|
Preface to the Japanese Edition of No. 1 and No. 2 of Le mouvement communiste [1]  The bulletin Le mouvement communiste is one of the expressions of the present revolutionary trend in France where, as everywhere else, what is usually known as Marxism has nothing to do with revolution. In a world which is topsy-turvy for historical reasons which can be analysed, there are "socialist" countries where wage-labourers are exploited in the name of "communism," and "communist parties" which are nationalist, utterly reformist and support capitalism in every possible way. Communism has become a synonym for working hard and obeying one's "socialist" boss. There have been imperialist and colonialist Communist Parties. So the first condition for a minimum revolutionary action is to break decisively with all forms of official Marxism, whether they come from C.P.s or left-wing intellectuals. Official Marxism is part of capitalist society in its theory as well as its practise. Compromising in this field means remaining on the side of capital. This may seem clear to many people ( Who has not criticised the C.P. ? ), but it requires more than just a general and vague agreement. Nowadays, when the long counter-revolution which followed the revolutionary movement after the first world war is finally coming to a close, a new movement is rising. But at the same time capital is trying to integrate it, and is preparing to destroy it violently in case it cannot integrate it. The re-emergence of revolution is accompanied by many forms of apparant criticism which do not go to the heart of the matter, and consequently help capital adapt itself. Of course people become revolutionary through diverse experiences, and not just in one day. But we can now see the growth of organisations which deliberately try to gather people on partial demands in order to go no further. They claim to go back to revolutionary principles, but they are ignorant of them. In theory, their view of communism has nothing to do with communism : it is a mixture of democratic workers' control or management, with the application of automation, plus a partial re-organisation of society. In other words, this is no more than what capital itself talks about. In practise, they "critically" support the official C.P., or even socialist parties, the Soviet Union, China, etc. These groups are counter-revolutionary. The argument that they organise workers is irrelevant : C.P.s do the same, which does not prevent them from shooting workers when they think it necessary. Trotskyism, Maoism, even anarchism in some of its most bureaucratic and degenerated forms, are counter-revolutionary. This is not a sectarian view. Organised and permanent groups within the workers' movement, which have a non- or anti-communist programme and practise, are our worst enemy. The enemy within is always more dangerous than the enemy outside. This is true of the C.P.s. But it also applies to most left-wing groups. The past shows that clear line of demarcation is necessary. The situation before the second world war can be summarised as follows : capital could only recover through a large and general war. Russia had been forced to develop capitalism after the defeat of the European revolution : it was ready to ally with one side or the other according to its State interests. Germany, Italy and Japan were fascist. In the western democracies, socialist and "communist" parties managed to rally the masses and persuaded them that the war was not imperialist, like the first world war, but that this was a war to free the world from the horrors of fascism. Trotskyism also supported this view and most Trotskyists took the side of the allied powers against Germany and Japan. Yet the triumph of democracy in 1945 has proved just as destructive and horrible as fascism. People no longer die in concentration camps -- except where there are concentration camps, as in Russia, South Vietnam, etc. But millions starve. The extreme left ( Trotsky and many others ) had only helped capital solve its problems. The struggle against pseudo-revolutionary groups and individuals is not only useful, but also necessary. Marx had to fight against Proudhon. Lenin, Pannekoek, Bordiga had to fight against Kautsky and even against many a socialist who said he agreed with them. Pannekoek and Bordiga had to fight against Lenin, and later against Trotsky. The present communist movement needs to assimilate its past; that is, to fully know what really happened in 1917-21 and later. The transition to communism will not consist of a further development of production : capital has already accomplished this in a large number of countries. The transitional phase will consist of the immediate communisation of society, and armed struggle against the State and the old workers' movement. The military aspect of capital has now become so efficient that it cannot be underestimated. And the working class has now become such a power in society -- even if reformist -- that it is vital for capital to control it : this is the job of the unions and workers' parties. One must prepare to fight against these enemies, not necessarily by storing guns under one's bed, but by attacking them radically now, in theory as well as in practise. This is only possible through the positive analysis and development of the communist programme : abolition of the market economy; creation of new social relations where labour does not rule the whole of life, but is integrated into it; destruction of economics as such, of politics as such, of art as such, etc. Speaking of theory, one can and must use Marx's works ( which includes translating and publishing them when they are not available ). Our motto is : Do not read the Marxists, read Marx ! It is also useful to study those who resisted counter-revolution : people like Pannekoek, Bordiga, etc., who were limited in many ways by misconceptions, but who are relevant to our problems. Other groups, like the Situationist International, are also important, though they lack an understanding of capital. It is important for revolutionaries in each country to study the revolutionary past of their country, as well as its present forms. Contacts and exchanges of experience are also vital. Such activity implies a radical break with politics. Revolutionaries do not only have different ideas ( or even actions ) from pseudo-revolutionaries. The very way they develop is different. A pseudo-revolutionary always tries to enroll and group people so that he may become the representative of a large number of people and thus become a power in this society. Revolution requires just the opposite. We do not aim at representing people, in order to lead them or to serve them. Communists have no troops apart from the red "army" in communist revolutionary warfare. Communists are not isolated from the proletariat. Their action is never an attempt to organise others; it is always an attempt to express their own subversive response to the world. Ultimately, all revolutionary initiatives will have to be coordinated. But the revolutionary task is not primarily one of organisation; the task is to express ( in a text or an action ) a subversive relation to the world. However big or small it may be, such an act is an attack against the old world. January, 1973 Notes [1] The first two issues of Le mouvement communiste appeared in Paris in May, 1972; No.1 contained "The Class Struggle and Its Most Characteristic Aspects in Recent Years," and No. 2 contained "Capitalism and Communism." |