition of the nation:

The nation is a stable community, historically constituted, of language, territory, economic life and psychic formation, which is reflected in the community of culture. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 15.)

Some mistakes to avoid

a) The constituent elements of the nation interact. None, taken separately, is sufficient to constitute the nation. To reduce the nation to one of its aspects is a metaphysical attitude. That of Ernest Renan, for example, who said: "The nation is a soul" [Renan: "What is a nation? ". Speeches and Conferences.] And ignored the material bases without which the nation would have no spiritual life. It is above all the position of the social democratic theorists Otto Bauer and Springer, opposed by Stalin. To hear them, the nation would be reduced to the cultural community. Thus the communities of territory and language are denied. This idealistic conception, if it were to prevail, would have the consequence of diverting nations from the struggle for the material bases of their existence.

b) Certain elements are excluded from the materialist definition of nation: race, state.

Race is not a constituent element of the national community. A race is indeed a large group of men with common hereditary physical characteristics (color of the skin, eyes, shape of the face, etc.). It is therefore a biological factor; however, no biological factor can play a determining role in the historical evolution of societies. (Historical materialism has shown us that the history of societies is intelligible only through social facts: production, class struggle, etc.). So we see that biologically differentiated peoples (Russians, Chinese) nonetheless have a similar historical development, from the primitive commune to capitalism and socialism.

The Jews are an ethnic group, but not a nation. French Jews, German Jews, American Jews, etc., live in different territories, speak different languages, participate in different economic and cultural communities, - therefore are members of different nations. As for the State of Israel, it is not a "Jewish State" since it has very many Arabs.

The French nation is a mixture of multiple races, and the feast of the Federation, July 14, 1790, symbolized this fusion: the most diverse ethnic elements (Normans, Basques, Bretons, Provençaux, etc.) recognized themselves as members of a same national community, product of history. They were the enemies of the nation, the feudal lords who, in order to preserve their privileges, invoked blood against the nation. Their privileges had no other justification than heredity. We can say that in France, the Revolution of 1789 was a victory of national reality over the racial principle.

Racism is the enemy of nations. The Hitlerites, who proclaimed themselves the "chosen race" and trampled on the independence of the peoples, gave bloody proof of this. The Americans in Korea have followed their example. The big imperialist bourgeoisie of the capitalist countries develops the themes of racism in an attempt to justify its policy of aggression and to pit the peoples against each other. This is the case with colonialist propaganda: to justify the exploitation of oppressed peoples, they want French workers to believe that North Africans, Malagasy, Vietnamese, etc. are of an inferior species. But the French workers note that those who refuse to Moroccans, to Algerians [On the Algerian nation as a fusion of different ethnic elements, see Fils du peuple,p. 153-154.], To the Vietnamese, etc., their national independence are the same which sacrifice the independence of the French nation to the American imperialists.

The state is not a constituent element of the nation either. We said earlier that the Napoleonic Empire (that is to say in fact the Napoleonic State) was an unstable, ephemeral aggregate. But even a stable state community is not constitutive of national reality. The Tsarist state was strong and stable for centuries, but the nations over which it ruled were no less diverse; and they were even more stable than he, since, the Tsarist State having disappeared, they nonetheless subsisted within a new, multinational State, the Soviet State. There can therefore be the same State for several nations.

There can also be two states for the same nation: in 1871, there were in France, face to face, two state powers: the Commune, workers' power; the Assembly of Versailles, bourgeois power (We refer to lesson 22, on the class content of the state). In a society divided into antagonistic classes, the state defends the interests of the dominant class, even when it claims to speak in the name of "the general interest".

To include the state in the definition of the nation is to refuse the title of national oppressed nations (and consequently deprived of an independent state). This leads to justifying the oppression of which the dependent and colonized countries are victims. To include the State in the definition of the nation would also be to deny the title of nation to the various nations which constitute the Soviet Union: these nations have given themselves a common State without in any way altering their national originality.

It is therefore very important not to confuse state and nation. The creation of a "European political community" would not have the power to generate a "European nation"!

If the state is not a constituent element of the nation, it is nonetheless true that it can be a powerful aid in the development of the nation. This is why the nations oppressed by the colonialists claim, against the foreign colonialist state, an independent national state.

The bourgeoisie and the nation

The national question takes on various aspects according to the classes which ask it and when they ask it. To understand these various aspects, it is necessary to study the nation as historical reality.

The formation of bourgeois nations

The elements of the nation - the language, the territory, the cultural community, etc. - did not fall from the sky, but were formed little by little from the pre-capitalist period. However, these elements were in an embryonic state, and, at best, were only potential factors from the point of view of the future formation of the nation under certain favorable conditions. This potential only turned into reality in the period of ascendant capitalism, with its national markets, economic and cultural centers. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 316)

It is therefore the market which played the determining role in the genesis of the nation. Thus we find, at the origin of the nation, the development of the capitalist mode of production: the abundance of products to be exchanged increasing, it was necessary to create conditions favorable to permanent exchange, the market was needed. The merchant bourgeoisie was therefore interested in the formation of national unity: we grasp the objective link between class and nation - Lenin writes:

The creation of these national ties was nothing other than the creation of bourgeois ties. (Lenin: What are the “Friends of the People.” Selected Works, t. I., p. 106. Editions in foreign languages, Moscow, 1946.)

We call bourgeois nations the nations born in the era of ascendant capitalism; we distinguish them from the socialist nations of which we will speak in the 24th lesson. Historical materialism rejects the thesis of bourgeois sociologists, who present national ties as the continuation and generalization of clan relations. The clan (or tribe) is only an agglomeration of families. It corresponds to a very low level of the productive forces. However, in order for a national market to be created, a considerable increase in production was required, an increase which called for an increased and systematic development of trade between regions which until then had been partitioned, and which consumed their low production locally. This market could only be the work of a class living on exchange,the merchant bourgeoisie, a new class within the old feudal regime.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have strongly shown, in the first part of the Manifesto, how the development of commodity production (that is to say of production in view of the market) and of the new relations of production within the old feudal society is at the origin of nations.

Independent provinces, just federated among themselves, with different interests, laws, governments, tariffs, were united in a single nation, a single national class interest, behind a single customs cordon. (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Communist Party Manifesto Part 1, p. 33, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954.)

The bourgeoisie at the head of the nation

The formation of the economic base of bourgeois nations is essentially a spontaneous process; but the formation of these nations themselves is not spontaneous. It is the ascending class, the bourgeoisie, which knowingly directed the formation of national unity. The broad masses of the peasantry, which were not in solidarity with the new mode of production, could not play the leading role. But linked to the land, which constitutes the backbone of the nation, they lent support to the bourgeoisie. Why ? Because the formation of national unity for the benefit of the bourgeoisie weakened the feudal class, which exploited the peasants.

The bourgeoisie, whose vanguard was organized into parties, led a class struggle against the feudal lords, in favor of partitioning, which tended to overthrow the internal customs barriers in the country, to establish free trade between the various regions of the country. country, to unify the national territory, to enlarge it. Its parties, its theoreticians developed for this purpose an ideology calling for "the unity of the nation", placing "the nation above the king", exalting "the love of the fatherland". In France, the bourgeois revolution was thus led, against the feudal relations of production, to the cry of "Vive la Nation". As the feudal regime had become unbearable to the immense majority of the people - peasants, artisan petty bourgeoisie, intellectuals, etc., the bourgeoisie, mobilizing all these forces and leading them,isolated and defeated feudalism. From then on, it was able to extend the forms of bourgeois property without hindrance (to land, for example) and to give the bourgeois economy a grandiose impetus (production and trade).

At that time, the French revolutionary bourgeoisie embodied, against the reactionary feudal lords, the interests of the majority of the nation. This is why she was a patriot, faced with the betrayal of the feudal lords who, in the hope of regaining the lost supremacy, declared war on the nation (emigrants from Koblenz; plot fomented against the French people by Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette , in alliance with the great feudal lords of Europe). So we understand that La Marseillaise (born in 1792) is all together the song of the Revolution (against the feudal lords from within) and the song of national independence (against the enslavement of the Prussian and Austrian feudal lords). And we also understand that the revolutionary bourgeoisie proclaimed the right of nations to dispose of themselves: itwas to invite the bourgeoisies of the various countries to break the feudal yoke everywhere.

But - and this is the main thing - we must not lose sight of the fact that the national struggle of the bourgeoisie has always had class reasons. Now the bourgeois class is necessarily an exploiting class. It follows that, if the revolutionary bourgeoisie was able to embody all the interests of the nation, the patriotism of the bourgeoisie could only be a momentary aspect of its struggle. The main and lasting aspect of the national struggle waged by the bourgeoisie is nationalism.

This aspect took on more and more importance as the exploited, antagonistic class, the proletariat, grew in the face of the exploiting bourgeoisie. Bourgeois nationalism is in accordance with the interests of the bourgeois class. He considers and proclaims the class differences within the nation as negligible. He advocates "sacred union", that is to say, in fact, the subordination of the interests of all classes to the interests of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. It thus aims to detach the proletariat from its revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie and this is why the proletariat cannot free itself from class oppression if it does not fight nationalism, if it allows nationalist ideology to plague its ranks. Because it is thus: to perpetuate its domination,the bourgeoisie imposes its ideology on the whole nation; when we should say "bourgeois interest", it says "national interest". Materialist analysis finds reality under the guise.

The bourgeoisie traitor to the nation

The development of the class struggle of the proletariat, within the nation, leads the bourgeoisie to realize, against the proletariat, a united front with the foreign bourgeoisies. New Holy Alliance, which recalls that which the feudal States had formerly formed against the bourgeois Revolution.

A typical example is given in 1871 by the French bourgeoisie: it crushes the Paris Commune with the alliance of Bismarck.

But it is at the final stage of capitalism, at the imperialist stage, that bourgeois nationalism will appear in its true light.

Class peace within the nation in the name of "national union", the enlargement of the territory of one's own nation by the conquest of foreign national territories, mistrust and hatred towards other nations , the crushing of national minorities, the common front with imperialism, such is the ideological and social-political baggage of modern bourgeois nations. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 317)

The bourgeoisie uses the mobilizing force of the idea of ​​national unity to undertake its wars of plunder: this was the case, for example in 1914 - for the French bourgeoisie as well as for the German bourgeoisie. Hence the famous sentence of Anatole France: "We believe to die for the country, we die for the industrialists". The imperialist bourgeoisie does everything in its power to arouse in the proletariat it exploits feelings of hatred towards foreign and colonial workers: it thus seeks to slow down the gathering of the proletariat as a class.

The more imperialism grows, the greater the gap between the interests of the big monopoly bourgeoisie and the deeper layers of the population. Imperialism is war on the peoples.

From a liberator of nations, what capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Capitalism has turned from reactionary progressive; it has developed the productive forces to the point that humanity has for perspective, either to pass to socialism, or to experience for years or even decades, the experience of the armed struggle of the "great powers" with a view to artificially maintain capitalism through colonies, monopolies, privileges and national oppressions of all kinds. (Lenin: Works (in Russian) volume XXI, p. 273. Quoted by G. Cogniot: Réalité de la nation, p. 46, Editions Sociales, Paris, 1950.)

The general crisis of capitalism, inaugurated in 1917 with the advent of the first socialist state, brings to its acute point the anti-national practice of the imperialist bourgeoisie. The desperate defense of its class interests leads it to the open and permanent betrayal of the interests of the nation.

The “French” big bourgeoisie has a particularly busy file. After having actively contributed, in Germany, to the crushing of popular forces and the revival of militarism, in France she opposes the workers' struggle for bread, freedom and peace with the infamous slogan: "Rather Hitler than the Popular Front! ". At the same time that it plays the comedy of patriotism, that it endeavors to deceive the middle classes by a “national” demagoguery (“France to the French”), it delivers to Hitler's Germany the French bauxite, ore aluminum that our aviation is deprived of. In Munich in 1938 his alliance with the Nazis was consummated, both against the French people and against the socialist country, an ally of France. And while she throws in jail,with the complicity of the socialist leaders Blum, Serol, etc., the communist militants who denounce the class betrayal, it delivers France to the Wehrmacht. It is the horror of the occupation, the shame of the fascist Vichy regime. Devoted to German magnates and to the French trusts their accomplices, this regime ruins the French economy in the service of the Hitler war, deports workers, shoots patriots, starves the population.shoot the patriots, starve the population.shoot the patriots, starve the population.

When liberation comes, victory of the people, the same big bourgeoisie sabotages the rebirth of the country. Hitler defeated, she gives herself new protectors against French workers: the American financiers. American imperialism, in accordance with the fundamental law of current capitalism, seeks to secure maximum profit by plundering marshallized countries and by war of conquest. The “French” big bourgeoisie actively lends a hand to this policy. The consequences for the French nation are tragic. If we take the constituent elements of national reality one by one, it is to see that the bourgeoisie tends to destroy them.

Territory? It is delivered to the US military; free zones are guaranteed to the occupier. Peasants are expropriated. And the Atlantic strategy involves the pure and simple destruction of France in the event of war (France “atomic cushion”).

Economy? It is the sabotage of national equipment for the benefit of war industries, the systematic impoverishment of French agriculture (a million family farms are threatened with disappearance); it is the French market sacrificed to the interests of American (Marshall Plan) and German (Schuman pool) firms; it is the closure of many mine shafts in the North and the Center); the scandalous slowness of reconstruction, etc. And let us not forget the multiple attacks on scientific research and professional training.

Language ? These are the American-French bilingualism projects; it is, for the needs of the American occupier, the reduction of French to "basic French" (French robot). Mr. Alfred Sauvy noted with bitterness in Le Monde of August 5, 1953:

It is painful to be told ... that we do not defend our heritage properly and that we are ready to give up all the things.

Everything is done and organized so that foreigners staying in France do not learn French.

Do we want other symptoms? There is no longer any question of the United States or of the United States in our texts, but of the USA Vétille, one will say ... Is not this innocent substitution the effect of the attraction exerted by the creditor on the debtor, by the protector on the protected?

And Mr. Sauvy is frightened by the "impressive scale" of this penetration. He adds after giving various examples:

These weaknesses [This is not a “weakness”, but a concerted plan (GB-MC)] not only result in making the French language a gibberish; they contribute powerfully to the erasure of French ... Linguistic servitude leads right to cultural servitude.

Culture ? It is the systematic sabotage of the University, of the public school, of French cinema, etc .; it is the abandoned Palace of Versailles. It was contempt for the great humanist traditions which did the honor of the ascending bourgeoisie. And the profusion of the worst magazines of Yankee origin or inspiration, the sickening exaltation of the "American way of life", etc. At the same time, the reactionary bourgeoisie is fueling a campaign to persuade the French that their country is a finite country, that the era of national history is over, that there is no longer any hope for an independent France.

These attacks on national reality are complemented by the subordination of the French state to the demands of foreign imperialism.

How does the bourgeoisie justify, in the eyes of the masses, a policy so contrary to the national interest? As we have seen on numerous occasions, the reactionary class is led, in order to prolong its reign, to erect lies into doctrine. This is precisely the case here: to justify the enslavement of nations, the international big bourgeoisie is spreading an appropriate ideology: cosmopolitanism.

Cosmopolitanism comes from two Greek words meaning: "citizen of the world". At the time - the 18th century in particular - when the bourgeoisie defended the rights of the human future against the feudal lords, the title of "citizen of the world" was proudly carried by certain thinkers. This demand reflected the desire to break down the narrow frameworks of an aged society and to create new social relationships everywhere. It is in this sense that, in a text of 1755, Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaks of ...

these great cosmopolitan souls who cross the imaginary barriers which separate peoples, and who ... embrace the whole human race in their benevolence. (Quoted by P. Hazard: La Pensée européenne au XVIII e siècle, t. I., p. 339, Boivin, ed. Paris.)

Once the feudal relations of production had been abolished, the bourgeoisie resumed the themes of cosmopolitanism, not in the service of generous hopes, but on account of its interests as a universally exploiting class. From 1845, Marx and Engels denounced the mystification; they explain that the cosmopolitan propaganda has its source in the competition between bourgeoisies of the various countries and that its goal is not the development of all men, but the world exploitation of workers. So Marx could write:

To designate exploitation in its cosmopolitan guise by the name of universal brotherhood, this is an idea which could only arise in the heart of the bourgeoisie. (Marx: Discourse on the Question of Free Trade (1848), quoted by Georges Cogniot: Réalité de la nation, p. 88.)

However, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat has since taken on a formidable scale. Thanks to the spread of scientific socialism, workers are increasingly aware that, from country to country, their interests are united against the same class enemy. Incapable of destroying these convictions, the imperialist bourgeoisie can only try to lead them astray, and it is henceforth the task of cosmopolitan ideology: to persuade the workers that the world reign of monopolies will fulfill their internationalist wishes! The cosmopolitanism of the trusts thus borrows, supreme lie, the face of proletarian internationalism.

What is, in the present conditions, the major feature of this cosmopolitan ideology, a caricature of proletarian internationalism? This is the fallacious claim that modern wars are caused by the existence of nations. Hence the conclusion that it is necessary to put an end to the nations as quickly as possible and destroy their sovereignty, presented to the workers as “reactionary” and “obsolete”. Thus we hope to persuade them that, if they want peace, they must destroy with their own hands the national reality and deny their homeland.

However, the materialist analysis of contemporary society [See Lenin: Imperialism, the supreme stage of capitalism.] Shows that the world wars were not due to the existence of nations, but the existence of a class, the imperialist bourgeoisie which, to save its threatened reign, does not hesitate in the face of the enslavement of nations and the destruction of peoples.

Cosmopolitanism thus appears in its day: far from aiming at the liberation of men of all countries, it proposes - under the guise of making each worker a "citizen of the world" -

the brutal and cynical “world” exploitation of uprooted, interchangeable, standardized slaves, shadows of humanity, erratic and anonymous. (Georges Cogniot: Reality of the nation, p. 88-89.)

It is on the basis of these basic facts that we will understand the historical significance of the current attempts at a “united Europe”. They aim to reinforce, under the leadership of the American magnates, the exploitation of the various peoples of capitalist Europe, starting with our own. The unification of the European market, presented as the first step towards a socialist economy, would have the effect of reducing the standard of living of the French. The abolition of national sovereignty, presented as a step forward in democracy, would have the effect of placing France under the threat of the Wehrmacht, reconstituted behind a “European” camouflage: the rearmed Nazis would be the eager instruments of anti-worker repression. .

As Lenin wrote in 1915:

The United States of Europe are, under a capitalist regime, either impossible or reactionary. (Lenin: "From the slogan of the United States of Europe", in Selected Works, t. I, p. 753, Moscow, Foreign Language Editions, 1946.)

A falsification of proletarian internationalism, cosmopolitanism is therefore in the service of international finance capital. It is also today the characteristic ideology of the leaders of the social democracy who - like Guy Mollet, A. Philip, Le Bail - have the task of duping the workers. They are thus in solidarity with the MRP leaders (Robert Schuman, Georges Bidault) who, servants of the Vatican itself entirely devoted to American hegemony, were the champions of the CED, cover themselves with the mantle of Christian “spirituality” to restore in the saddle, across the Rhine, the worst enemies of mankind. [As we can see, the theme of "united Europe", in the mouths of the Social Democratic and MRP leaders, is only a trap. Far from working for the effective understanding of all the countries of Europe,- whatever their social system, - they strive to perpetuate the division of Europe and Germany. This is to serve the designs of the Nazi warmongers, who fear international negotiation and its happy effects: the peaceful reunification of Germany and the collective security of all the states of Europe.]

However, despite all its efforts, imperialism cannot be free from contradictions. This is why bourgeois cosmopolitanism has a Siamese brother: bourgeois nationalism.

Two examples:

The American trusts which preach and make preach the cosmopolitanism in Europe, for the benefit of the people whom they want to enslave, make, in the United States, debauchery of nationalism: by all the means, they repeat to the American people that it is the “chosen people”, promised by “Providence” to the leadership of the world!

The French big bourgeoisie, which accommodates the cuisine of cosmopolitanism in Europe, practices the bloodiest nationalism at the expense of the colonial peoples. In the name of "French interest", it refuses the title of nation to Moroccans, to Vietnamese who are fighting for their independence.

And how can we fail to notice the crude contrast between the "internationalism" with which the reactionary bourgeois are adorned and their savage nationalism with regard to the peoples of the USSR, which they dream of bringing back, through war, into the market? capitalist?

These contradictions are one of the weaknesses of the imperialist camp.

The working class and the nation

Proletarian internationalism

The national question can only be correctly resolved as part of a whole: the class struggle, the proletarian revolution.

We have seen, in fact, that national reality could not have been formed without the development of the bourgeoisie, and that in the imperialist era bourgeois nationalism asserted itself as the oppressor of nations. How then could the national question not be posed to the antagonistic class of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat?

The attitude of the proletariat to the national question is governed by its interests and its revolutionary class duties; it is therefore an attitude of principle. It was defined by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), which ends with the famous slogan:

"Workers of all countries, unite!"

It is proletarian internationalism.

As we have seen in this lesson (III c), bourgeois nationalism has an objective basis: the interest of the exploiting class. Not content with exploiting its proletarians and its own people, the capitalist bourgeoisie mobilizes them (and sacrifices them) to enslave the proletariat and the peoples of other countries ... in the name of "the national interest", trompe-l'oeil which conceals the bourgeois interest. The role of nationalist ideology is precisely to pit workers in different countries against each other.

But proletarian internationalism also has an objective basis - as we have already noted on p. 359 (18th lesson), - and this is a class basis. Members of the same exploited class, the proletarians of all countries have the same interests, which set them against the exploiting class. Internationalism is not an accessory character of the proletarian class struggle. It is essential to it, and this is why the creators of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, were also the founders of the International Association of Workers (September 1864). The Manifesto of the Communist Party, which invites proletarians from everywhere to the organized struggle against exploiters everywhere, has been, remains and will remain the shining beacon of the world revolution.

We saw earlier that nationalism and cosmopolitanism are the two ideological aspects of the class war waged by capitalism. Proletarian internationalism allows, and alone allows, to identify them in all circumstances; it defeats both.

Failure of bourgeois nationalism, since through proletarian internationalism the workers recognize their class solidarity across borders, and put it into practice, refusing to lend a hand to the aggression of their own bourgeoisie against other countries. This is particularly the case when the proletarians of the colonizing countries fight for the national liberation of the colonized countries.

Failure of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, since, faithful to proletarian internationalism, the workers of all countries realize a powerful class front against the monopolies without a homeland, and thus fight at the same time to liberate their own homeland and that of their brothers oppressed. Example: by fighting against the marshallization of France by American imperialism, the French workers help their brothers on the other side of the Atlantic to wage their class struggle against the big Yankee capital which dooms them to misery, to fascism, to war.

As we can see, the interests of the workers of each country demand their international class solidarity. Any blow to proletarian internationalism is a blow to the workers of every country. Any progress of proletarian internationalism is profitable to the proletarians of any country.

Against nationalism and against cosmopolitanism, the revolutionary proletarians, responding to the call of the Manifesto, proclaim the equal rights of workers of all countries and practice, from country to country, fraternal class solidarity.

From proletarian internationalism as an impregnable position of principle we will draw several consequences:

1 ° If there is, in a State, a minority of workers presenting national characteristics (example: in France, the Alsatians), there must be only one proletarian party, including all the workers; thus the defense of the rights of national minorities is guaranteed by class solidarity.

2. The socialist state cannot guarantee the independence of the nations it unites unless it ensures their equality. So it is with the Soviet state.

3. The touchstone of proletarian internationalism is, since a socialist state existed, the unconditional attachment of all proletarians to this state; one such state, the Soviet Union, has existed for thirty-seven years.

Unconditional attachment to the Soviet Union, why?

Realizing the dream of the Parisian Communards of 1871, the proletarians who, in October 1917, created the first socialist republic, inaugurated a new era. Since October 1917, the Soviet state constitutes for the proletarians of all countries

the universal forum open to manifest and materialize the aspirations and the will of the oppressed classes. (Stalin: Questions of Leninism, t. I, p. 191. Editions Sociales, Paris 1947.)

Fundamentally different from all capitalist states, since it is based on the suppression of class exploitation, the socialist state is the advanced bastion of the entire international proletariat, the permanent target of the entire international bourgeoisie. By defending it, the proletarians ensure the defense of their vanguard; they are therefore fighting for themselves, for their own future, for the building, in their own homeland, of a society similar to Soviet society, which shows them the way.

Claiming to serve the proletariat while fighting the first state it created for itself is in fact wanting the international proletariat to sacrifice its best fighters and trample on the exhilarating example they have been offering it since October 1917. Claiming the "Independence of the working class" against the Soviet Union is indeed to chain it to the chariot of capitalism.

Under current conditions one cannot call oneself a Marxist without openly and unreservedly supporting the world's first proletarian dictatorship. (Stalin: The Questions of Leninism, t. I, p. 192.)

To measure the full importance of the Soviet state, as the keystone of proletarian internationalism, it suffices to note:

a) that the bourgeoisie of all the capitalist countries, since October 1917, has not ceased to claim for a common program: anti-Sovietism [It is useful to note that in our time the international imperialist leaders who - whatever the contradictions who set them against each other - designate the Soviet Union as enemy n ° 1, have an attitude very similar to that of the feudal lords of Europe who, in 1789, made a common front against the French Revolution, a bourgeois democratic revolution. But the advanced men of Europe supported democratic France against the feudal lords of their own country. So today when revolutionary workers everywhere defend, against bourgeois reaction - new feudalism - the country of victorious socialism,they are reviving old traditions!];

b) that by rejecting the principle of the unconditional defense of the USSR the adventurous leaders of Yugoslavia led their country along the path of fascism; they made it, to the misfortune of the Yugoslav workers, a vassal state of American imperialism;

c) that the socialist leaders, agents of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement, were in all circumstances the champions of anti-Sovietism. The same are, logically, the zealots of bourgeois nationalism: in 1914, for example, the leaders of the Second International invited the proletarians of Germany and France to kill each other for the bourgeois “defense of the homeland”. It is therefore not possible to make proletarian internationalism prevail if we do not uproot social democratic ideology (nationalist and colonialist).

d) to the previous observations, we will add this observation: the men who, for class interests, fight in all circumstances against the Soviet Union, in all circumstances make themselves the liquidators of the national interest, of which the working class is the constant defender . On the other hand, the foreign policy followed by the Soviet Union has always been, because it is that of a socialist state, in conformity with the interests of the workers of the various countries, and in particular those of France. We can see it now with regard to the German question, the peaceful solution of which is of vital interest to France: the Soviet proposals are favorable to such a solution, while the policy followed by the French bourgeoisie seeks to rule it out. [As for the non-aggression pact concluded bySoviet Union with Hitler's Germany in August 1939, it served the interests of world peace, and that is why it is so slandered by the bourgeoisie who, in Munich, a year earlier, had shattered European collective security for the benefit of of the Hitlerite aggressor and in contempt of the Franco-Soviet alliance. If after August 1939 the French and English bourgeoisie had not refused the negotiation that the Soviet Union proposed to them, the conditions would have been created for Hitler's Germany, paralyzed in the East by the German non-aggression pact. Soviet, was also paralyzed in the West (by the Franco-Soviet alliance). Isolated, Hitler was reduced to impotence. On the historical significance of the events of August 1939, we will read: J. Bouvier and J. Gacon:The Truth about 1939. Editions Sociales, Paris 1953.]

Proletarian patriotism

Expression of class interests common to the proletarians of all countries, such is proletarian internationalism.

As such, it is for the proletarians of all countries the guiding star which allows them to orient themselves in the national question.

Social revolution, the objective of the proletariat, does not in essence have a national character; its content is class content. But, as we have seen, capitalism has developed within the national framework; to this very extent the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie takes on a national form. The proletariat of a given country can only overcome its own bourgeoisie if it fights it where it is, if it wrests the political leadership of the nation from it. So he must, in Marx's expression, "set himself up as the leading class of the nation, become the nation himself". [Marx and Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, Part 2, p. 46.]

Proletarian patriotism means that the proletarians of the various countries struggle to wrest the leadership of the nation from their respective bourgeoisie and make a "free, strong and happy" nation. It is therefore in fact the same class struggle against the same international class enemy. Proletarian internationalism thus takes the form of proletarian patriotism. This is due to the objective existence of national reality, the framework in which the international class struggle takes place. If such a struggle were not waged on the national level, proletarian internationalism would be nothing more than an empty formula, since the various bourgeoisies would have nothing to fear from their respective proletariat, their direct adversary.

Is the proletariat capable of leading this fight victoriously? The facts answer.

We have seen (18th lesson, p. 360) that the capitalist bourgeoisie bases its prosperity on generalized misery. In this way the conditions are created for the revolutionary proletariat to organize, against the exploiting big bourgeoisie, a very large gathering which includes the most diverse layers of the working population: working peasants, middle classes, artisans, shopkeepers, etc. The leadership of this popular movement belongs to the proletariat, since, as a revolutionary class, it is the surest and most consistent defender of all the victims of capitalism. The necessary condition for the proletariat to gather the nation around itself is, however, that it achieves its own class unity:We can thus measure the historical significance of the incessant fight waged in France by Maurice Thorez and the Communists against Social Democracy, which sets itself the task of preventing workers' unity.

The accomplishment of this national task is not only not incompatible with the revolutionary task of the proletariat, but it is an essential condition for the success of the revolution in the country in question. Those who - like the anarcho-syndicalists - confuse bourgeois nationalism with proletarian patriotism, those who say to the workers: “the nation is none of your business; your business is revolution ”, all of these are working against the revolutionary interests of the proletariat. Idealists, they deny the material reality of the nation; Now, the working class, accepting Lenin's recommendations, cannot be indifferent to the objective conditions in which its revolutionary struggle is developing, and among these conditions there is national reality, territorial community, linguistic,economic, cultural; the leadership of the popular masses is refused to those who ignore this historical reality. Vulgar materialists, they ignore the organizing and mobilizing force of national sentiment. Why did the French working class, so tried by Nazi oppression, appear in 1944 more powerful and more respected than ever? Because it had known how to take the head of the whole nation against Hitler fascism and its accomplices of the anti-national big bourgeoisie.more respected than ever? Because it had known how to take the head of the whole nation against Hitler fascism and its accomplices of the anti-national big bourgeoisie.more respected than ever? Because it had known how to take the head of the whole nation against Hitler fascism and its accomplices of the anti-national big bourgeoisie.

If, at the base of internationalism, there is respect for other peoples, you cannot be an internationalist without respecting and loving your own people. (Zhdanov: On literature, philosophy and music, p. 78. Ed. De La Nouvelle Critique, Paris 1950.)

We saw in this lesson (III c) that the reactionary big bourgeoisie can only safeguard its class privileges by enslaving the nation to American imperialism. Conversely, the revolutionary proletariat defends the interest of the nation as a whole (only the class which betrays it is excluded) when it practices a policy of French independence. It is the working class which is patriotic, because, as a rising class, it knows itself accountable for the very life of the nation, for its future.

Drawing lessons from the 13th Congress of the French Communist Party (June 1954), Maurice Thorez showed [Cahiers du communisme, June-July 1954, n ° s 6-7, p. 624-625.] How, in all circumstances, the struggle waged by the working class against the bourgeoisie, under the leadership of the Communists, coincided with the national interest ... This was notably the case with the struggle against the Treaty of Versailles "which contained all the seeds of a recrudescence of militarism and the spirit of revenge in Germany". This was the case with the fight against repression and the colonialist war (Morocco, Indochina), the fight against the surrender of Munich, the odd war, the Hitler occupation and its accomplices, the sabotage of the French Renaissance. It is the same today when the working class leads thenational opposition to the rearmament of the executioners of our people and "mount a vigilant guard around peace ... major interest of France". Called by history to liberate our country from capitalist exploitation, how could the working class carry out this revolutionary task if it did not play the leading role in the current struggle to safeguard the existence of the nation against the anti-national bourgeoisie?existence of the nation against the anti-national bourgeoisie?existence of the nation against the anti-national bourgeoisie?

And while the reactionary big bourgeoisie, at the same time as it casts the shadow of death over the future of France, repudiates the past of our people, the working class recalls on the contrary with pride all that, in the history of our country, was a progress towards well-being and freedom.

Our love for the country is the love of its most glorious traditions, it is the desire to return it to its traditions as a torchbearer. Our love of the country, it is the love of its people that we want free and happy, it is France to the French, and not to those who, by their selfishness, their greed and their baseness of soul, long excluded from the national community.

The patriotism of the humble, the patriotism of Joan of Arc, a peasant from France, abandoned by her king and burnt by the Church, crosses our entire history like a trail of light.

La Bruyère, examining the miserable fate of the serfs, wrote: "There is no country in despotism."

The democrats of the great French Revolution conquered their homeland. "The peat of cobblers and tailors", which won the battle of Valmy, to the cry of "Vive la nation!" Was animated by a powerful breath of revolutionary patriotism. (Maurice Thorez: Son of the People, p. 118.)

The merit of the French Communist Party, led by Maurice Thorez, is thus to have returned the “colors of France” to our people, betrayed by the bankrupt bourgeoisie. [Reading the novel by Aragon. Les Communistes, (in the process of being published by the Reunited French Editors) is of precious help to those who want to understand, in its full historical significance, the national role of the Communists. It is this role that Aragon exalts in some of his finest poems: read, for example, “From the poet to his party” in La Diane française (Seghers, editor); and Les Yeux et la Mémoire (Gallimard, editor).] He is the champion of the union of the French nation for bread and democratic freedoms, for independence and peace. He thus conforms to the teachings of the greatest Marxist of our time, Stalin,who declared in the XIXth Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR (October 1952):

Formerly the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation, it defended the rights and independence of the nation, placing them "above everything". Now there is no trace of the "national principle". Now the bourgeoisie is trading the rights and independence of the nation for dollars. The flag of national independence and national sovereignty is thrown overboard. Without a doubt, it is for you, representatives of the Communist and Democratic Parties, to raise this flag and carry it forward, if you want to be patriots, if you want to become the leading force of the nation. None other than you can meet it. (Stalin: Latest Writings, p. 188.)

The accomplishment of this task by the working class is a necessary step on the road to socialism, which will liquidate bourgeois exploitation.

See: Control questions

The nation (ii)

We have seen (previous lesson, III C.) that, under the conditions of imperialism, bourgeois class oppression takes the form of national oppression more and more.

From a liberator of nations, what capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. (Lenin. Quoted by Georges Cogniot: Reality of the nation, p. 46.)

This is why the struggle against imperialism takes the form of a struggle for national independence. For a given country, this independence movement encompasses all social strata plundered or threatened by foreign imperialism. This explains, for example, that in China large fractions of the bourgeoisie took part, alongside the proletariat and the peasantry, in the struggle for national liberation. Part of the bourgeoisie (symbolized by Tchiang Kai-shek) had linked its interests to those of foreign imperialism, oppressor and plunderer. But this seriously damaged the interests of other elements of the bourgeoisie (for example: industrialists): they therefore took part in the independence movement.

Likewise in France, at the present time, American imperialism, if it finds the self-interested complicity of the reactionary big bourgeoisie, of speculators, of gun dealers, harms the interests of other fractions of the bourgeoisie: c Thus, the Marshall Plan, imposed on the French economy by American imperialism, paralyzes the growth of entire branches of national industry, deprives them of their outlets in the countries of the East, etc. Hence the growing discontent among many manufacturers.

The policy of remilitarization of Germany, which results in the lowering of France and undermines its sovereignty as a nation, arouses, even within the bourgeoisie, the opposition of various layers who fear German hegemony. The thesis adopted by the XIIIth Congress of the French Communist Party (June 1954) [Cahiers du communisme, June-July 1954, n ° s 6-7, p. 922-923, points 21 and 22.] stresses that the interests of many social categories far removed from the working class and hostile in principle to the Communist Party are seriously damaged by the objective consequences of Atlantic policy. This is why certain bourgeois political circles, whatever their attachment to capitalism, are speaking out, alongside the Communists, against the enslavement of France.

Thus has arisen, against American imperialism and the reactionary big bourgeoisie which supports it, a united national front for the independence of France; it encompasses - beyond the working peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the middle classes - the fractions of the bourgeoisie threatened by the consequences of the policy imposed on France by American imperialism. This in no way suppresses the class struggle within the country between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; just as well, it is out of class interest that the reactionary big bourgeoisie has handed over the country to foreign imperialism: the French proletariat cannot therefore separate its struggle for national independence from its class struggle.

Starting from the anti-national character taken on by imperialist capitalism, we will see how the Marxists pose and resolve one of the most serious questions of contemporary times: the colonial question.

The colonial question: the right of nations to self-determination

During the imperialist era, the most powerful states completed the partition of the globe, in Africa and Asia. The colonies and protectorates thus formed were fiercely exploited by the trusts. Colonial oppression covers all aspects of the nation: occupied territory; foreign language imposed to the detriment of the national language; plundering of economic wealth; enslavement of national culture. Of course, colonialist imperialism practices ruthless repression to maintain its so-called “rights” as an occupying power; it refuses the colonized peoples the right to constitute themselves into States.

We know Marx's famous formula: "A people which oppresses others cannot be free." "[See on this subject Lenin:" The socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination "in Marx-Engels-Marxism, Foreign Languages ​​Editions, Moscow, 1947, p. 283: "Marx put in the foreground, not losing sight above all of the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat of the advanced countries, the fundamental principle of internationalism and socialism: a people which oppresses others cannot be free. "]

The enslavement of a people is, in fact, the work of the reactionary big bourgeoisie, of the monopolies which, in search of maximum profit, seize the weakest peoples and strip them. This enterprise is obviously contrary to the interests of the proletarians of the colonizing country. Why ?

First, because it is their class enemy, the reactionary bourgeoisie, which is reinforced by the colonization of other peoples. Even if (this was the case notably in England) the exploitation of the colonial peoples allows the imperialist bourgeoisie to give some small advantages to its own proletariat, advantages taken from the mass of the profits which it snatches from the colonial workers - these advantages are largely offset by the additional power that the bourgeoisie derives from colonial exploitation. This power the bourgeoisie uses not only against the colonial workers, but also against the proletarians of the exploiting state. Class oppression outside consolidates class oppression inside.

Then because, to carry out its colonial enterprises, the bourgeoisie is throwing its proletarians against foreign workers. It collects its formidable profits in the blood of each other. Of course, to achieve this result, it seeks to persuade the workers of the colonizing country that colonial oppression is in their interests. In the bourgeois manuals reserved for the children of the people, the war of plunder is presented as a "defense of civilization"; the interests of the trusts (exploiters of the French people as well as of the colonial peoples) are concealed under the label of “French interests”. Insofar as French, English, etc. workers are duped by these lies, they are doing themselves the greatest wrong, they are serving the purposes of the class which oppresses them,they weaken their own exploited class struggle, they weaken the international unity of the proletariat.

This last remark directs us towards the solution of the colonial question. It is indeed proletarian internationalism that gives the key.

The interests of the workers of the colonizing country and the interests of the workers of the colonized country are united against the imperialist bourgeoisie, their common enemy.

How is proletarian internationalism expressed here concretely?

a) On the one hand, the workers of the oppressive country affirm the right of nations to self-determination. In practice, this means that they recognize the right of oppressed nations to separate from the colonizing state, to constitute their own state, their independent state. To speak of "free disposal" while refusing the right to free separation is only hypocritical chatter, since it is to refuse with one hand what one gives with the other.

This is why the workers of the colonizing country have the duty to claim, for the colonized countries, the right of separation. Refusing to do so (under the fallacious pretext that the colonial peoples are not "ripe for independence") is a reactionary attitude, beneficial only to the colonialist bourgeoisie, which thus prolongs its domination.

An example: Indochina. The only correct position with regard to the national struggle led, against French imperialism, by the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, is to affirm the absolute right of these peoples to separation, state independence; and it is to provide them with effective support in France itself.

b) But on the other hand, the workers of the oppressed country affirm their internationalist class unity with the proletarians of the colonizing country. This is why the revolutionary parties in the colonial countries, at the same time as they fight oppressive imperialism, fight the nationalism of their own bourgeoisie. The bourgeois nationalists of the colonized country say to the workers of this country: "All the French are your enemies". Workers educated in the spirit of proletarian internationalism respond: “No! The French colonialist trusts are our enemies, but the French workers are our friends ”.

Thus, the proletarians of the colonizing country fight, in the name of internationalism, the nationalism of the colonialist bourgeoisie; the proletarians of the colonized country fight, in the name of internationalism, the nationalism of their own bourgeoisie. [However, in the struggle for national independence, the proletarians of the colonized country do not reject the alliance of the nationalist bourgeoisie. But they do not subordinate their action to the interests of the nationalist bourgeoisie, because the latter, although opposed to the foreign colonialist bourgeoisie, remains the class enemy of the workers. "As far as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights against the nation which oppresses, for all that we are always, in any case and more resolutely than all the others, for, because we are thethe boldest and most consistent enemy of oppression. As far as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation is for its own bourgeois nationalism, we are against it. Fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressing nation; no tolerance for the pursuit of privileges on the part of the oppressed nation ... In all bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation, there is a general democratic content against oppression; and it is this content that we fully support, while rigorously setting aside the tendency towards national exclusivity. Lenin: On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 53-54. Social Editions, Paris, 1952.]we are against it. Fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressing nation; no tolerance for the pursuit of privileges on the part of the oppressed nation ... In all bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation, there is a general democratic content against oppression; and it is this content that we fully support, while rigorously setting aside the tendency towards national exclusivity. Lenin: On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 53-54. Social Editions, Paris, 1952.]we are against it. Fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressing nation; no tolerance for the pursuit of privileges on the part of the oppressed nation ... In all bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation, there is a general democratic content against oppression; and it is this content that we fully support, while rigorously setting aside the tendency towards national exclusivity. Lenin: On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 53-54. Social Editions, Paris, 1952.]it is this content that we fully support, while rigorously setting aside the tendency towards national exclusivity. Lenin: On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 53-54. Social Editions, Paris, 1952.]it is this content that we fully support, while rigorously setting aside the tendency towards national exclusivity. Lenin: On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 53-54. Social Editions, Paris, 1952.]

This is the place to recall Lenin's precious indications:

The center of gravity of internationalist education of workers in oppressive countries must necessarily consist in the propaganda and defense of freedom of separation for oppressed countries. Without it, no internationalism. We have the right and have the right to call any social-democrat of a nation who oppresses, not making this propaganda, imperialist and rascal. This is an absolute demand, even if such a separation had not been possible and "achievable" before the advent of socialism, in only one case out of a thousand ....

On the contrary, the Social Democrat of a small nation has the duty to transfer the center of gravity of his agitation to the first part of our formula: "free union of nations". Without violating his obligations as an internationalist, he can be and for the political independence of his nation and for his inclusion in a neighboring state X, Y, Z, etc. But in any case, he must fight against the petty national narrowness, against the tendency to confine himself, to isolate himself, for the consideration of the whole and the generality of the movement, for the subordination of the interest. particular to the general interest.

People who have not delved into the question find it "contradictory" that the Social Democrats [The word "social democrat" is obviously taken here in its old sense: socialist Marxist, - and not in the sense that the leaders of the II The International have given it, by their opportunist behavior.] oppressive nations insist on “freedom of separation”, and the social democrats of oppressed nations, on “freedom of union”. But it only takes a little reflection to see that, in the given situation, there is not and there cannot be any other path towards internationalization and the fusion of nations. (Lenin: Works (in Russian), t. XIX, p. 261-262. Quoted by Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 225.)

This Leninist position has been repeatedly affirmed in France by Maurice Thorez:

Proletarians of an imperialist country, which oppresses tens of millions of slaves in its colonies, we had to proclaim loudly the right of these peoples to free disposal, up to and including separation from France. We had to fight at home any tendency to colonialism, to chauvinism, leaving our communist comrades in colonial countries to react at home against any national narrowness, and to proclaim the usefulness for their own people of a united struggle with the French proletariat, against the same imperialist oppressors. “The right to divorce,” said Lenin, “does not mean the obligation to divorce. (M. Thorez: Cahiers du communisme, January 1950, p. 29.)

Here appears, in fact, an important aspect of the right of free disposal. Some, interpreting it in a simplistic way, identify right and obligation! From the fact that the proletarians of the colonized country proclaim, in agreement with those of the colonizing country, their right to separation, it by no means follows that they declare themselves in all circumstances for separation, that they deem it useful in all circumstances.

Let's take an example. The Russia of the tsars oppressed various peoples of Asia (Georgians, Armenians, etc.), denying them the right to constitute themselves as independent states. Russian Marxists and Georgian, Armenian Marxists, etc. proclaimed against Tsarism the right to separation. Then came the October Revolution of 1917. What happened? The advent of socialism liberated Georgians, Armenians, etc. of the colonial yoke. Yet these did not separate from the Russian nation; it constituted itself a multinational State, on the basis of equality between all the nations which constitute it.

Why Georgians, Armenians, etc. have they not exercised their right of free separation? Why, in short, while receiving the right to divorce, did they not use this right? Quite simply because by doing so they would have become easy prey for the capitalist countries, enemies of socialism, enemies of the Soviet Union. The interest of the workers of the former Tsarist colonies, a class interest, was precisely not to separate from the Russian people, to associate with them and with the other Soviet nations, within the multinational socialist state, on a footing of classroom.

We can therefore see that it is the class interest which ultimately decides on separation or free union. [There may be times when separation is not desirable. We have just seen an example. Here is another, in a different situation. “In the years 1840-1850, Marx was for the national movement of Poles and Hungarians, against the national movement of Czechs and South Slavs. Why ? Because the Czechs and South Slavs were then "reactionary peoples", "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism, while the Poles and Hungarians were "revolutionary peoples" in Europe. fight against absolutism. Because supporting the national movement of Czechs and South Slavs then meant indirectly supporting Tsarism, thethe most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe ”. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, pp. 219-220). This example clearly shows that we must never consider the national question in itself, but in relation to the fundamental demands of proletarian internationalism. At the same time, before the Second World War, the struggle of the Sudetenland (German minority in Czechoslovakia) against the Czechoslovak state was used by Hitler against world peace, against the interests of the international proletariat. “The various demands of democracy, including the right of nations to self-determination, are not an absolute, but a part of the whole democratic movement (today: socialist) world.It is possible that in certain concrete cases the plot contradicts the whole, then it must be rejected ”(Lenin: Works (in Russian), t. XIX, p. 257-258; quoted by Stalin, p. 220). To reject does not mean to suppress, but to take a back seat, for a certain period. Here we find an illustration of the first feature of the dialectic: everything fits together. This enables us to understand that a national anti-imperialist movement, in a given country, can be supported by the international proletariat, even though this movement is not led by proletarian elements. Before World War II, proletarians of all countries supported Ethiopia's struggle against Mussolini's army although the Ethiopian people were ruled by feudal lords. Such a struggle, in fact, weakened international fascism,main enemy of the proletariat. It was the same for the national movement led by the Lebanese bourgeoisie.] But in any case, the choice falls, in full sovereignty, to the people concerned (colonized people or national minority).

This is how the French people must respect the aspiration of the colonial peoples for their independence. This is particularly the case for the people of Vietnam. The latter has the absolute right to separate from France, a right that the colonialist bourgeoisie refuses him because it wants to be able to continue to exploit Indochina. French workers, on the other hand, support the rights of the Vietnamese by fighting against the ongoing war, for the repatriation of the expeditionary force. This war is an unjust war, because its object is to maintain oppression on a people. Conversely, the war waged by the Vietnamese nation against oppressive imperialism is a just war, as is any war of national liberation. [Since these lines were written,the cease-fire intervened in Indochina. It is a victory for the combined action of the Vietnamese and French peoples, a victory for proletarian internationalism.]

Once the Vietnamese nation is freed from the colonial yoke, it will be up to it to decide sovereignly on its relations with France. From now on, the workers of France and those of Vietnam consider as desirable, and beneficial to both countries, a policy of economic and cultural exchanges. But this policy implies separation between the two nations and absolute equality between the two states.

We see it: it is the principle of proletarian internationalism which makes it possible to resolve, in theory and in practice, the national and colonial question. Once again, therefore, we find the class struggle.

The interests of the proletarian movement in the developed countries and of the national liberation movement in the colonies demand that these two aspects of the revolutionary movement unite in a common front of struggle against the common enemy, against imperialism. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, p. 222.)

National question and socialist revolution

It was precisely the constitution of this common front that allowed the success of the Socialist Revolution of October 1917.

The victory of the Russian proletariat over the imperialist bourgeoisie would not have been possible without the active alliance of the peoples exploited by this same bourgeoisie in the immense empire of the tsars. The October Revolution thus struck imperialism both in its center and in its rear.

By overthrowing the great landowners and capitalists, the October Revolution broke the chains of national and colonial oppression, from which it delivered all oppressed peoples, without exception, from a vast state. The proletariat cannot liberate itself without liberating the oppressed peoples. The characteristic feature of the October Revolution is that it carried out these national and colonial revolutions in the USSR, not under the banner of national hatred and conflicts between nations, but under the banner of mutual trust and confidence. of a fraternal rapprochement of workers and peasants of nationalities living in the USSR, not in the name of nationalism, but in the name of internationalism. (Stalin: "The international character of the RevolutionOctober in The Questions of Leninism, t. I, p. 188.)

The leaders of the Second International, despite their rhetoric on the equality of nations, did not attach importance to colonial peoples: they denied them any possibility of revolutionary action. At most, they conceded the right to “cultural autonomy”, the right to have their cultural institutions, but this within the framework of the colonialist state!

On the other hand, the Marxist-Leninists understand by free disposition the right of separation, the right to constitute an independent State. As the struggle of the oppressed nations for their independence is directed against the imperialist bourgeoisie, the direct adversary of the “metropolitan” proletariat, it follows that this struggle has a revolutionary character.

The national question is part of the general question of the proletarian revolution, part of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Stalin: "On the Principles of Leninism", Idem, p. 55.)

The tremendous growth of the national liberation movement in the oppressed countries of Africa and Asia since 1917, the victory of the Chinese people over imperialism and their march towards socialism, are facts of prime importance for the world revolutionary struggle.

Gone are the days when you could safely exploit and oppress colonies and dependent countries.

The era has come of liberating revolution in the colonies and dependent countries, the era of the awakening of the proletariat in these countries, the era of its hegemony in the revolution. (Stalin: Questions of Leninism, Volume I, p. 189.)

Character of socialist nations

Liberating the oppressed peoples, the socialist revolution inaugurated a radically new stage in the development of nations. A new type of nation has appeared, thanks to the victory of the proletariat, the socialist nation.

We saw in the previous lesson that “bourgeois nations” should be understood to mean the nations which were formed under the leadership of the bourgeoisie while fighting against feudalism. The victory of the bourgeoisie was that of the capitalist relations of production. From this are deduced the features of the bourgeois nation.

The bourgeois nation is necessarily founded on the inequality of its members, since the ruling class exploits the proletariat.

The bourgeois nation is the enemy of other bourgeois nations since the bourgeoisies of the various capitalist countries compete in the race for profit. Hence nationalism.

Finally, the bourgeois nation, at the imperialist stage, submits the economically less developed peoples. Thus the exploitation within is completed with the exploitation outside. Once again we remember Lenin: "imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations".

Quite different are the features of the socialist nation.

Abolish the exploitation of man by man, and you will abolish the exploitation of one nation by another nation. From the day when the antagonism of classes within the nation falls, the hostility of nations to one another also falls. (Marx and Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 46.)

By overthrowing the exploiting bourgeoisie, by suppressing class oppression, the socialist revolution creates new relationships within the nation and between nations.

The birth and rise of the Soviet Union made it possible to verify this.

Absence of exploiting classes, the main organizers of collisions between nations; absence of exploitation which maintains reciprocal mistrust and stirs up nationalist passions; presence in power of the working class, enemy of all enslavement and faithful champion of the ideas of internationalism; practical realization of mutual assistance between peoples in all areas of economic and social life; finally, flourishing of the national culture of the peoples of the USSR, national in form, socialist in content: all these factors and other analogues have caused the physiognomy of the peoples of the USSR to radically change; that the feeling of mutual mistrust has disappeared among them; that in them a feeling of reciprocal friendship developed, and thatA real fraternal collaboration of the peoples is thus established, within the single federal state. (Stalin: The Questions of Leninism, vol. II, p. 217.)

This is the result of the victory of the working class. Breaking down feudal oppression, the bourgeoisie had forged new chains. The working class, by liberating itself, liberates all men. Class yoke and national yoke are abolished.

Let's take a quick look at the characteristics of the Soviet Union from a national perspective.

The empire of the tsars was a “people's prison”. Freed from oppression, the various nationalities received the right of free disposal. We have seen that the exercise of this right has two aspects: either separation; or common law. [It is these half contrary aspects which constitute the right of free disposal. It is an example of the unity of opposites. (See Lesson 5, p. 89.)] For the reasons stated above (p. 506-507), the formerly oppressed nationalities have chosen union with the Russian nation.

Thus was formed a multinational socialist state. The nations which constitute it retain their right of free disposal: they can therefore, if they decide to do so, separate from the Union. What is the essential character of the relations between the socialist nations, whose number is approaching sixty? It is equality in rights, "No privilege for any nation, said Lenin ... Not the slightest oppression, not the slightest injustice towards national minorities." There is therefore no dominant nation in the USSR, but freely federated republics (Republic of Russia, Republic of Ukraine, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Estonia, etc., etc.) Where there is, within of a federated republic, national minorities, these form autonomous republics (example:within the Federated Republic of Russia are the Autonomous Republics of Tataria, Bashkiria, Dagestan, etc.) There are also, for small peoples, autonomous regions and national districts.

The multinational Soviet state defends the common interests of all the nations that compose it. The planning of the socialist economy, the direction of the foreign policy and the army, the cultural construction come under its attributions. But it is submitted from the bottom up, through the Soviets, to the control of all citizens, equal in rights, whatever their nationality or race. For example, the functions of the Soviet state, from the lowest to the highest, are accessible to all citizens. In the government sit men of various nationalities and races.

As for the specific interests of each nationality, they are the exclusive responsibility of the federated or autonomous republic which, within the framework of the Soviet Constitution, has its own Constitution and its particular laws. This Constitution, these laws reflect the national particularities (economic, cultural, historical) of the people considered.

In this way, unlike what happens in the tsarist colonial system, the development of nationalities is guaranteed on all levels.

Let's take an example. The Uzbek people, ferociously exploited before the Revolution, formed a Socialist Republic, with its Constitution, its Soviet, its Council of Ministers, within the framework of the Union of Republics. Its national economy (industry, agriculture, livestock) has grown tremendously, thanks to the five-year plans. Since 1913, heavy industry has multiplied by 15. There are 800 thermal and hydro-power plants. Agriculture, mechanized, produces in abundance the most varied cottons. It is in Uzbekia that the breeding of Astrakhan sheep has its main bases. As for the improvement of the standard of living and the cultural progress, they make a stark contrast to the misery and the cultural crushing imposed by the capitalist bourgeoisie on its colonies. Wheras'in Kabylia there is 1 doctor for 30,000 inhabitants (official figure), Uzbekia has one doctor for 895 inhabitants. In Morocco, less than 10% of Muslim school-age children have access to schools. In Uzbekia, illiteracy which was the general rule under the tsars (98% illiterate) has disappeared. Out of 10,000 inhabitants, 71 attend a higher education establishment (in France, only 36 out of 10,000).higher education (in France, only 36 out of 10,000).higher education (in France, only 36 out of 10,000).

Education is given in the mother tongue, which is the official language. This is the case for all the nationalities that make up the USSR Their newspapers, their editions, etc. are printed in the national language. Thus the renewal of the literary and artistic traditions of each people has been considerably facilitated. [As for the Russian language, historical circumstances have made it, for all the peoples of the Union, a common language, and an auxiliary language in the scientific field: it is therefore used in this double capacity.]

In 1943, in the midst of the war against Hitler, the Uzbek Academy of Sciences was created: in ten years, it brought together 25 scientific establishments; 1,500 researchers worked there. This is how each Soviet republic trains its own cadres (scientists, engineers, agronomists, doctors, educators, etc.)

We could multiply the examples. But the most convincing would be provided by the peoples of certain autonomous regions who, doomed by imperialism to certain death, owe socialism for having survived.

In Siberia, on the banks of Haut-Yénissei and its tributary Abakam, live the Hakasse people. Conquered more than ten centuries ago by the Mongols, this people, which was then one of the strongest and most cultivated in Asia, was doomed to ruin. He even lost his handwriting. Tsarism worsened this situation. The Hakass people were inexorably dying out. In short, he found himself in a situation analogous to that which the American colonists did to the Indians. But the Socialist Revolution was to restore life to this people. Constituted in an autonomous region, it has more than 50,000 inhabitants. It has a prosperous economy (coal, gold, barite; forests; canals). It has regained its national language, written and official language. It has 350 schools, 3 technical schools, a teaching institute. He has his journals,its literature, its theater.

In northern Siberia, the Nenets people were subjected to the cruel oppression of the Tsar's officials, Russian traders who monopolized their wealth (furs, fish) and large reindeer herders. It was on the verge of extinction: 16,000 souls in 1899; 2,000 in 1913. The Socialist Revolution changed all that. Established as a national district, the Nénets have regained strength and life. In 1939, their number reached 12,000. Fishing and hunting, their industry is progressing; greenhouse agriculture appeared. 56 schools, including 7 secondary; 1 technical school for reindeer breeding; 3 scientific research centers ... in this region where all were once illiterate, dumbfounded by superstition. [On the benefits that socialism has brought to the unfortunate peoples of the Arctic, see the beautiful book by the late B. Gorbatov:The Arctic as it is. Ed. Yesterday and Today.]

This is how the Soviet Union guarantees the development of the various peoples who compose it. Old oppressed nationalities have regained their independence. Peoples which vegetated were able, thanks to socialism, to constitute themselves into nations. Much better: peoples with a primitive economy and an archaic mentality (like the Nenets) were able to switch to a socialist way of life in a few years.

We understand that, under such conditions, the relations between nations (large and small) are totally modified.

Mistrust and hostility have given way to mutual trust and fraternal collaboration. This is why the Hitlerite invaders, who hoped to break by violence the bonds forged by socialism between the Soviet peoples, lost their trouble. They believed, for example, that they could revive in Ukraine the old nationalist feelings against the Russian people; It did not happen. While WWII has considerably; weakened the colonial system established by capitalism, the union of socialist nations was consolidated in the common struggle against racist Nazism, enemy of the peoples.

Thus was verified the existence of a Soviet patriotism which is opposed in all points to bourgeois chauvinism.

The power of Soviet patriotism is not based on racist or nationalist prejudices; it is based on the loyalty and deep devotion of the people to their Soviet homeland, on the fraternal affection of all workers living in our country. In Soviet patriotism the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all workers of the Soviet Union are harmoniously combined. Far from dividing, Soviet patriotism unites, on the contrary, all the nations and nationalities of our country within a single fraternal family. This is where the foundations of the unshakeable and growing friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union appear. On the other hand, the peoples of the USSR respect the rights andindependence of the peoples of foreign countries, they have always demonstrated their will to live in peace and in friendship with neighboring States. This is where the basis for our State's increasingly extensive and lasting relations with freedom-loving peoples appears. (Stalin: On the Great War of the Soviet Union, p. 155.)

The flags of the socialist state are those of friendship between the peoples who formed it and of friendship with all the peoples of the world, including those who are still under the capitalist yoke. So it is absurd to speak of "Soviet imperialism": the Socialist Revolution, by suppressing the imperialist bourgeoisie, destroyed imperialism at its very root. The Soviet Union is fundamentally peaceful because it is socialist. Soviet patriotism is therefore the polar opposite of bourgeois nationalism; The love that Soviet workers have for the country of socialism, it is the most beautiful manifestation of proletarian internationalism.

We can now conclude that socialism, at the same time as it ensures the material and moral development of each nation, accelerates the peaceful rapprochement of all nations. Liberator of nations, socialism is preparing their fusion.

The future of nations

We showed in lesson 23 that nations did not always exist. Nations are a historical reality, constituted by the bourgeoisie on the basis of a single market.

Through the Revolution, the working class, at the same time as it breaks the class yoke, breaks the national yoke: socialism thus assures all nations a harmonious and complete development.

But this blossoming itself is only the prelude to an even more magnificent blossoming: the one that communism will assure to all of humanity when it has triumphed everywhere.

The universal victory of communism will in fact result in the constitution of a single world economy, a necessary condition for the ever more rapid progress of productive forces. Therefore, the territorial limits will lose their meaning. The increase in material and cultural exchanges between peoples will bring them closer and closer. They will thus move towards a single world language, extremely rich because it will be born gradually from the fusion of the various national languages:

when world imperialism no longer exists, when the exploiting classes will be overthrown, national and colonial oppression liquidated, national isolation and mutual mistrust of nations replaced by mutual trust and the rapprochement of nations, equality in rights of nations translated into life, when the policy of oppression and assimilation of languages ​​will be liquidated, when the collaboration of nations will be organized and when the national languages ​​will have the possibility, in their collaboration, of mutually enriching each other in all freedom, ... under these conditions, there can be no question of the oppression and defeat of certain languages ​​and the victory of other languages. We will be dealing ... with hundreds of national languages ​​of which, as a result ofa long economic, political and cultural collaboration between nations, will first emerge the most enriched unique zonal languages; then the zonal languages ​​will merge into a single common international language, which will naturally be neither German, nor Russian, nor English, but a new language which will have absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages. (Stalin: "On Marxism in Linguistics", Latest Writings, p. 58.)but a new language which will have absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages. (Stalin: "On Marxism in Linguistics", Latest Writings, p. 58.)but a new language which will have absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages. (Stalin: "On Marxism in Linguistics", Latest Writings, p. 58.)

[Only such a perspective is consistent with the objective development of peoples. The single language will be formed by a slow historical process, under the economic and social conditions of world communism. It will be a powerful means of culture because, the fruit of a long process, it will bear the imprint of the most beautiful conquests of civilization amassed little by little by the peoples. We see that such a language will have nothing in common with this artificial amalgamation that is Esperanto. In practice - and although many Esperantists are men of progress - Esperanto tends to distract people from revolutionary struggle; Its promoters say that the liberation of peoples will be achieved by the generalization of Esperanto. This is a typically petty-bourgeois point of view:even if the capitalist and the proletarian both speak Esperanto, class oppression would still exist. The only revolutionary path open to the masses is international class struggle.]

For men everywhere who have reached the upper stage of their historical development and are members of a single homeland, the homeland of universal communism, the single language will be the instrument of a common culture, common in its content of feelings and ideas, common by its form, by its expression.

National limits will thus be exceeded.

But nowadays the problem posed is not that of going beyond nations. The problem currently posed to the peoples is that of their liberation from the capitalist yoke and of their socialist development. Blossoming, we say. When in fact Marxism speaks of the "fusion of nations", it does not mean by that their annihilation; the path to fusion is their development which has as a condition the transition to socialism:

National cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold, to reveal all their potential strengths, in order to create the conditions allowing their fusion into a single common culture, with a single common language. Development of cultures, national in form and socialist in their content ... for their fusion into one and the same socialist culture (and by its form and by its content), with a single common language, when the proletariat has won in the whole world, and that socialism will have entered the mores, there precisely is the dialectic of the Leninist way of posing the problem of national culture. (Stalin: Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, pp. 337-338.)

Notes on Alsace and the Moselle

The principle of proletarian internationalism alone allows the question of national minorities to be resolved correctly.

This is the case for the population of the three departments: Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin, Moselle.

Strictly speaking, there is no Alsatian “nation” in the full sense of the term. But, if we refer to the scientific definition of the nation, we must note that these three departments present a specific situation.

We cannot speak ... of a language community with France when adults over 40 years old (with a few exceptions and except in certain regions) and young people between 16 and 20 years old, do not or hardly know the language. French language and when many of those who have learned French only speak or write it with difficulty due to lack of practice, - the usual language spoken in family and at the workplace being the dialect - dialect of origin German. The comparison of the circulation of German-language newspapers compared to French-language newspapers is convincing.

As for psychic training, it is also difficult to deny that it includes multiple differences due to the difference in language, but above all to the differences in the historical development of Alsace.

A whole series of historical experiences made by the French nation between 1870 and 1919 (for example, the separation of Church and State, the Dreyfus affair) were not engraved in the consciousness of the population of Alsace and Lorraine as in the rest of the nation. It is also not possible to deny that the period 1940-1945 was experienced differently by the mass of the people in Alsace-Lorraine than by the rest of France.

For the same historical reasons and despite the language kinship, there is also no national community between Germany and Alsace. This is how the experience of the great French Revolution or even the experience of 1936 left strong imprints in Alsace while they are lacking to the German people.

We therefore note that national particularities exist in Alsace-Lorraine. Do they not matter? Are they not the source of a series of claims?

Of course yes. Their ignorance by the French governments is the basis of a feeling of inferiority and the cause of many dissatisfaction among the Alsatians and the Lorraine people.

This is obvious for specific material claims ...: social security, slump in specific agricultural production (wines, tobacco, hops), tax differences, situation of civil servants, victims of war, etc.

This is also evident for language problems: the use of the French language only on administrative forms and circulars (except tax forms), before the courts, in works councils leads to multiple injustices which are felt like bullying.

The teaching of the French language alone results in, on the one hand, that, on average, young Alsatians leaving primary school do not know literary German and know French less well than young French people from other departments. . They already speak it when they enter school at six, speak it in the street, in their families, while most young Alsatians - who speak the dialect outside of school hours - have to learn it. entirely.

On the other hand, teaching French only means that a young Alsatian who, for whatever reason (work, military service), is far from his family cannot correspond with them in the language understood by their parents or grandparents. parents and he has difficulty reading their letters in German.

(Extract from a letter sent on 22 May 1950 by the secretariat of the French Communist Party to the Communists of Saint-Louis Huningue-Hegenheim (Haut-Rhin). Cahiers du communisme, April 1950, p. 58. See also in the Cahiers du communisme, March 1950, the study by F. Billoux: "The great responsibilities of the Communists of Alsace and Lorraine".)

On the historical, linguistic, psychological, cultural and economic levels, Alsace-Lorraine presents an undeniable originality in relation to both the French nation and the German nation.

The French bourgeoisie denies this originality. In particular, it is hostile to the clearly expressed demand by Alsatian workers for bilingualism (German and French) in primary school. She claims that such a claim is unfounded, regardless of the most obvious facts. (When, on the other hand, it is a question of punishing the executioners of Oradour, she opposes it, on the pretext that some are Alsatians!)

However, it should be observed that this same bourgeoisie, after having favored, in Alsace-Lorraine, the action of Hitler's agents (the autonomists) delivered the Alsatians-Lorraine to Hitler, in 1940, without the slightest difficulty.

Today, while maintaining its refusal to satisfy the demands of Alsatian workers (particularly in linguistic matters), it subjects them to intense “European” propaganda. She wants the Alsatian workers to fall into the trap of "united Europe", with the hope that "Europe" will finally give them! what France refuses them. This is how the French bourgeoisie, once again, wants to transform the workers of Alsace-Lorraine into recruits for the Wehrmacht. Is there a position that is more contrary to both the interests of the workers of France and the interests of the workers of Alsace?

The position of the French working class is quite different. In accordance with proletarian internationalism, it accepts the national claims of the Alsatian minority; it recognizes the right of free disposal (that is to say the right of separation).

But the right to divorce is not the obligation to divorce.

If the Communists of France have the duty, against oppressive imperialism, to insist on the right of separation, those of Alsace-Lorraine have the duty to emphasize on the voluntary union of the peoples of Alsace. and Lorraine with the workers of France, under penalty of falling into national narrowness. (M. Thorez: “The right to the free disposal of the peoples of Alsace-Lorraine”, (L'Humanité, 20 Nov. 1934), Works, L. II, t. VII, p. 140.)

The current interest of the workers of Alsace-Lorraine is not separation; it is to defend and make prevail their national demands in the closest union with the workers of France. So it was in 1936, when Alsatian workers fought for the Popular Front. It was so under the Nazi occupation; the Alsatian-Lorraine workers, in union with the French working class, led the liberation struggle against the Hitlerites (and their accomplices). The communist railwayman Wodli is the heroic symbol of this united struggle against the common enemy. Today, the interest of the workers of Alsace-Lorraine is to fight with the workers of France against the reactionary bourgeoisie for democratic freedoms and social progress,and against the awakening of Nazism in Germany, against Adenauer and his Wehrmacht.

See: Control questions