II. The basic contradictions of
our epoch
The need to found the Fourth
International derives from the fundamental contradictions which
have determined the history of the 20th century. To be
summarised in the following points:
- Since 1914, the capitalist
mode of production has entered its period of historic
decline. The huge productive forces built up by that system
periodically enter into contradiction with the capitalist
relations of production, the private mode of appropriation
and the nation-state. This has led to a success grave
economic depressions, of wars and of social explosions
(crisis of basic social relations propping up bourgeois
society). The longer the capitalist system survives, the
more these successive crises threaten to destroy the basis
of material civilisation and even the physical survival of
humanity. Periodically, the productive forces are
transformed into terrifying forces of destruction. While
capitalism in the 20th century undermines the fruits of past
progress in parts of the world it blocks progress in other
parts. The polarisation of haves and have-nots in each
capitalist country, in spite of the resources available, is
interconnected with a world-wide polarisation between
relatively rich and relatively poor nations.
- The periodically explosive
nature of the contradiction between the productive forces
and the capitalist relations of production is also expressed
through periodic rebellions of the human forces of
production, i.e. outbreaks of working-class struggles which
paralyse the functioning of the capitalist system and
objectively put socialist revolution on the agenda. These
types of struggles are much more than the normal attempts of
workers to fight for their immediate interests. They
represent an instinctive attempt by the proletariat to
reorganise society upon a new social basis.
The basic crises produced by
decaying capitalism/imperialism can only be solved in a positive
way through the working class conquering power, destroying the
bourgeois repressive apparatus and building a workers’ state.
In imperialist countries this implies the radical elimination of
capitalist property relations, and in the less developed
countries at least the beginning of such elimination.
But contrary to all previous
social revolutions in history, a socialist revolution can only
achieve its goals consciously. So the outcome of the
successive waves of explosive mass struggles does not depend
only on the objective social relationship of forces between the
capitalists and wage earners. It also depends on the relative
level of proletarian class consciousness and the revolutionary
quality of its leadership.
These have proved to be
inadequate in most cases. Therefore most 20th century
revolutions have ended in partial or total defeat: “The crisis
of humankind is the crisis of proletarian-revolutionary
leadership.” The 20th century thus unfolds as a century of
crises and wars, revolutions and counterrevolutions.
- The first nationwide
victorious socialist revolution occurred in October 1917 in
Russia. It was victorious because under the leadership of
the Bolshevik party, soviet power, the building of a
workers’ state, the establishment of the dictatorship of
the proletariat, all solved the most burning political
problems of the day – peace – and the key tasks of the
national-democratic revolution. But the working class could
not accomplish all these tasks and consolidate them (through
a costly civil war) without at the same time trying to
eliminate its own exploitation, in other words without
starting to build a socialist economy and society.
While the USSR’s
modernisation and industrialisation led to spectacular
successes, progress towards building a classless society was by
and large stopped and actually reversed. The political
counter-revolution triumphed in the USSR through Stalinism,
resulting in a monopoly of political power being held by a
bureaucratic caste. This led to a growing social inequality.
Workers have lost all control over their working conditions and
the appropriation of their production. These conditions create
the material basis for a mass rebellion against Stalinism, for a
new anti-bureaucratic political revolution. This revolution is
part and parcel of the world socialist revolution.
- The mistaken policies of the
social democratic and Communist mass parties and the trade
union leaderships prevented the successive waves of
explosive mass struggles of the 1920s and 1930s leading to
victorious socialist revolutions. Their mistaken policies
reflected major theoretical shortcomings but in the last
analysis they express specific material interests, those of
the privileged workers’ bureaucracies. Reformists and
Stalinists (including post-Stalinist bureaucratised CPs)
subordinate the interests of the majority of workers to the
defence of their own privileges, which in the best cases are
camouflaged as the defence of the working class’s historic
conquests (which obviously have to be defended). While the
bureaucrats claim to defend the workers’ “strongholds”
and gains won through struggle, in practice they undermine
them. Defending gains must not be counterposed to the
struggle for new radical advances of the socialist
revolution wherever and whenever they become possible. Hence
the need to build new working class parties. A real process
of differentiation within the working class reflects this
objective need. In each wave of explosive class struggle new
natural leaders emerge from the factories, offices,
neighbourhoods, countryside, the unions and inside and
outside the mass parties. But this potential new leadership
for the working class becomes dissipated if it does not
create the nucleus of new political parties. Their potential
as new revolutionary parties is likewise at risk if
the lessons of more than a century of workers’ struggles
are not assimilated or if easily avoidable mistakes are
made. So it is necessary for revolutionary Marxists to root
themselves firmly in the working class, especially its
vanguard layers, and to fight for their programme, which
embodies the whole historical experience of the world
proletariat. New revolutionary parties need to be built on
that basis.
- The growing
internationalisation of the productive forces in the
imperial epoch and the no less pronounced
internationalisation of capital and the class struggle means
that the achievement of socialism in a single country or a
small group of countries is impossible. This does not mean
that socialist revolution is impossible in a single country,
even a relatively backward one, or that these countries
cannot begin to build a socialist society. But in
the course of the process they will be subjected to
international capitalism’s economic, military and
ideological pressure. This will be reflected, to varying
degrees, in internal splits which will at times block the
road forward to socialism. The socialist revolution will
begin by triumphing in one country, it will be extended
internationally, linking up with the international class
struggle and it will finally culminate in the construction
of socialism on a world scale. The achievement of
“socialism in a single country” is a reactionary utopia.
Just as
“national-communism” is the organisational consequence of
“socialism in one country” theory, so the building of a new
International is the consequence of the theoretical
understanding of the world character of the struggle in the
imperialist epoch. Without the international organisation of the
proletariat, national workers’ organisations will sink even
more easily into the morass of national-reformism and
national-communism. Without the international organisation of
the proletariat, the co-ordination and indeed the understanding
of the international process of class struggle and the
revolution will be infinitely more difficult, the defeats more
heavy, the victories more costly and more often immediately put
into question.
We are convinced these five key
problems of the 20th century show the necessity for the Fourth
International, for a new revolutionary International of the
proletariat. Finding a solution to these five problems is just
as crucial today as it was fifty years ago.
|