What is proletariat?
LetТs consider the
article of Aleksey Trofimov УRevisionist GachikusТ valuable acknowledgementФ,
in which he answers to my article УDouble standards or taking into account
concrete-historical peculiarities?Ф. I shall note from the beginning, that
Trofimov continues to distort my views. He writes that I, i.e. Gachikus
УЕ deduced the tactics of
defeat of the own government (in World War II Ц A. G.) from one bare fact, that
economical order which ruled in
Firstly, I deduce the
tactics of defeat of the own government in World War II not from the fact, that
economical order which ruled in USSR was capitalism, but from the fact, that
economical order which ruled in Russia by the early 1930Тs (not in USSR,
because there was the contradiction in USSR between Russia and the nations
which were oppressed by it) was imperialism,
that is capitalism at imperialist
stage, this is essential difference. Leninism teaches that abovementioned fact
(that is the fact that economical order which rules in the nation is capitalism
at imperialist stage) is quite
sufficient for proletarians of this nation in order to advocate the defeat of
their own government in the world war.
Secondly, Trofimov lies shamelessly that I УdidnТt take
into account concrete-historical peculiarities, which distinguished 1941 from
Then Trofimov pass on
to the question of Islamism, continuing to maintain his idealist, god-building
point of view, that Marxism, supposedly, can be developed only from writings of
Marx and Lenin, that peoples of У3rd WorldФ, supposedly, canТt come
to Marxism through their specific way, developing Quranic scriptures as applied
to modernity (in order to understand the essence of the debate see my later
articles Ц УThe response to TrofimovТs criticismФ, УThe review of James BlautТs
worksФ, УDouble standards or taking into account concrete-historical
peculiarities?Ф).
I emphasize once
again that the attitude towards Islamism for us, conscious proletarians, is not
a kind of academic abstraction isolated from the life. Apart from the fact that
the attitude towards Islamism is litmus test, is the line of division of
communist movement into internationalism and chauvinism, this attitude is also the
line of division on the question УWhat proletariat is today?Ф (the workers of
large industrial factories, as opportunists claim, or the poorest strata of big
cities, as we claim) and on the question of forms and methods which the
struggle of proletariat takes today (economical struggle and reformism of
opportunists or political struggle for democratic freedoms, against police Ц
the struggle which is ultimately aimed at destruction of state armed forces
(i.e. army, police, prisons etc.), what we advocates). Thus, the attitude towards Islamism is related
with vital questions which face Russian proletariat.
As Marx said, Уthe
lie exposes itself in the struggle against the truthФ. Trofimov cites the
history of communist party of
У СTudheТ, which full name is
СParty of Iranian masses, is like phoenix in some aspects: it was founded in
1920, crushed in 1930, revived in 1941 (along with the entering of USSR into
North Iran), banned in 1949, permitted in the early 1950Тs, broken up in 1953ЕФ
So, Trofimov admits
that in 1941 Soviet military occupied North Iran Ц and at the same time he
shamelessly represents World War II from the side of
Trofimov admits that СTudheТ
was revived along with the entering of
As modern British
Leninists correctly noticed (see УEconomic and Philosophic Science ReviewФ, http://www.epsr-marx-lenin.co.uk/index.php
), StalinТs opportunism influenced strongly on world communist movement, even
on those parties, who formally reject Stalinism, like Trotskyists and so on
(those УLeninistsФ themselves are in fact also affected by StalinТs
opportunism, but here we wouldnТt digress from our theme). As we see, Trofimov,
such ardent critic of Stalinism concerning its internal policy, turns out to be
ardent Stalinist concerning its foreign, colonial, policy. But internal policy
is connected with foreign one, therefore, TrofimovТs Stalinism concerning
internal policy at the same time turns out to be opportunism, betrayal of
Russian proletariat too, not only of peoples of Russian colonies (we would say
about it below).
Another example of communist party in the
country of Уthe 3rd WorldФ, which Trofimov gives, is Communist party
of
УBritish authorities actively opposed communists,
all their leaders were in prison, and since 1937 it was provided by law for
life imprisonment and even death penalty for Уpropagating communismФ in armyФЕ
УBecause of losses which communist party suffered it get a nickname Уthe party
of martyrsФФ
аа
Firstly, Islamists also were (and are)
subjected to repressions, including their petty-bourgeois wing. Both narodniks
(Russian populists) and SRs (Уsocialist-revolutionariesФ) in
Secondly, in one of his articles Trofimov,
criticizing one opportunist, rightly notes that the presence of enmity between
Indeed, since 1930Тs Comintern (Communist International)
have turned into the instrument of Russian imperialism, and official communist
parties were pro-Soviet. They were grounded not on proletariat, not on the
poorest strata of large cities, but on the workers of large industrial factories (i.e.
on coming into being labor aristocracy), which constitute tiny minority in the
countries of Уthe 3rd WorldФ (we shall talk about it below).
Trofimov is surprised
with infant naivety:
УWhat do Iraqi communists do
such terrible that discredit of people towards communism became justified? Or,
may be, communists caused disasters in other countries of Islamic East?Ф
Trofimov doesnТt in
the least consider the question of replacement of the old colonialism by
neocolonialism in the countries of Уthe 3rd WorldФ in 1950Тs, the
question of coming to power the parties of УArab socialismФ (Nasser in
Trofimov wrote that
communist party of
Trofimov also wrote
that communist party of
Trofimov wrote:
УIТm sure that there are many
such misters who would try to find opportunism in the actions and ideology of
communist party of
It is necessary to
remind Trofimov that Lenin approved of the tactics of terror under certain
conditions. As we see, Trofimov doesnТt distinguish the individual terror and
the terror of masses, confuse them, i.e. in fact he refuses the terror of
masses, showing himself to be miserable reformist.
Then Trofimov wrote:
УIn fact, Gachikus debates not
about are Islamists developers of Leninism at modern stage (he failed in this),
but about why they are not such. Gachikus try to assure that ideologists in
developed countries like me, i.e. Trofimov, are guilty of this. At one moment
he cried that Islamists are just modern developers of Leninism, at another
moment he cried: but who is guilty?!Ф
Everybody who has
read my article УDouble standards or taking into account concrete-historical
peculiarities?Ф understands that Trofimov distorts my thought, i.e., if
speaking simply, he lies. In
abovementioned article I wrote that persons like Trofimov caused Marxism in the
countries of УThe 3rd WorldФ to be developed not on the basis of
MarxТ and LeninТs writings, but on the basis of applying Quranic scriptures to
modernity (not caused Islamists not to be developers of Leninism at modern
stage, as Trofimov distorts my thought).
Then Trofimov passes
on to the question УWhat proletariat is today?Ф. It is very important to investigate
this question once again, because misunderstanding of the notion УproletariatФ
leads to serious mistakes in practice.
Trofimov wrote:
УIn reality it is Gachikus who
holds the opportunist point of view, because he consider such characteristic as
income to be a basis of the division of workers into proletariat and the labor
aristocracy, as I already mentioned. Such characteristic as income is
significant, but not deciding point for attributing the worker to one or
another economical type. The worker who have an income two times more than the
cost of living, as I understand from GachikusТ words, is attributed by him to
Уlower middle classФ, as he speaks, that is lower stratum of labor aristocracy
for him. According to him, this lower part of labor aristocracy together with
higher part amount to 70%. Such is the quantity of labor aristocracy.
Proletariat amounts to 30%, according to him. I.e., proletarians are those
which incomes vary near the cost of living. The picture which Gachikus has
painted is nothing but the picture of weakening of class contradictions,
according to which proletariat in Russia consists of fifth or even sixth of
RussiaТs population (because not the whole RussiaТs population are workers). I
already repeatedly clarified to Gachikus that not the level of incomes is
ultimately decisive aspect in defining to what economical type a member of
society belongs to. Since Gachikus is unable to analyze the question on his
own, and since he also doesnТt like to hear out opponentsТ opinion, I beg to
press on his mind by the force of authority: УTo look for the main distinguishing
characteristic of different classes of society in source of income means to put
the relationships of distribution in the forefront, which are in fact the
result of production. This mistake was pointed out by Marx, who called people
which donТt see it Уvulgar socialistsФ. The main characteristic of
distinguishing between classes is their place in social production,
consequently, their relation to the means of productionФ (Lenin, vol. 7, p.
44-45 Ц Russian edition). УClasses are large groups of people which differ from
each other in their place in historically determined system of social
production, in their relation (fixed and formalized by law for the most part) to
the means of production, in their role in social organization of labor, and
consequently, in the ways of getting and in the size of that share of social
wealth which they possessФ (Lenin, vol. 39, p. 15 Ц Russian edition). ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
Thus, it is clearly, that the
division of the society into rich and poor is vulgarity. It is striking the eye
more rapidly; it is Уat the surfaceФ. But scientific socialism of Marx reveals
the division of the society not into rich and poor, but into bourgeoisie and
proletariat behind this surface. LetТs also recollect classicsТ [of
Marxism-Leninism] pointings that petty bourgeois sometimes gets the income less
than proletarian doesФаааа а
Firstly, Trofimov
lies that, in my view, proletariat constitutes in
Secondly, doesnТt the
acknowledgement that not all working classes are proletariat means Уweakening
class contradictionsФ? DoesnТt the acknowledgement the presence of
stratification within working masses means Уweakening of class contradictionsФ?
But again Уthe lie
exposes itself in the struggle against the truthФ: Trofimov cites Lenin Ц but
this citation just shows that I am right and Trofimov is wrong!
It is Уvisible to
naked eyeФ that Trofimov distorted facts: while I says about the level of incomes as the general
feature of different classes of modern society in imperialist nations, Lenin in
quotation which Trofimov cites said about the
source (not level!) of income.
What Lenin said in
that article? He criticized SRs (Уsocialist-revolutionariesФ) which considered as
bourgeoisie only those peasants who exploit others (i.e. those who have Уthe
source of incomeФ), and the rest of peasants were considered by them as
proletariat (even those who have the plot of arable land and other means of
production).
As we see, SRsТ point of view is similar to
TrofimovТs one, not to my one: SRs just as Trofimov considered all toilers
indiscriminately as proletariat. In contrast to them, Lenin saw class contradictions
within toiling masses. According to TrofimovТs logic, Lenin Уweakened class
contradictionsФ.
This LeninТs article
dates back to pre-imperialist stage. What do these LeninТs thoughts mean as
applied to imperialist stage?
Under imperialism the
old private ownership has given place to stock capitalist ownership, i.e. the
ownership of the class of capitalists as Уcombined capitalistФ, as already
Engels who noticed the first signs of imperialism wrote. Correspondingly, new
petty bourgeoisie Ц the labor aristocracy Ц unlike the old petty bourgeoisie Ц
peasantry Ц already immediately doesnТt possess the plot of arable land,
horses, plough and the like. The labor aristocracy possesses the means of
production collectively, as the part of the Уcombined capitalistФ (of course,
this possession is distributed within Уcombined capitalistФ very unevenly), and
get the piece of combined profits in the form of the addition to the wage over the
value of labor force, i.e. over the cost of living, as a result of this
possession. Immediately the labor aristocracy doesnТt exploit somebody (like
those peasants, which are considered as УproletariansФ by SRs), however, it is
co-owner of combined capitals of bourgeoisie, what appears in the fact that it receives
the interest on this capital (even if in the form of the addition to the wage
formally).
Furthermore, what
Lenin meant, when he wrote that narodniks substitute the consideration of the
relations of distribution for the consideration of the relations of production?
What Marx meant, when he wrote that the relations of distribution follow from the
relations of production?
Lenin and Marx meant
that capitalism with УequitableФ distribution, which petty-bourgeois socialists
wished, is utopia, because, while capitalism exists, the wages of proletarian
masses would be fluctuating near the level of the value of labor force, i.e.
near the level of the cost of living. In other words, the criticism of those
prejudices by Marx and Lenin doesnТt mean that they denied the wage of proletarian
fluctuates near the level of the cost of living as a result of laws of
capitalism; this criticism means that the increasing of living standards of
proletariat is impossible without the destruction of capitalism. I.e., the
criticism of those prejudices by Marx and Lenin was in fact the criticism of
reformism which [reformism] later was formed into economism, Bernsteinianism,
i.e. into ideology of labor aristocracy.
But Trofimov, as we
see, distorts MarxТ and LeninТs views, turning them into their exact opposite.
It follows from TrofimovТs words that Marx and Lenin allegedly asserted that
the average wage of proletarians can increase under capitalism significantly higher
than the cost of living, although this was asserted not by Marx and Lenin, but by
revisionist Bernstein who in fact understood labor aristocracy by the term УproletariatФ.
LetТs see at LeninТs
definition of classes which Trofimov cites: УClasses are large groups of people
which differ from each other in their place in historically determined system
of social production, in their relation (fixed and formalized by law for the
most part) to the means of production, in their role in social organization of
labor, and consequently, in the ways of getting and in the size of that share
of social wealth which they possessФ. Notice: УЕand consequently, in the ways
of getting and in the size of that share of social wealth which they possessФ Ц
i.e., the level of incomes follows
from the relation to the means of production, i.e. the former is the effect of the latter, hence, the
latter can be judged by the former (as the temperature can be judged by the
indication of thermometer). As we see, these LeninТs words refute not me, but
Trofimov.
TrofimovТs views are
shared by Viktor Makarov from Revolutionary Front. He alleges like Trofimov that
I substitute the consideration of the relations of distribution for the
consideration of the relations of production, and names my point of view
УMaoistФ. It follows from such MakarovТs logic, that Marx was Maoist, because
in УCapitalФ he explained thoroughly, that the wage of proletarian is
fluctuating near the cost of living due to the laws of capitalism; it follows,
that Lenin was Maoist, because he criticized narodniks who thought that
proletarians are industrial workers, he wrote that the number of proletariat
must be judged not by the number of industrial workers, but by the scale of
poverty and pauperism (see my work УAnti-BugeraФ).
No, not Lenin and
Marx were Maoists, but Mao was Marxist when he gave this definition.
Trofimov also holds
views similar to narodniksТ ones. In answer to my words that
УTrofimov vulgarizes my views.
It follows from his words that I consider labor aristocracy as overwhelming majority
of rich nations, and proletariat as insignificant minorityФ
He says:
УOne can find the
corresponding places in GachikusТ works where he equates labor aristocracy to
the workers of large factories. The number of large factories is much less than
small ones, but the concentration of workers is higher in several orders of
magnitudeФ
Trofimov again shows
himself as the man who doesnТt know and doesnТt want to know about modernity.
He judges by Soviet epoch, and even doesnТt consider present-day statistics
which shows the decrease of the number of workers at large factories at 3-5
times, the increase of the number of small enterprises, the rise of services
sector, the increase of the number of the unemployed (who in fact often work in
informal sector).
If we examine
official statistics, we would see that the percentage of workers at large
factories in the total number of able-bodied citizens is small, smaller than
10% (but Trofimov in the old fashion consider them as the majority of
population!). But their percentage in GDP is higher at several times, i.e. here
is Уthe bonus for the concentrationФ, the addition which is resulted from the inflow
of profits from the labor of workers of small firms Ц the inflow which is
realized by means of monopolistic prices (see my article УThe unifiers of
humankindФ, 2008).
As we see, TrofimovТs
mistake is typical opportunist one: to consider the concentration of production
and proletariat as the concentration of workers at large factories, while one
should consider the concentration of production as the concentration of capital
in the hands of large factories and financial-industrial groups which are
related to them, and one should consider the concentration of proletariat as the
concentration of poverty in large cities. а
As I wrote more than
once, while opportunists persist stupidly in their out-of-date view on
proletariat, the correct view on proletariat is the view of proletarian wing of
Islamism, talibs.
As regards TrofimovТs
remark that petty bourgeois can be poorer than proletarian Ц it is true, but
this remark is out of place. About what
petty bourgeoisie did Marx and Lenin write? They wrote about peasantry. But I
say only about imperialist nations, where the peasantry practically becomes
extinct; where urban population constitutes the vast majority of population;
moreover, I consider proletariat not as the poorest strata of population
simply, but as the poorest strata of large
cities, who, naturally, possess neither the plot of arable land nor other means of
production. As regards countries of Уthe 3rd WorldФ, I distinguish
rigorously between proletariat, i.e. the poor of large cities, and the peasantry,
the rural poor.
As I said, the
question УWhat proletariat is today?Ф is related with practical questions of
the struggle. LetТs examine the article of the member of Revolutionary Front
who writes under the pen-name NKVD УOur and not our people (the response to
TyulkinТs article УWho are Уthe workersТ friendsЕФ)Ф. NKVD criticizes Tyulkin
for the fact that he justifies his economism by the words that sectarianism is
even worse (in general, Tyulkin advances old УeconomistsФТ arguments). NKVD
wrote in response to this:
УNeither TyulkinТs approach,
nor the caricature of the left movement which he depicts, where revolutionary
propaganda is separated from peopleТs concrete problems, suit us (really, there
are such groups in Russia, which carry on their work in such caricature form,
as for instance MRP or RPB, the latter, nevertheless, is valuable because of
its approach to reality, Leninist on the whole)Ф
Firstly, on what basis
does NKVD put our party (RPB) together with MRP? In fact, I criticized MRP more
than once for the rejection of economical struggle (for the rejection of the
support of police trade union, for example). But we donТt reject economical
struggle Ц we only donТt regard such struggle as paramount.а ааааааа
Secondly, what does
NKVD mean by УpeopleТs concrete problemsФ? DoesnТt capitalism oppress the
masses of people only economically, not also politically? DoesnТt spontaneous
discontent on political ground (i.e. discontent with police abuses, with the
lack of democratic freedoms for the huge masses of people etc.), not only on
economical one, arise among people? Then, why NKVD, following Tyulkin, says
only about discontent on economical ground? He tries to depict his views as
Уthe golden meanФ which overcomes the both extremes, TyulkinТs and RPBТs, i.e.
economism and sectarianism, but in reality he fluctuates between economism and
Leninism.
DonТt I always expose
the connection between colonial oppression of
NKVDТs viewpoint is
the one of left wing of opportunism, he criticizes only the extremes of
economism in the person of Tyulkin. NKVD writes again Уabout general
fascization of the state, about the probability of establishing of fascist
regimeФ. He disregards my remarks that fascist regime in
I already wrote that
NKVD-like viewpoint is in essence the old viewpoint of miserable
petty-bourgeois democrat, pacifist and reformist Jan Jaures, who advocated the
return to the old, УpeacefulФ capitalism, when Уthe bayonet becomes the order
of the dayФ. аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
NKVD doesnТt
understand up to now the class essence of the notions УdemocracyФ and
УdictatorshipФ. The representatives of that class, which is not affected by
police abuses, donТt understand that it is fascism in
So we see that the
questions of Islamism, of what is proletariat today and what forms and methods
of the struggle of proletariat must be today, are interrelated and are of
practical significance.
March 20th, 2010
A. G.а ааааааа
ааа аааа
аа аааааа
а
ааа ааааааа
аааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
ааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
