4월 테제와 맑스주의의 위기 (2008)

4월 테제와 맑스주의의 위기

-- 임필수씨에게 답함

 

 

 

임필수씨는 <최원씨 게시판 글의 문제점>이라는 글에서 다음과 같이 말한다.

 

러시아혁명에서 레닌의 혁명적 기여는 바로 <4월 테제>였다. (이는 <국가와 혁명>으로 이론화된다.) <4월 테제>는 러시아에서 활동하는 볼세비키 일부에 반대하여 이중권력 상황에서 소비에트(평의회)와 공장위원회를 지지함으로써 혁명운동의 결정적 전기를 마련했다. (“코뮨의 도입이 시기상조라는 주장은 농노해방이 시기상조라는 농노소유자들의 주장과 같다.”) 그러나 훗날 레닌과 볼세비키는 소비에트를 당에 종속시키고, 공장위원회의 권력을 점진적으로 제한하면서 엄격한 생산관리라는 관점에서 노동조합을 통한 국가의 노동력관리라는 접근법에 가까워지면서, 노동자 자주관리의 이상과 멀어져갔다. 따라서 러시아혁명에서 가장 중요한 쟁점은 레닌이 4월 테제로부터 멀어져 가면서 혁명운동이 약화되고, 결국 ‘레닌주의’라는 이름의 스탈린주의에게 기회를 주었다는 좌익적 비판이다. 문제가 이러한데, 마치 레닌의 4월테제가 무정부주의였고, 그것이 가장 문제였다는 식의 주장은 러시아혁명에 대한 비판적 재인식이라는 관점에서 볼 때 완전히 엉뚱하다 못해 심난하게 황당한 주장이다.

 

러시아 혁명에서 레닌의 혁명적 기여가 <4월 테제>였다는 것은 나로서도 동의할 수 있는 것이다. 그리고 심지어 임필수씨가 러시아혁명의 실패 이유를 레닌과 볼세비키가 <4월 테제>에서 멀어져 간 데에서, 즉 ‘소비에트를 당에 종속’시키고 ‘노동자 자주관리의 이상과 멀어져’ 간 데에서 찾는 것도 어느 정도는 이해할만 하다.

 

그러나 여기에는 중요한 질문이 빠져있다. 왜 <4월 테제>를 쓴 레닌은 그렇게 자신의 입장을 배반할 수밖에 없었는가? 왜 평의회는 당 또는 국가(또는 당-국가)에 종속될 수밖에 없었는가? 레닌의 불철저함이나 실수 때문이었는가? 레닌이 너무 일찍 죽었기 때문인가? 아니면 스탈린이 권력을 잡았기 때문인가? 그렇다면 다른 실패들은 어떠한가? 사실 모택동의 문화 대혁명도 평의회 운동으로 해석될 수 있고, 그것도 중국 공산당을 (임필수씨가 말하듯이 “사령부를 포격하라!”고 외치며) 겨냥한 강력한 것으로 해석될 수 있지만, 여전히 그것은 최종적으로 당-국가에 종속될 수밖에 없었다. 왜?

 

이에 대해 평의회 운동이 당-국가에 종속되었으므로 실패했다고 말하는 것은 보다시피 동어반복일 뿐이다. 이는 설명이 아니라 오히려 진정한 설명에의 시도를 가로막는 장애물로 작용하고 있다는 점을 봐야한다. 이런 식으로 혁명 실패의 원인을 설명하는 것은(설명한다고 생각하는 것은) 결국 당에 종속되지 않은, 국가에 종속되지 않은, 당-국가에 더욱 철저히 대립하는 평의회 운동의 ‘순수성’을 되찾아야 한다는 불모적 답변으로 이어질 뿐이고, 이러한 답변은 사실 질문 자체에서 이미 예상된 허구적 답변만을 반복적으로 제공하고 있다는 점에서 정확히 이데올로기적 봉합으로 기능한다.

 

<4월 테제>를 다시 읽어보기 바란다. 거기에는 ‘소비에트가 혁명정부의 유일하게 가능한 형태’라는 주장과 나란히, ‘소비에트 내에서 볼세비키는 여전히 다수파가 아니며 대중은 아직 혁명이 요청하는 정치의식의 수준에 도달하지 못했으므로, 볼세비키는 대중이 역사적 경험을 통해 스스로 이 수준에 도달하도록 소비에트 안에서 도와야 한다’는 주장이 펼쳐지고 있음을 볼 수 있다. 즉 볼세비즘 또는 전위주의는 <4월 테제>에서 사라진 것이 아니라, 평의회로의 권력이양의 주장과 함께 배치되어 있는 것이다.

 

어쩌면 이 대목에서 임필수 씨는 ‘그것이 레닌의 잘못이었으며, 이 결점을 (모든 종류의 의식성에 반대하고 완전한 노동대중의 자생성에 입각하여 혁명운동을 사고하려고 한) 판네쿠크로 보완해야 한다’고 말할지도 모른다. 즉 그는 방금 전에 내가 말한 이데올로기적 봉합을 시도하면서, ‘평의회 운동의 당으로부터의 더 많은 순수성을 회복하라’는 주장을 할지도 모른다.

 

그러나 레닌은 그렇게 나이브하지 않았다. 그리고 사실은 이 점이 바로 레닌의 <4월 테제>의 혁명적 기여다. 레닌은 정확히 하나 없이는 다른 하나도 없다는 것을 잘 알았다. <4월 테제>에서 볼세비즘과 소비에트로의 권력 이양의 주장은 하나의 필연적인 통일체를 이루고 있다. 일종의 ‘이율배반’과 같은 것이 여기에서 작동하고 있는데, 완전히 대립되는 두 가지가 둘 다 틀리거나 둘 다 맞을 수는 있지만, 둘 중 하나만 맞고 다른 하나는 틀린 것이 될 수 없다. 후진적 대중의 자생성만으로도 혁명에 미달하고, 전위의 의식성만으로도 혁명에 미달한다. 만일 이 둘 중 하나만으로 성공적 혁명을 우리가 달성할 수 있다면, 맑스주의의 위기라는 것은 그 자체로 얼마나 거대한 조크(joke)가 될 것인가? <4월 테제>를 반으로 자르고 좋은 반쪽만 우리가 가져올 수 있다면, 우리는 마침내 혁명 성공의 (‘사실적’은 아니라고 해도) ‘논리적 보증’을 얻을 수 있을 것이고, 다시는 맑스주의의 위기 따위로 골머리를 썩이지 않아도 될 것이다. 1970년대 말에 ‘맑스주의의 위기’가 최종적이며 총체적인 위기라고 말했던 알튀세르와 발리바르는 20세기에 가장 실없는 말을 했던 맑스주의자로 기억될 것이다.

 

그러나 맑스주의의 위기에 대해서 말하기 전에, <4월 테제>에 대해서 조금만 더 이야기 해보자. 왜 우리가 <4월 테제>의 좋은 반쪽만을 취해올 수 없는지를 조금 더 분명하게 설명해보자. <4월 테제>는 혁명이 요청하는 정치의식의 수준에 대중이 아직 도달하지 못했다고 말하면서, 그것의 지표를 볼세비키가 소비에트 안에서 다수파가 아니라는 데에서 발견한다. 즉시 문제가 되는 것은 바로 분파들의 실존이다. 볼세비키 내의 분파들이 아니라, 당 내의 분파들이 아니라, 소비에트 내의 분파들, 또는 대중 내의 분파들 말이다. 문제는 이 분파들이 극복되지 않는다면, 혁명적 주체가 현실적으로 구성될 수 없다는 점에 있다. <4월 테제>가 강조하는 볼세비키의 임무는 바로 소비에트 내에서 타 분파들의 기회주의적 성격을 대중 앞에 폭로함으로써 그들을 무력화시키는 데에 있었다는 점을 기억하자.

 

여기서 중요한 질문은 ‘과연 볼세비키만이 정말 그 당시 혁명적이었을까?’가 아니다. 그 질문은 흥미롭지만, 그 보다 더욱 근본적인 질문이 있다. 즉, 대중은 자생적으로 다양한 분파들로 이루어져 있는데, 볼세비즘 없이 어떻게 이 분파들을 극복하고 그들을 하나의 단일한 혁명적 주체로 통일-구성할 수 있단 말인가? 이 거대한 딜레마에 대해서 평의회주의는 결코 답하지 못한다. 왜냐하면 평의회주의는 대중은 자생적으로 혁명적임을, 대중은 이미 혁명적 주체임을 가정하고 출발하기 때문이다. 자신에게 주어진 질문을 평의회주의는 자신의 전제로 만들고 출발한다.

 

다시 한 번 묻자. <4월 테제>는 왜 스스로를 배반했는가? 왜 레닌은 자신의 <테제>에서 멀어질 수밖에 없었는가? 나는 이렇게 생각한다. 왜냐하면--이것이 적어도 가능한 진정한 설명이다--대중이 혁명적 주체로 구성될 수 있는 것은 (볼세비키들의 활동 자체를 포함하여) 오직 정세의 효과로서만 가능하기 때문이다. 대중은, 아니 더 정확히 말해서 대중들은, 오직 정세적으로만 분파를 극복하고 하나의 단일한 ‘혁명적 주체’가 될 수 있을 뿐이며, 이 때문에 대중은 결코 ‘역사의 주체’가 아니라 ‘정치의 주체’로서만 출현할 수 있다.

 

맑스가 말했듯이, 혁명적 정세에 사람들은 자신들의 차이를 잊어버린다. 이것이 바로 발리바르가 헤겔의 테제, ‘내가 곧 우리고 우리가 곧 나다’를 원용하여 다시 말하는 것이기도 하다(지나가는 김에, 이 테제에 대한 윤소영교수의 해석은 완전히 잘못됐다는 점을 지적하자). 즉 그 테제는 혁명적 정세 속에서 대중이 수행적으로 주체로 구성되는 순간, 분파들 간의 입장차가 갑자기 더 이상 그렇게 문제가 되지 않는 순간, 양립불가능한 다양한 입장을 가진 자들이 하나로 모이는 순간, 심지어 그들이 자신의 입장과 반대로 행동하기 시작하는 순간, 무정부주의자들이 정부에 참여하질 않나 국가주의자들이 평의회적 실천을 하질 않나 하는 바로 그 순간을 가리킨다. 나와 우리 사이의 거리가 사라져버리는 시간. 즉 “절대적 공동체”의 시간, 혁명의 시간, 그것이 온 것이다! 그런데, 이러한 혁명의 시간은 안타깝게도 계속 머물러 있지 않는다. 그것은 떠난다. 혁명을, 돌이킬 수 없이, 떠난다. 그리고 정세와 함께, 정세 속에서만 주체가 될 수 있는 혁명적 대중도 떠난다. 이것을 막을 수 있는 자는 어디에도 없다.

 

<4월 테제>는 왜 스스로를 배반할 수밖에 없었는가? 물론 여러 가지 이유가 있었을 것이다. 혁명에 안 좋은 내외의 조건들...그러나 더욱 근원적으로, 더욱 이론적으로, 그것은 대중들이 다시 분파들로 갈라지기 시작했기 때문이다. 그 포스트-혁명의 시간에, 어떻게 혁명적 주체를 유지할 수 있단 말인가? 평의회주의자들은 정세의 효과로서 나타나는 혁명적 주체로서의 대중을 언제나 존재해온/존재할 역사의 주체로 착각한다. 레닌은 정세의 효과로서 나타나는 혁명적 주체로서의 대중을 역사의 주체로 영속화시키기 위해, 장치들을 동원해 대중들을 제약하고 종속시키기 시작한다.

 

그런데 이것이 과연 러시아 혁명에서만 일어났던 일일까? 사실 이것은 역사 속에서 우리가 반복적으로(물론 상이한 조건 하에서지만) 보아왔던 일이 아닌가? 비근한 예로 우리는 전노협이 민주노총으로, 그리고 심지어 지금과 같은 나락으로 떨어져온 과정을 들 수 있다. 이 과정을 보면서 우리가 이러저러한 사람들을, 이러저러한 분파들을 손가락질 하는 것은 매우 쉬운 일이다. 그러나 손가락질 하는 사람들이 잊고 있는 것은 바로 이러한 혁명적 주체의 분열이란 그 자체 완전히 필연적인 포스트-혁명적 과정의 물질적 전개일 뿐이라는 사실이다. 대중들의 피로도가 증가하고, 대중들 자체 내에서의 갈등들이 재등장하면, 그들은 분파들로 분열하여 싸우기 시작할 것이다(크론슈타트 수병들의 반란에서 볼 수 있듯이 이는 심지어 피를 동반하는 과정이 될 수도 있을 것이다). 혁명적 프롤레타리아트를 대표했던 분파가 개량화되거나 또는 기득권을 쥔 집단으로 변질되고, 프롤레타리아트라는 이름 자체를 이제 누군가가 차지해버렸기 때문에, 즉 그것이 하나의 ‘지배적 동일성’으로 변해버렸기 때문에, 이제는 그 이름조차 붙여줄 수 없는, 어떻게 이름 붙여야 좋을지 알지 못할, 또 다른 “몫이 없는 자들”의 등장이 이어진다(문화대혁명에 적극 참여한 세력은 심지어 전(前)부르주아지들의 자식들로 이루어져 있었다). 이러한 과정 속에서 우리는 혁명을 어떻게 사고해야 하는가? 대중정치를 어떻게 사고해야 하는가?

 

이는 결코 쉬운 문제가 아니다. 이 문제가 고전적 맑스주의의 틀 내에서는 좀처럼 해결될 수 없는 문제라고 생각한 알튀세르와 발리바르는 70년대 말 맑스주의의 위기, 그것도 총체적인 마지막 위기를 선언했다(양자의 차이점은 이 위기를 사고한 방식에 있었고 나는 ‘역자해제’에서 그 점을 문제 삼았지만, 이 점은 일단 차치해 두자). 이 위기가 총체적인 마지막 위기라는 것은 맑스주의가 해체/전화되지 않는다면, 그리하여 알튀세르 자신이 말했듯이 심지어 우리가 알아보지 못할 정도로까지 변화하지 않는다면, 극복될 수 없는 것이다. 알튀세르는 사실 많이 아팠고, 이 작업을 책임질 상황이 전혀 아니었다(이미 그는 70년대 초 마슈레에게 그가 새로운 작업을 시작할 수 없을 정도로 아프다고 고백했으며 알다시피 80년에 그는 자신의 아내를 비극적으로 교살함으로써 사회적 발언권을 모두 빼앗긴다). 아마도 (다른 사람들과 함께) 이 작업을 지금까지 해온 것은 발리바르라고 볼 수 있을 것인데, 네 번째 공산주의를 사고하기 위해 투여된 그의 이론적 노고가 바로 그것이다.

 

다시 한 번 강조하자, 이러한 의미에서의 네 번째 공산주의는 우리가 알아보기 힘들 정도로까지 변한 것이어야 한다. 임필수씨가 알아보기 힘들 정도로! 하지만 임필수씨와 또 다른 사람들은 자꾸 과거로 돌아간다. 최원씨는 왜 과거의 모든(sic!) 맑스주의를 해체하려고 하냐고 말하면서 그들은 자꾸 자신들이 알아볼 수 있는 것으로 돌아가려한다. 알아볼 수 있는 것 가운데 어떤 좋은 것으로. 과거의 어떤 아직 유효한 것으로. <4월 테제>의 그 좋은 반쪽으로.

 

(쓸 데 없는 오해를 피하기 위해, 한마디 해두자. 나는 ‘모든 맑스주의를 해체해야 한다’는 식의 주장을 해본 적이 없다. 반대로 나는 맑스의 역사과학 안에는 여전히 해체할 수 없는 어떤 것들이 있다고 본다. 그것은 “사회적 관계”라는 개념, “계급 적대”라는 개념, “이윤율의 경향적 저하”라는 개념 등이다. 그러나 나는 이 과학적 개념들을 역사과학 자체 안에서 에워싸고 있는 형이상학적 전제들과 관념들, 특히 사회와 국가의 대당에 기초한 관념들은 모조리 해체해야 한다고 생각한다. 이런 의미에서의 맑스주의의 해체라면, 그렇다, 나는 그것을 주장했다.)

 

어쨌든, 임필수 씨가 과거의 어떤 좋은 것, 어떤 유효한 것으로 돌아가려고 하는 것을 볼 때, 내가 떠올리는 것은 아이러니하게도 윤소영 교수에게서 내가 아주 오래 전에 배운 어떤 이론적 교훈이다. 아직 내가 윤소영 교수를 (나 혼자서지만) 나의 “선생”이라고 생각했을 때 읽은 구절이다. 16년 전에....

 

[마르크스주의의 위기에 대응하는 세 번째 잘못된 태도는 다음과 같다.] 마르크스주의를 ‘하나의 이론적 체계’로 간주하면서, 지금까지의 마르크스주의를 청산하거나 자신의 이론적 전통만은 ‘위기’와 무관하다고 주장하는 태도들, 또는 마르크스주의의 ‘이론적 체계’ 속에서 죽은 것과 산 것, 낡은 것과 현재적인 것을 형이상학적으로 구분하여 사회적 현실의 변화에 따라 역사적 시효를 다한 죽은 것, 낡은 것을 버림으로써 마르크스주의를 순화하거나 다시 ‘체계화’하려는 태도. ‘마르크스주의의 위기’를 이론적으로 반성하고자 할 때 흔히 드러나는 이러한 태도들은 마르크스주의가 마르크스주의 이론과 노동자운동의 정치적 실천의 ‘융합’ 속에서 존재하는 하나의 ‘역사적, 모순적 구성물’임을 보지 않는다. 따라서 ‘마르크스주의의 위기’ 속에서 마르크스주의의 전화(transformation)라는 문제를 제기하지 못하는 것이다.

(윤소영, “알튀세르를 다시 읽으며 ‘마르크스주의의 위기’를 다시 생각한다”, [이론] 1호, 43-44쪽, 강조는 인용자)

 

맑스주의 이론과 노동자운동의 정치적 실천의 융합의 모순! 이는 바로 <4월 테제>의 바로 그 모순, 그 이율배반이 아닌가! 의식성과 자생성, 이론과 실천! 그것 가운데 좋은 반쪽, 아직 시효 지나지 않은 반쪽을 택함으로써 맑스주의의 위기를 극복할 수 있다고 믿는 것은 잘못이라고 말한 것은 16년전 윤소영 교수 자신이었다. 16년이라는 긴 세월이 지난 지금, ‘평의회맑스주의’를 주장하는 그는 전진했는가, 아니면 후퇴했는가? 그는 맑스주의의 위기를 돌파했는가(돌파하고 있는가), 아니면 그 앞에서 뒷걸음질 쳤는가?

 

사실 윤소영 교수의 저 구절은 발리바르의 텍스트의 일부를 가지고 오면서 그가 약간의 해설을 가한 것이다. 발리바르의 본래 텍스트로 가면, 우리는 다음과 같은 구절도 함께 읽을 수 있다.

 

다른 한 편 우리는 이러한 이론과 실천의 조우와 조합을 부단히 표징하는 비상한 양면성을 재는 데 매여 있다. 노동자운동에 대한 맑스주의의 관계는 ... 노동자운동에 부여된 하나의 경향이 아니라 서로 대립하는 극단의 쌍들을, 요컨대 노동자운동의 ‘이율배반’을 항상 표현한 그러한 요소를 구성하였다. 그 대립쌍들은 다음과 같은 것들이다. 당 형태의 ‘제국주의’, 그러나 또한 당형태에 대한 ‘조합적’, 자주관리적 또는 ‘평의회주의적’ 대안; 개량주의적 내지 선거주의적 진화주의와 혁명적 주의주의; 민족주의 더욱이 사회-민족주의와 국제주의 또는 반식민주의; ‘국가숭배’(따라서 경우에 따라서는 국가의 지도자[수령]에 대한 숭배)와 ‘대중노선’에 다소간 깊이 연계된 반국가주의(또한 오직 그것만이 진정 역사를 ‘만든다’는 ‘대중의 자연발생성’에 대한 무정부주의적 숭배도 언급해야 할 것이다)...이러한 조건들 속에서(이 테제를 자신의 편의대로 해설하는 일은 각자에게 맡기기로 하자) 맑스주의가, 또는 적어도 맑스주의에 의해 의미부여된 정치적 담론과 실천이 한 세기 동안 극히 모순적인, 곧 혁명적이고 반혁명적인 효과를 산출해 왔다는 점에, 그리고 오늘날 아직도 이 모순이 맑스주의가 세계에서 수행하는 역할에 특징적이라는 점에 놀랄 필요가 있을까?

(발리바르, [역사유물론의 전화], 민맥, 213쪽, 강조는 인용자)

 

“오늘날 아직도”! 이러한 모순에 대한 논쟁과 고민은 ‘후위전’과는 아무 상관이 없다. 왜냐하면 이 모순은 맑스주의의 위기의 중핵을 이루는 것이기 때문이다. 나는 윤소영 교수가 다시 초심으로 돌아와서 이 맑스주의의 위기라는 문제를 정면으로 바라보길 진심으로 바란다.

 

나에게 분명한 것 가운데 하나는, 우리는 맑스주의를 관통하는 서로 대립하는 극단의 쌍들 가운데 어느 한 쪽을 택함으로써 우리가 맞닥뜨린 이 위기를 넘어설 수 없다는 것이다. 또 다른 하나는, 우리는 이제 대중정치를 더욱 더 복잡하게 생각해야 한다는 것이다.

 

평의회라는 조직 형태는 아마도 혁명적 정세 속에서 어떤 제한된 유효성을 가질 수 있을지도 모른다. 하지만 그것은 대안사회에서의 제도들의 조직 및 국가장치의 구성이라는 문제를 전혀 해결하지 못한다. 우선 우리는 발리바르가 말하듯이, ‘봉기’와 ‘직접민주주의적 제도형태’를 상대적으로 분리해서 생각해야 한다. 전자가 대중의 봉기적 행위, 실천으로서의 ‘정치’로 분류될 수 있는 것이라면, 후자는 여전히 제도적인 것으로서 ‘정치적인 것’ 속에 분류될 수 있는 것이다. 심지어 평의회라는 조직형태는 ‘봉기’를 ‘구성’으로 전환시키는 여러 제도형식들 가운데 하나일 뿐이라고 말할 수 있으며, 그것도 가장 효과적인 것은 분명 아니라고 말할 수 있다. 왜냐하면 평의회라는 직접민주주의적 제도 형태는 구성된-통일된 주체의 자율성과 자기동일성을 긍정(confirm)하는 것에만 초점을 맞춤으로써, 그러한 동일성을 이질적인 차이들에 개방하는 역할을 하기 곤란하기 때문이다(즉 그것은 ‘정치의 타율성’과 특히 ‘타율성의 타율성’을 사고하지 못하게 만든다).

전에도 지적했듯이, 발리바르가 ‘직접민주주의를 기본으로 대의제민주주의를 활용하자’고 하지 않고 반대로 ‘대의제 민주주의를 기본으로 직접민주주의적 요소를 활용하자’고 주장하는 것은 바로 이 때문인데, 여기서 그가 말하는 ‘대의(representation)’의 핵심은 사회의 이러저러한 부분들의 정당한 몫을 대의하는 것에 있는 것이 아니라, 체계를 넘어서는 갈등, 즉 (봉기를 넘어서) 다시금 생겨나는 “몫이 없는 자들”을 대의하는 것에 있다. 발리바르는 이러한 대의를 위한 효과적인 제도 형태와 국가장치의 구성이라는 문제를 마키아벨리의 정리를 이용하여 ‘갈등적 민주주의’라는 관념을 통해 제기하고 있는데, 이것이 사실은 그가 시도하는 해방의 정치와 시민인륜의 정치의 결합의 최대 쟁점 가운데 하나인 것이다([대중들의 공포]의 ‘역자해제’를 참조하라).

 

발리바르의 ‘이론적 무정부주의’ 비판은 이러한 고민들의 진정한 출발점을 이룬다. 임필수씨를 비롯한 일부 사람들은 나에게 이렇게 묻는다: 왜 발리바르 이전의 맑스주의자들의 입장을 모두 ‘이론적 무정부주의’로 규정짓는가? 이에 대한 답변은 의외로 간단하다. 왜냐하면 맑스주의에 고질적인 국가와 (시민)사회의 대당(opposition)에 대한 비판이 발리바르 이전에는 단 한 번도 제대로 이루어진 적이 없기 때문이다. 이로 인해 국가는 정확히 맑스주의의 이론적 공백으로 남았으며(보비오 앞에서 할 말을 잃고 당황했던 맑스주의자들을 기억하는가), 사회운동과 대중운동은 맑스주의에 의해 언제나 국가 바깥에서, 외재적인 방식으로, 사고될 수밖에 없었다. 사실 이는 당연한 것인데, 왜냐하면 (80년대의) 발리바르 이전에는 어느 누구도 맑스의 ‘정치경제학 비판’의 의미를 ‘국가와 노동과정의 단락’을 통해 규명하지 못했으며, 더 나아가서 신념과 교통의 체계라는 (경제적인 것으로 환원될 수 없는) 또 다른 정치의 토대와 함께 사고하지 못했기 때문이다(주지하다시피 맑스에 스피노자를 결합할 필요성이 제기되는 것은 바로 여기다).

 

사람들은 곧바로 이렇게 물어올 것이다. ‘아마도... 그러나 알튀세르는 정확히 이데올로기적 국가장치들을 사고하지 않았던가? 왜 알튀세르마저 이론적 무정부주의자로 규정하는가?’ 알튀세르가 이데올로기와 그 장치들에 대한 사고를 전면화했다는 것은 사실이다. 그러나 알튀세르는 여전히 이데올로기를 경제적인 것 속에 그것의 기능들 중 하나로 기입하는 경향을 가지고 있었으며(재생산), 더 나아가서 이데올로기적 지배의 메커니즘에 대한 고전적 맑스주의의 이해와 분명히 단절하지 못했다. 알튀세르가 지배(국가)와 피지배(대중/사회운동)의 관계를 매우 외재적인 방식으로 파악할 수밖에 없었던 것은 바로 이 때문인데, 알튀세르의 사고 속에 있던 이러한 모순들을 이론적으로 규명하고 이데올로기적 지배의 내재적 변증법을 정식화한 것(지배 이데올로기는 지배계급의 것이 아니라 피지배자들의 것이라는 테제로 집약되는)은 주지하다시피 발리바르다. 발리바르의 ‘이론적 무정부주의’ 비판은 따라서 그의 정치경제학 비판, 또는 비판의 비판의 문제설정의 잠정적인 귀결점을 이루는 것이다. 그리고 이 때문에 그것은 사회운동(또는 대중운동)과 국가(적 제도)의 관계를 해명하는 데에서도 특권적인 지위를 부여받을 수 있는 것이다.

 

2008년 4월 27일

최 원

------------------------------

<보 유>

먼저 10월 혁명 이후 소련에서 분파 문제가 어떻게 전개되었는지를 보기 위해, 여기 관련되는 발리바르의 설명을 인용해보자. 발리바르의 설명은 러시아혁명 이후 분파들의 실존 또는 재등장이 얼마나 중대한 문제로 부상했는지를 잘 보여준다. 볼세비키 당의 성격은 바로 이 문제를 중심으로 변해 나간다. 우선 레닌에 관련된 부분은 크론슈타트 반란 직후 볼세비키 당 내부에서 격렬해진 분파들 간의 갈등에 레닌이 어떤 식으로 대응했는지를 보여주는 부분이고, 스탈린 관련된 부분은 이러한 레닌의 대응이 스탈린에 의해 어떻게 도착되었는지를 보여주는 부분이다.

 

발리바르, “분파형성권 개념의 모순” 중   1. 레닌의 경우   소련이 "전시공산주의"에서 NEP로 이행하는 계기인--따라서 외국의 간섭, 내전, 징용 및 징발에 대한 농민의 저항들, 경제적 곤궁 등에 의해 초래된 극도의 긴장의 와중이며 크론슈타트 반란의 직후인--1921년에, 볼셰비키 당의 10차 대회는 [당의 통일성에 대한 결의]를 채택하는데, 그것은 특히 "노동자반대파"(콜론타이, 실리아니코프)의 테제들의 오류를 비판하고 당 내부에서 독자적 "분파들의 조직"을 금지한다. 10차 당대회의 결정은 격심한 당내 갈등들이 소비에트 국가의 실존 자체를 위험에 빠뜨리는 위기적 정세 속에서 불가피한 잠정적인 "억압적" 조치라고 명시적으로 설명된다. 반면 그것은 당 내부에서 특히 기층조직들 속에서 "내부회보"의 창설에 의해 다양한 정치적 입장들의 모순적 토론을 발전시키는 경향을 갖는 예방책과 보정책을 수반한다. 명백히 레닌과 다수파의 목표는 모든 견해차이를 억누르는 것이 아니라 열려진 변증법[공개적 대화]에 의한 그 해결을 허용하는 것이다. 그리고 물론 당대회가 상이한 행동강령들을 검토하는 것을 금지하거나 다양한 조류들이 지도적 조직들에 접근하는 것을 금지하는 것이 문제는 아니다. 특히 이 점에 대해서 레닌은 리야자노프의 최대주의적 제안에 반대한다.   2. 스탈린의 경우   스탈린은 외견상 훨씬 더 엄격한 당 이론을 제안한다. [레닌주의의 기초들](1924) 속에서 그는 당을 "프롤레타리아의 전투사령부", 혹은 "노동자계급의 조직화된 부분", 그 "조직자적 핵심", 따라서 다른 계급조직들(노동조합, 협동조합)이 "전토벨트들"처럼 그 주위를 도는 중심으로 정의한다. 주변조직들이 계급의식의 불균등발전에 조응하는 일정한 다원주의를 유지할 수 있고 또 유지해야 한다고 해도, 당에 대해서는 그 반대가 유효하다. 당은 "상급 및 하급의 지도조직들, 다수파에 대한 소수파의 복종"을 포함하는 "총체"를 구성한다.

 

레닌 볼세비키 10차 당대회 연설 (1921) 중

Part IV: Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)

8

Preliminary Draft Resolution Of

The Tenth Congress Of The R.C.P.

On Party Unity

1. The Congress calls the attention of all members of the Party to the fact that the unity and cohesion of the ranks of the Party, the guarantee of complete mutual confidence among Party members and genuine team-work that really embodies the unanimity of will of the vanguard of the proletariat, are particularly essential at the present time, when a number of circumstances are increasing the vacillation among the petty-bourgeois population of the country.

2. Notwithstanding this, even before the general Party discussion on the trade unions, certain signs of factionalism had been apparent in the Party?the formation of groups with separate platforms, striving to a certain degree to segregate and create their own group discipline. Such symptoms of factionalism were manifested, for example, at a Party conference in Moscow (November 1920) and at a Party conference in Kharkov,[28] by the so-called Workers’ Opposition group, and partly by the so-called Democratic Centralism group.

All class-conscious workers must clearly realise that factionalism of any kind is harmful and impermissible, for no matter how members of individual groups may desire to safeguard Party unity, factionalism in practice inevitably leads to the weakening of team-work and to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the governing Party, who have wormed their way into it, to widen the cleavage and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes.

The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from a thoroughly consistent commu- nist line was perhaps most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and whiteguards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of the Soviet power. These facts fully prove that the whiteguards strive, and are able, to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as the most Left-wing Communists, solely for the purpose of weakening and destroying the bulwark of the proletarian revolution in Russia. Menshevik leaflets distributed in Petrograd on the eve of the Kronstadt mutiny likewise show how the Mensheviks took advantage of the disagreements and certain rudiments of factionalism in the Russian Communist Party actually in order to egg on and support the Kronstadt mutineers, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the whiteguards, while claiming to be opponents of mutiny and supporters of the Soviet power, only with supposedly slight modifications.

3. In this question, propaganda should consist, on the one hand, in a comprehensive explanation of the harmfulness and danger of factionalism from the standpoint of Party unity and of achieving unanimity of will among the vanguard of the proletariat as the fundamental condition for the success of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and, on the other hand, in an explanation of the peculiar features of the latest tactical devices of the enemies of the Soviet power. These enemies, having realised the hopelessness of counter-revolution under an openly whiteguard flag, are now doing their utmost to utilise the disagreements within the Russian Communist Party and to further the counter-revolution in one way or another by transferring power to a political group which is outwardly closest to recognition of the Soviet power.

Propaganda must also teach the lessons of preceding revolutions, in which the counter-revolution made a point of supporting the opposition to the extreme revolutionary party which stood closest to the latter, in order to undermine and overthrow the revolutionary dictatorship and thus pave the way for the subsequent complete victory of the counter-revolution, of the capitalists and landowners.

4. In the practical struggle against factionalism, every organisation of the Party must take strict measures to prevent all factional actions. Criticism of the Party’s shortcomings, which is absolutely necessary, must be conducted in such a way that every practical proposal shall be submitted immediately, without any delay, in the most precise form possible, for consideration and decision to the leading local and central bodies of the Party. Moreover, every critic must see to it that the form of his criticism takes account of the position of the Party, surrounded as it is by a ring of enemies, and that the content of his criticism is such that, by directly participating in Soviet and Party work, he can test the rectification of the errors of the Party or of individual Party members in practice. Analyses of the Party’s general line, estimates of its practical experience, check-ups of the fulfilment of its decisions, studies of methods of rectifying errors, etc., must under no circumstances be submitted for preliminary discussion to groups formed on the basis of “platforms”, etc., but must in all cases be submitted for discussion directly to all the members of the Party. For this purpose, the Congress orders a more regular publication of Diskussionny Listok[29] and special symposiums to promote unceasing efforts to ensure that criticism shall be concentrated on essentials and shall not assume a form capable of assisting the class enemies of the proletariat.

5. Rejecting in principle the deviation towards syndicalism and anarchism, which is examined in a special resolution,[30] and instructing the Central Committee to secure the complete elimination of all factionalism, the Congress at the same time declares that every practical proposal concerning questions to which the so-called Workers’ Opposition group, for example, has devoted special attention, such as purging the Party of non-proletarian and unreliable elements, combating bureaucratic practices, developing democracy and workers’ initiative, etc., must be examined with the greatest care and tested in practice. The Party must know that we have not taken all the necessary measures in regard to these questions because of various obstacles, but that, while ruthlessly rejecting impractical and factional pseudo-criticism, the Party will unceasingly continue?trying out new methods?to fight with all the means at its disposal against the evils of bureaucracy, for the extension of democracy and initiative, for detecting, exposing and expelling from the Party elements that have wormed their way into its ranks, etc.

6. The Congress, therefore, hereby declares dissolved and orders the immediate dissolution of all groups without exception formed on the basis of one platform or another (such as the Workers’ Opposition group, the Democratic Centralism group, etc.). Non-observance of this decision of the Congress shall entail unconditional and instant expulsion from the Party.

7. In order to ensure strict discipline within the Party and in all Soviet work and to secure the maximum unanimity in eliminating all factionalism, the Congress authorises the Central Committee, in cases of breach of discipline or of a revival or toleration of factionalism, to apply all Party penalties, including expulsion, and in regard to members of the Central Committee, reduction to the status of alternate members and, as an extreme measure, expulsion from the Party. A necessary condition for the application of such an extreme measure to members of the Central Committee, alternate members of the Central Committee and members of thc Control Commission is the convocation of a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee, to which all alternate members of the Central Committee and all members of the Control Commission shall be invited. If such a general assembly of the most responsible leaders of the Party deems it necessary by a two-thirds majority to reduce a member of the Central Committee to the status of alternate member, or to expel him from the Party, this measure shall be put into effect immediately.[31]

Published according to the manuscript

9

Preliminary Draft Resolution Of

The Tenth Congress Of The R.C.P.

On The Syndicalist And Anarchist Deviation In Our Party

1. A syndicalist and anarchist deviation has been definitely revealed in our Party in the past few months. It calls for the most resolute measures of ideological struggle and also for purging the Party and restoring its health.

2. The said deviation is due partly to the influx into the Party of former Mensheviks, and also of workers and peasants who have not yet fully assimilated the communist world outlook. Mainly, however, this deviation is due to the influence exercised upon the proletariat and on the Russian Communist Party by the petty-bourgeois element, which is exceptionally strong in our country, and which inavitably engenders vacillation towards anarchism, particularly at a time when the condition of the masses has greatly deteriorated as a consequence of the crop failure and the devastating effects of war, and when the demobilisation of the army numbering millions sets loose hundreds and hundreds of thousands of peasants and workers unable immediately to find regular means of livelihood.

3. The most theoretically complete and clearly defined expression of this deviation (or : one of the most complete, etc., expressions of this deviation) is the theses and other literary productions of the so-called Workers’ Opposition group. Sufficiently illustrative of this is, for example, the following thesis propounded by this group: “The organisation of the management of the national economy is the function of an All-Russia Congress of Producers organised in industrial unions which shall elect a central body to run the whole of the national economy of the Republic.”

The ideas at the bottom of this and numerous similar statements are radically wrong in theory, and represent a complete break with Marxism and communism, with the practical experience of all semi-proletarian revolutions and of the present proletarian revolution.

First, the concept “producer” combines proletarians with semi-proletarians and small commodity producers, thus radically departing from tbe fundamental concept of the class struggle and from the fundamental demand that a precise distinction be drawn between classes.

Secondly, the bidding for or flirtation with the non-Party masses, which is expressed in the above-quoted thesis, is an equally radical departure from Marxism.

Marxism teaches?and this tenet has not only been formally endorsed by the whole of the Communist International in the decisions of the Second (1920) Congress of the Comintern on the role of the political party of the proletariat, but has also been confirmed in practice by our revolution?that only the political party of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party, is capable of uniting, training and organising a vanguard of the proletariat and of the whole mass of the working people that alone will be capable of withstanding the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass and the inevitable traditions and relapses of narrow craft unionism or craft prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all the united activities of the whole of the proletariat, i.e., of leading it politically, and through it, the whole mass of the working peop]e. Without this the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible.

The wrong understanding of the role of the Communist Party in its relation to the non-Party proletariat, and in the relation of the first and second factors to the whole mass of working people, is a radical theoretical departure from communism and a deviation towards syndicalism and anarchism, and this deviation permeates all the views of the Workers’ Opposition group.

4. The Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party declares that it also regards as radically wrong all attempts on the part of the said group and of other persons to defend their fallacious views by referring to Paragraph 5 of the economic section of the Programme of the Russian Com- munist Party, which deals with the role of the trade unions. This paragraph says that “the trade unions should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity” and that they will “ensure in this way indissoluble ties between the central state administration, the national economy and the broad masses of working people”, “drawing” these masses “into direct economic management”.

This paragraph in the Programme of the Russian Communist Party also says that a prerequisite for the state at which the trade unions “should eventually arrive” is the process whereby they increasingly “divest themselves of the narrow craft-union spirit” and embrace the majority “and eventually all” of the working people.

Lastly, this paragraph in the Programme of the Russian Communist Party emphasises that “on the strength of the laws of the R.S.F.S.R., and established practice, the trade unions participate in all the local and central organs of industrial management”.

Instead of studying the practical experience of participation in administration, and instead of developing this experience further, strictly in conformity with successes achieved and mistakes rectified, the syndicalists and anarchists advance as an immediate slogan “congresses or a congress of producers” “to elect” the organs of economic management. Thus, the leading, educational and organising role of the Party in relation to the trade unions of the proletariat, and of the latter to the semi-petty-bourgeois and even wholly petty-bourgeois masses of working people, is completely evaded and eliminated, and instead of continuing and correcting the practical work of building new forms of economy already begun by the Soviet state, we get petty-bourgeois-anarchist disruption of this work, which can only lead to the triumph of the bourgeois counter-revolution.

5. In addition to the theoretical fallacies and a radically wrong attitude towards the practical experience of economic organisation already begun by the Soviet government, the Congress of the Russian Communist Party discerns in the views of this and similar groups and persons a gross political mistake and a direct political danger to the very existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In a country like Russia, the overwhelming preponderance of the petty-bourgeois element and the devastation, impoverishment, epidemics, crop failures, extreme want and hardship inevitably resulting from the war, engender particularly sharp vacillations in the temper of the petty-bourgeois and semi-proletarian masses. First they incline towards a strengthening of the alliance between these masses and the proletariat, and then towards bourgeois restoration. The experience of all revolutions in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries shows most clearly and convincingly that the only possible result of these vacillations?if the unity, strength and influence of the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat is weakened in the slightest degree?will be the restoration of the power and property of the capitalists and landowners.

Hence, the views of the Workers’ Opposition and of like minded elements are not only wrong in theory, but are an expression of petty-bourgeois and anarchist wavering in practice, and actually weaken the consistency of the leading line of the Communist Party and help the class enemies of the proletarian revolution.

6. In view of all this, the Congress of the R.C.P., emphatically rejecting the said ideas, as being expressive of a syndicalist and anarchist deviation, deems it necessary:

First, to wage an unswerving and systematic struggle against these ideas;

Secondly, to recognise the propaganda of these ideas as being incompatible with membership of the R.C.P.

Instructing the C.C. of the Party strictly to enforce these decisions, the Congress at the same time points out that special publications, symposiums, etc., can and should provide space for a most comprehensive exchange of opinion between Party members on all the questions herein indicated.

Published according to the manuscript

10

Report On Party Unity and

The Anarcho-Syndicalist Deviation

March 16 [32]

Comrades, I do not think there is any need to say a great deal on this question because the subjects on which an official pronouncement must now be made on behalf of the Party Congress, that is, on behalf of the whole Party, were touched upon in all the questions discussed at the Congress. The resolution “On Unity” largely contains a characterisation of the political situation. You must have all read the printed text of this resolution that has been distributed. Point 7, which introduces an exceptional measure, namely, the right to expel a member from the Central Committee by a two-thirds majority of a general meeting of members of the C.C., alternate members and members of the Central Control Commission, is not for publication. This measure was repeatedly discussed at private conferences at which representatives of all shades expressed their opinions. Let us hope, comrades, that it will not be necessary to apply this point; but it is necessary to have it, in view of the new situation, when we are on the eve of a new and fairly sharp turn, and want to abolish all traces of separatism.

Let me now deal with the resolution on syndicalist and anarchist deviations. It is the question touched upon in point 4 of the Congress agenda. The definition of our attitude to certain trends, or deviations in thinking, is the pivot of the whole resolution. By saying “deviations”, we emphasise that we do not as yet regard them as something that has crystallised and is absolutely and fully defined, but merely as the beginning of a political trend of which the Party must give its appraisal. Point 3 of the resolution on the syndicalist and anarchist deviation, copies of which you all probably have, evidently contains a misprint (judging by the remarks, it has been noticed). It should read: “illustrative of this is, for example, the following thesis of the Workers’ Opposition: ’The organisation of the manage ment of the national economy is the function of an All-Russia Congress of Producers organised in industrial unions which shall elect a central body to run the whole of the national economy of the Republic.’” We have repeatedly discussed this point during the Congress, at restricted conferences as well as at the open general sessions of the Congress. I think we have already made it clear that it is quite impossible to defend this point on the plea that Engels had spoken of an association of producers, because it is quite obvious, and an exact quotation of the appropriate passage will prove, that Engels was referring to a classless communist society. That is something we all take for granted once society is rid of classes, only the producers remain; without any division into workers and peasants. And we know perfectly well from all the works of Marx and Engels that they drew a very clear distinction between the period in which classes still exist and that in which they no longer do. Marx and Engels used to ridicule the idea that classes could disappear before communism, and said that communism alone meant their abolition.[33]

The position is that we are the first to raise the question of abolishing classes in the practical plane, and that two main classes remain in this peasant country?the working class and the peasantry. Alongside of them, however, are whole groups left over from capitalism.

Our Programme definitely says that we are taking the first steps and shall have a number of transitional stages But in the practical work of Soviet administration and in the whole history of the revolution we have constantly had graphic illustrations of the fact that it is wrong to give theoretical definitions of the kind the opposition has given in this case. We know perfectly well that classes have remained in our country and will remain for a long time to come; and that in a country with a predominantly peasant population they are bound to remain for many, many years. It will take us at least ten years to organise large-scale industry to produce a reserve and secure control of agriculture. This is the shortest period even if the technical conditions are exceptionally favourable. But we know that our conditions are terribly unfavourable. We have a plan for building up Russia on the basis of modern large-scale industry: it is the electrification plan drawn up by our scientists. The shortest period provided for in that plan is ten years, and this is based on the assumption that conditions will be something like normal. But we know perfectly well that we do not have such conditions and it goes without saying that ten years is an extremely short period for us. We have reached the very core of the question: the situation is such that classes hostile to the proletariat will remain, so that in practice we cannot now create that which Engels spoke about. There will be a dictatorship of the proletariat. Then will come the classless society.

Marx and Engels sharply challenged those who tended to forget class distinctions and spoke about producers, the people, or working people in general. Anyone who has read Marx and Engels will recall that in all their works they ridicule those who talk about producers, the people, working people in general. There are no working people or workers in general; there are either small proprietors who own the means of production, and whose mentality and habits are capitalistic?and they cannot be anything else?or wage-workers with an altogether different cast of mind, wage-workers in large-scale industry, who stand in antagonistic contradiction to the capitalists and are ranged in struggle against them.

We have approached this question after three years of struggle, with experience in the exercise of the political power of the proletariat, and knowledge of the enormous difficulties existing in the relationships between classes, which are still there, and with remnants of the bourgeoisie filling the cracks and crevices of our social fabric, and holding office in Soviet institutions. In the circumstances the appearance of a platform containing the theses I have read to you is a clear and obvious syndicalist-anarchist deviation. That is no exaggeration: I have carefully weighed my words. A deviation is not yet a full-blown trend. A deviation is something that can be rectified. People have somewhat strayed or are beginning to stray from the path, but can still be put right. That, in my opinion, is what the Russian word uklon means. It emphasises that there is nothing final in it as yet, and that the matter can be easily rectified; it shows a desire to sound a warning and to raise the question on principle in all its scope. If anyone has a better word to express this idea, let us have it, by all means. I hope we shall not start arguing over words. We are essentially examining this thesis as the main one, so as not to go chasing after a mass of similar ideas, of which the Workers’ Opposition group has a great many. We will leave our writers, and the leaders of this trend to go into the matter, for at the end of the resolution we make a point of saying that special publications and symposiums can and should give space to a more comprehensive exchange of opinion between Party members on all the questions indicated. We cannot now afford to put off the question. We are a party fighting in acute difficulties. We must say to ourselves: if our unity is to be more solid, we must condemn a definite deviation. Since it has come to light, it should be brought out and discussed. If a comprehensive discussion is necessary, let us have it, by all means; we have the men to give chapter and verse on every point, and if we find it relevant and necessary, we shall raise this question internationally as well, for you all know and have just heard the delegate of the Communist International say in his report that there is a certain Leftist deviation in the ranks of the international revolutionary working-class movement. The deviation we are discussing is identical with the anarchist deviation of the German Communist Workers’ Party, the fight against which was clearly revealed at the last Congress of the Communist International.[34] Some of the terms used there to qualify it were stronger than “deviation”. You know that this is an international question. That is why it would be wrong to have done with it by saying, “Let’s have no more discussions. Full stop.” But a theoretical discussion is one thing, and the Party’s political line?a political struggle? is another. We are not a debating society. Of course, we are able to publish symposiums and special publications and will continue to do so but our first duty is to carry on the fight against great odds, and that needs unity. If we are to have proposals, like organising an “All-Russia Congress of Producers”, introduced into the political discussion and struggle, we shall be unable to march forward united and in step. That is not the policy we have projected over the next few years. It is a policy that would disrupt the Party’s team-work, for it is wrong not only in theory, but also in its incorrect definition of the relations between classes?the crucial element which was specified in the resolution of the Second Congress of the Communist International,[35] and without which there is no Marxism. The situation today is such that the non-Party element is yielding to the petty-bourgeois vacillations which are inevitable in Russia’s present economic condition. We must remember that in some respects the internal situation presents a greater danger than Denikin and Yudenich; and our unity must not be formal but must go deep down below the surface. If we are to create this unity, a resolution like the one proposed is indispensable.

The next very important thing in my opinion is Point 4 of this resolution, which gives an interpretation of our Programme. It is an authentic interpretation, that is, the author’s interpretation. Its author is the Congress, and that is why it must give its interpretation in order to put a stop to all this wavering, and to the tricks that are some times being played with our Programme, as if what it says about the trade unions is what some people would like it to say. You have heard Comrade Ryazanov’s criticism of the Programme?let us thank the critic for his theoretical researches. You have heard Comrade Shlyapnikov’s criticism. That is something we must not ignore. I think that here, in this resolution, we have exactly what we need just now. We must say on behalf of the Congress, which endorses the Programme and which is the Party’s supreme organ: here is what we understand the Programme to mean. This, I repeat, does not cut short theoretical discussion. Proposals to amend the Programme may be made; no one has suggested that this should be prohibited. We do not think that our Programme is so perfect as not to require any modification whatever; but just now we have no formal proposals, nor have we allocated any time for the examination of this question. If we read the Programme carefully we shall find the following: “The trade unions . . . should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration”, etc. The words, “should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration”, should be underlined. And a few lines above that we read: “On the strength of the laws . . . the trade unions participate in all the local and central organs of industrial management.” We know that it took decades to build up capitalist industry, with the assistance of all the advanced countries of the world. Are we so childish as to think that we can complete this process so quickly at this time of dire distress and impoverishment, in a country with a mass of peasants, with workers in a minority, and a proletarian vanguard bleeding and in a state of prostration? We have not even laid the main foundation, we have only begun to give an experimental definition of industrial management with the participation of the trade unions. We know that want is the principal obstacle. It is not true to say that we are not enlisting the masses; on the contrary, we give sincere support to anyone among the mass of workers with the least sign of talent, or ability. All we need is for the conditions to ease off ever so little. We need a year or two, at least, of relief from famine. This is an insignificant period of time in terms of history but in our conditions it is a long one. A year or two of relief from famine, with regular supplies of fuel to keep the factories running, and we shall receive a hundred times more assistance from the working class, and far more talent will arise from its ranks than we now have. No one has or can have any doubts about this. The assistance is not forthcoming at present, but not because we do not want it. In fact, we are doing all we can to get it. No one can say that the government, the trade unions, or the Party’s Central Committee have missed a single opportunity to do so. But we know that the want in the country is desperate, that there is hunger and poverty everywhere, and that this very often leads to passivity. Let us not be afraid to call a spade a spade: it is these calamities and evils that are hindering the rise of mass energy. In such a situation, when the statistics tell us that 60 per cent of the members of management boards are workers, it is quite impossible to try to interpret the words in the Programme?“The trade union . . . should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration”, etc.?a la Shlyapnikov.

An authentic interpretation of the Programme will enable us to combine the necessary tactical solidarity and unity with the necessary freedom of discussion, and this is emphasised at the end of the resolution. What does it say in essence? Point 6 reads:

“In view of all this, the Congress of the R.C.P., emphatically rejecting the said ideas, as being expressive of a syndicalist and anarchist deviation, deems it necessary, first, to wage an unswerving and systematic struggle against these ideas; secondly, to recognise the propaganda of these ideas as being incompatible with membership of the R.C.P.

“Instructing the C.C. of the Party strictly to enforce these decisions, the Congress at the same time points out that special publications, symposiums, etc., can and should provide space for a most comprehensive exchange of opinion between Party members on all the questions herein indicated.”

Do you not see?you all who are agitators and propagandists in one way or another?the difference between the propaganda of ideas within political parties engaged in struggle, and the exchange of opinion in special publications and symposiums? I am sure that everyone who takes the trouble to understand this resolution will see the difference. And we hope that the representatives of this deviation whom we-are taking into the Central Committee will treat the decisions of the Party Congress as every class-conscious disciplined Party member does. We hope that with their assistance we, in the Central Committee, shall look into this matter, without creating a special situation. We shall investigate and decide what it is that is going on in the Party?whether it is the propaganda of ideas within a political party engaged in struggle, or the exchange of opinion in special publications and symposiums. There is the opportunity for anyone interested in a meticulous study of quotations from Engels. We have theoreticians who can always give the Party useful advice. That is necessary. We shall publish two or three big collections?that is useful and absolutely necessary. But is this anything like the propaganda of ideas, or a conflict of platforms? How can these two things be confused? They will not be confused by anyone who desires to understand our political situation.

Do not hinder our political work, especially in a difficult situation, but go on with your scientific research. We shall be very happy to see Comrade Shlyapnikov supplement his recent book on his experiences in the underground revolutionary struggle with a second volume written in his spare time over the next few months and analysing the concept of “producer”. But the present resolution will serve as our landmark. We opened the widest and freest discussion. The platform of the Workers’ Opposition was published in the central organ of the Party in 250,000 copies. We have weighed it up from all sides, we have elected delegates on its basis, and finally we have convened this Congress, which, summing up the political discussion, says: “The deviation has come to light, we shall not play hide-and-seek, but shall say openly: a deviation is a deviation and must be straightened out. We shall straighten it out, and the discussion will be a theoretical one.”

That is why I renew and support the proposal that we adopt both these resolutions, consolidate the unity of the Party, and give a correct definition to what should be dealt with by Party meetings, and what individuals?Marxists, Communists who want to help the Party by looking into theoretical questions?are free to study in their spare time. (Applause.)

11

Summing-Up Speech On Party Unity and

The Anarcho-Syndicalist Deviation

March 16

Comrades, we have heard some incredibly harsh expressions here, and the harshest, I think, was the accusation that our resolution is slanderous. But some harsh expressions tend to expose themselves. You have the resolution. You know that we took two representatives of the Workers’ Opposition into the Central Committee and that we used the term “deviation”. I emphasise the meaning of this term. Neither Shlyapnikov nor Medvedyev proposed any other. The theses we have criticised here have been criticised by the representatives of all shades of opinion. After this, how can one talk of slander? If we had ascribed to someone something which is not true there would have been some sense in this harsh expression. As it is, it is simply a sign of irritation. That is not a serious objection!

I now come to the points that have been mentioned here. It has been stated that the Democratic Centralism group was given unfair treatment. You have followed the development of the agreement between groups and the exchange of opinion on the question of the election to the Central Committee brought up by the representatives of the Democratic Centralism group. You know that ever since the private conference that was attended by the whole of the Workers’ Opposition group and a number of very prominent comrades, representatives of all shades, I, for one, have publicly urged that it would be desirable to have representatives of the Workers’ Opposition and Democratic Centralism groups on the Central Committee. No one opposed this at the conference, which was attended by all the comrades of the Workers’ Opposition and representatives of all shades. It is quite clear that the election of a representative of the Democratic Centralism group as an alternate and not as a full member of the Central Committee was the result of a lengthy exchange of opinion, and an agreement arrived at among the groups. It is captious to regard this as a sign of mistrust in or unfairness to the Democratic Centralism group. We in the Central Committee have done everything to emphasise our desire to be fair. This is a fact that cannot be obliterated. It is cavilling to draw the conclusion that someone has been unfairly treated. Or take the argument of a comrade from the Democratic Centralism group that Point 7 of the resolution was superfluous because the Central Committee already had that right. We propose that Point 7 be withheld from publication because we hope it will not be necessary to apply it; it is an extreme measure. But when the comrade from the Democratic Centralism group says: “The Rules give you this right”,[36] he shows that he does not know the Rules, and is ignorant of the principles of centralism and democratic centralism. No democracy or centralism would ever tolerate a Central Committee elected at a Congress having the right to expel its members. (A voice : “Bypassing the Party.”) Particularly bypassing the Party. The Congress elects the Central Committee, thereby expressing its supreme confidence and vesting leadership in those whom it elects. And our Party has never allowed the Central Committee to have such a right in relation to its members. This is an extreme measure that is being adopted specially, in view of the dangerous situation. A special meeting is called: the Central Committee, plus the alternate members, plus the Control Commission, all having the same right of vote. Our Rules make no provision for such a body or plenum of 47 persons; and never has anything like it been practised. Hence, I repeat that the comrades of the Democratic Centralism group know neither the Rules, nor the principles of centralism or democratic centralism. It is an extreme measure. I hope we shall not have to apply it. It merely shows that the Party will resort to what you have heard about in the event of disagreements which in one aspect verge on a split. We are not children, we have gone through some hard times, we have seen splits and have survived them; we know what a trial they are, and are not afraid of giving the danger its proper name.

Have we had at previous congresses, even amidst the sharpest disagreements, situations which, in one aspect, verged on a split? No, we have not. Do we have such a situation now? Yes, we do. This point has been made repeatedly. Now, I think, these are disagreements we can combat.

It has also been said that unity is not created by such resolutions; that according to the resolution criticism must be expressed only through the medium of the gubernia committee; that lack of confidence has been expressed in the comrades of the Workers’ Opposition and that this has hampered their presence on the Central Committee. But all of this is not true either. I explained from the very outset why we had chosen the word “deviation”. If you don ’t like the word, accept the resolution as a basis and send it up to the Presidium for possible modification. If we find a milder term I would propose that it be substituted for the word “deviation”, and also that other parts be modified. We shall not object to that. We cannot discuss such details here, of course. Hand in the resolution to the Presidium for editing and toning down. It is certainly impossible to couch it in stronger terms?I agree with that. But it is not true to say that the resolution means inciting one section of the Party against another.

I do not know the composition of the Workers’ Opposition group in Samara, I have not been there; but I am sure that if any member of the Central Committee or delegate to the Congress of whatever shade of opinion?except the Workers’ Opposition?were to set out to prove at a meeting of the Samara organisation that there is no incitement in the resolution, but a call for unity and for winning over the majority of the members of the Workers’ Opposition, he would certainly succeed. When people here use the term “incitement” they forget about Point 5 of the resolution on unity, which notes the services of the Workers’ Opposition. Are these not set down alongside each other? On the one hand, there is the “guilty of a deviation”, and on the other, Point 5 says: “The Congress at the same time declares that every practical proposal concerning questions to which the so-called Workers ’ Opposition group, for example, has devoted special attention, such as purging the Party of non-proletarian and unreliable elements, combating bureaucratic practices, developing democracy and workers’ initiative, etc., must be examined with the greatest care”, etc. Is that incitement? It is a recognition of services. We say: On the one hand, in the discussion, you have shown a deviation which is politically dangerous, and even Comrade Medvedyev’s resolution[37] admits this, although his wording is different. And then we go on to say: As for combating bureaucratic practices, we agree that we are not yet doing all that can be done. That is recognition of services and not incitement!

When a comrade from the Workers’ Opposition is taken into the Central Committee, it is an expression of comradely confidence. And after this, anyone attending a meeting not inflamed with factional strife will hear it say that there is no incitement in this, and that it is an expression of comradely confidence. As for the extreme measure, it is a matter for the future: we are not resorting to it now, and are expressing our comradely confidence. If you think that we are wrong in theory, we can issue dozens of special publications on the subject. And if there are any young comrades, in the Samara organisation, for example, who have anything new to say on this question, then let’s have it, Comrades Samarians! We shall publish a few of your articles. Everyone will see the difference between speeches at a Congress and words being bandied outside it. If you examine the precise text of the resolution you will find a theoretical definition of principle, which is not offensive in the least. Alongside of it is recognition of services in combating bureaucratic practices, a request for assistance and, what is more, inclusion of the representatives of this group in the Central Committee, which is the Party’s greatest expression of confidence. Therefore, comrades, I move that both resolutions be adopted, by a roll-call vote, and then sent on to the Presidium for revision and modification of the formulations. As Comrade Shlyapnikov is a member of the Presidium, perhaps he will find a more appropriate substitute for the word “deviation”.

As regards the notices of resignation, I move we adopt the following resolution: “The Congress calls upon all members of the dissolved Workers’ Opposition group to submit to Party discipline, binding them to remain at their posts, and rejects Comrade Shlyapnikov’s and all other resignations.”[38]

12

Remarks On Ryazanov’s Amendment To The

Resolution On Party Unity

March 16[39]

I think that, regrettable as it may be, Comrade Ryazanov’s suggestion is impracticable. We cannot deprive the Party and the members of the Central Committee of the right to appeal to the Party in the event of disagreement on fundamental issues. I cannot imagine how we can do such a thing! The present Congress cannot in any way bind the elections to the next Congress. Supposing we are faced with a question like, say, the conclusion of the Brest peace? Can you guarantee that no such question will arise? No, you cannot. In the circumstances, the elections may have to be based on platforms. (Ryazanov : “On one question?”) Certainly. But your resolution says: No elections according to platforms. I do not think we have the power to prohibit this. If we are united by our resolution on unity, and, of course, the development of the revolution, there will be no repetition of elections according to platforms. The lesson we have learned at this Congress will not be forgotten. But if the circumstances should give rise to fundamental disagreements, can we prohibit them from being brought before the judgement of the whole Party? No, we cannot! This is an excessive desire, which is impracticable, and I move that we reject it.

-----------------------------

스탈린 [레닌주의의 기초들] 중

J. Stalin

But the Party is not merely the sum total of Party organizations. The Party is at the same time a single system of these organizations, their formal union into a single whole, with higher and lower leading bodies, with subordination of the minority to the majority, with practical decisions binding on all members of the Party. Without these conditions the Party cannot be a single organized whole capable of exercising systematic and organized leadership in the struggle of the working class.

"Formerly," says Lenin, "our Party was not a formally organized whole, but only the sum of separate groups, and therefore no other relations except those of ideological influence were possible between these groups. Now we have become an organized party, and this implies the establishment of authority, the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the subordination of lower Party bodies to higher Party bodies." (See Vol. VI, p. 291.)

The principle of the minority submitting to the majority, the principle of directing Party work from a centre, not infrequently gives rise to attacks on the part of wavering elements, to accusations of "bureaucracy," "formalism," etc. It scarcely needs proof that systematic work by the Party as one whole, and the directing of the struggle of the working class, would be impossible without putting these principles into effect. Leninism in questions of organization is the unswerving application of these principles. Lenin terms the fight against these principles "Russian nihilism" and "aristocratic anarchism," which deserves to be ridiculed and swept aside.

Here is what Lenin says about these wavering elements in his book One Step Forward :

"This aristocratic anarchism is particularly characteristic of the Russian nihilist. He thinks of the Party organization as a monstrous 'factory', he regards the subordination of the part to the whole and of the minority to the majority as 'serfdom' . . ., division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him a tragi-comical outcry against people being transformed into 'wheels and cogs'. . . , mention of the organizational rules of the Party calls forth a contemptuous grimace and the disdainful . . . remark that one could very well dispense with rules altogether."

"It is clear, I think, that the cries about this celebrated bureaucracy are just a screen for dissatisfaction with the personal composition of the central bodies, a figleaf. . . . You are a bureaucrat because you were appointed by the congress not by my will, but against it; you are a formalist because you rely on the formal decisions of the congress, and not on my consent; you are acting in a grossly mechanical way because you plead the 'mechanical' majority at the Party Congress and pay no heed to my wish to be co-opted; you are an autocrat because you refuse to hand over the power to the old gang.*" (See Vol. VI, pp. 310, 287.)

3) The Party as the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. The Party is the organized detachment of the

* The "gang" here referred to is that of Axelrod, Martov, Potresov and others, who would not submit to the decisions of the Second Congress and who accused Lenin of being a "bureaucrat." -- J. St.

working class. But the Party is not the only organization of the working class. The proletariat has also a number of other organizations, without which it cannot wage a successful struggle against capital: trade unions, co-operatives, factory organizations, parliamentary groups, non-Party women's associations, the press, cultural and educational organizations, youth leagues, revolutionary fighting organizations (in times of open revolutionary action), Soviets of deputies as the form of state organization (if the proletariat is in power), etc. The overwhelming majority of these organizations are non-Party, and only some of them adhere directly to the Party, or constitute offshoots from it. All these organizations, under certain conditions, are absolutely necessary for the working class; for without them it would be impossible to consolidate the class positions of the proletariat in the diverse spheres of struggle; for without them it would be impossible to steel the proletariat as the force whose mission it is to replace the bourgeois order by the socialist order. But how can single leadership be exercised with such an abundance of organizations? What guarantee is there that this multiplicity of organizations will not lead to divergency in leadership? It may be said that each of these organizations carries on its work in its own special field, and that therefore these organizations cannot hinder one another. That, of course, is true. But it is also true that all these organizations should work in one direction for they serve one class, the class of the proletarians. The question then arises: Who is to determine the line, the general direction, along which the work of all these organizations is to be conducted? Where is the central organization which is not only able, because it has the necessary experience, to work out such a general line, but, in addition, is in a position, because it has sufficient prestige, to induce all these organizations to carry out this line, so as to attain unity of leadership and to make hitches impossible?

That organization is the Party of the proletariat.

The Party possesses all the necessary qualifications for this because, in the first place, it is the rallying centre of the finest elements in the working class, who have direct connections with the non-Party organizations of the proletariat and very frequently lead them; because, secondly, the Party, as the rallying centre of the finest members of the working class, is the best school for training leaders of the working class, capable of directing every form of organization of their class; because, thirdly, the Party, as the best school for training leaders of the working class, is, by reason of its experience and prestige, the only organization capable of centralizing the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat, thus transforming each and every non-Party organization of the working class into an auxiliary body and transmission belt linking the Party with the class.

The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat.

This does not mean, of course, that non-Party organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, etc., should be officially subordinated to the Party leadership. It only means that the members of the Party who belong to these organizations and are doubtlessly influential in them should do all they can to persuade these non-Party organizations to draw nearer to the Party of the proletariat in their work and voluntarily accept its political leadership.

That is why Lenin says that the Party is "the highest form of proletarian class association," whose political leadership must extend to every other form of organization of the proletariat. (See Vol. XXV, p 194)

That is why the opportunist theory of the "independence" and "neutrality" of the non-Party organizations, which breeds independent members of parliament and journalists isolated from the Party, narrow-minded trade-union functionaries and co-operative officials who have become philistines, is wholly incompatible with the theory and practice of Leninism.