|
| |
Contribution to a Councilist
Program in Spain
A new current of social critique is developing in Spain, with which we are in considerable
agreement. This current is not only faced with the task of opposing that particular
retrograde form of power, the Franco regime. It has to oppose all the forms of global
power, because it is preparing to confront the next Spanish form of capitalist
power. Its aim is to form an alternative at the moment (which will not be long in coming)
when the Franco regime comes to an end — so that a choice is presented between modern
capitalism, as it exists in the European Common Market, and genuine socialism, i.e.
workers’ power, which exists nowhere in the world. This current is opposed to all the
old organizations of the Spanish left, which are hostile to a struggle for such
objectives. But there is also a struggle within this current, between a lucid
critique of existing conditions and tendencies that still confusedly cling to fragments of
old revolutionary ideologies. The difficulties of underground activity and the numerous
forms of censorship imposed by the Franco regime complicate the work of clarification and
objective discussion that is needed. The collapse of old leftist politics outside Spain
provides the Spanish comrades with negative object lessons about what they must avoid. But
the positive experience that could be provided by a new radical critique has been limited
by the extremely restricted base of such a critique at the present time.
The first attempt of this current to express itself in Spain was the
formation of the FLP (Frente de Liberación Popular). The FLP experience proved
disappointing because (like the Algerian FLN in 1954) it consisted of groups issuing from
the various traditional parties which decided to put aside the question of a program in
order to engage in joint action. This coexistence of antagonistic perspectives was soon
recognized by the radical wing as the main cause for a stagnation in the FLP’s
initial activity (reflected in insufficient linkups with striking workers) and for its
inability to clarify the forthcoming crisis of Spanish society. The most advanced tendency
that has emerged during the ensuing public discussion over the last few years has
published the journal Acción Comunista, of which four issues have appeared since
January 1965. According to the opening declaration of this journal: “The editorial
committee of Acción Comunista, composed of revolutionary Marxist members of
diverse workers organizations, is beginning with these collective articles to
elaborate the political platform of a socialist revolution in Spain.” The editors go
on to say that this platform will need to be deepened and concretized, “counting on
the contributions and critiques of all those who are in agreement with us on the two
fundamental points of our platform: the necessity and possibility of a socialist
alternative to the current development of capitalism in Spain, and the need for the
formation of a genuine revolutionary workers party.” We have been encouraged to make
the present contribution to this discussion by the radical and staunchly internationalist
perspectives that have been expressed by the Acción Comunista comrades,
particularly in Lorenzo Torres’s article “From Workers’ Commissions to
Workers Councils” (in issue #2).
As we see it, the theoretical discussion initiated by Acción Comunista has
already addressed four main issues: (1) how to characterize the economy and society of
present-day Spain; (2) the general goal of a radical current in Spain; (3) the evaluation
of the present state of the global revolutionary movement; and (4) the question of
revolutionary organization. On the first two issues we are in complete agreement with the
positions they have adopted. The discussion of the last two has been less extensive, and
the arguments and ideas that have emerged have been less clear. In this context we are
going to offer some observations which we hope will prove useful.
Acción Comunista has shown that Spain can no longer be
considered an economically backward country — a dogma which continues to be
maintained by all the traditional workers parties. The development of capitalism under
Franco during the last decade (part of a global process) has transformed all the
conditions in Spain. The ruling class no longer has its main base in a land-owning
bourgeoisie, as was the case in the 1930s, but in an industrial bourgeoisie closely
interlinked with international capital. This transformation is reflected in the scale of
current expansion, in the rapid decrease of the agricultural proletariat (which is being
channeled into the new factories), and in the success of Spanish manufactured goods on the
international market (in Cuba, for example). It is this development, which has also been
provoking a resurgence of worker struggles since 1962, that is leading the ruling class to
seek more modern “European forms of exploitation” to replace the old Francoist
forms. The neo-capitalist solution to the Franco regime has organized its political force,
with the support of the Church, in a pseudo-underground Christian-Democratic party
that
seeks to unite the oppositional Catholics. This party, due to the influence of the
professors who belong to it, has up till now largely controlled the student opposition,
and has taken particular care to prevent any juncture between workers’ and
students’ actions (the recent episode in which students were surrounded by the police
in a Barcelona convent that had granted them asylum illustrates this point). Being aware,
however, that the Catholic labor unions will not suffice to guarantee a painless birth of
the new regime they envision, the Christian Democrats are seeking other “workers
organizations” capable of lulling the workers to sleep during the transition. They
will find such elements in the Spanish Socialist Party, particularly among those who are
calling for a technocratic renewal of this reformism, such as T. Galvan. The
“national reconciliation” advocated by the Stalinist party is completely in
favor of such collaboration (though the Spanish bourgeoisie’s mistaken but ingrained
fear of “reds” may cause it to reject this sincere offer of collaboration and
assistance). The recent negotiations between the CNT and the Falangist unions are yet
another reflection of this same tendency toward submission to bourgeois evolution.
The Acción Comunista comrades accept the present struggle for
democratization while simultaneously pointing out its inevitable limits and putting
forward their own perspectives. Specifically, they advocate participating in the workers
commissions and factory committees that already exist illegally or semilegally, in order
to work toward a local, regional and national coordination of these commissions to the
point of transforming them into workers councils. This change of function and unification
of sovereign workers assemblies would constitute a classic dual-power situation,
concretely revealing the alternative between capitalism and workers’ power. Acción
Comunista does not present this outcome as a probability, but as a possibility which
will depend on the consciousness of the masses and on the programmatic formulations that
revolutionary elements will have been able to develop among those masses. None of the
organized political groups have any conception of this sort of activity — as was
shown by the example of the Madrid steelworkers’ struggle, which was organized by a
workers commission outside the influence of any of those groups. Supporting the power of
workers councils, Acción Comunista advocates a model of socialist society
incompatible with any bureaucratic domination, whether economic or political: “When a
class has gone through the practical apprenticeship of struggle against a union
bureaucracy (in this case the Falangist bureaucracy), it becomes easy for it to understand
the dangers of any bureaucracy and the need for a genuine workers democracy,
within its own organizations as well as outside them . . . and the need for
direct election of all its delegates, at the shopfloor, enterprise and national
level” (Acción Comunista #2, p. 22). If there is a significant bureaucratic
danger at the moment of victory, it is even more obvious that the mere reconstitution of a
“Popular Front” safeguarding the capitalist order, as sought by so many of the
oppositional forces, amounts to the defeat of any post-Franco socialist perspective.
Although they are preparing to support in their country a total struggle
against modern capitalism, and against the bureaucratic organizations whose inevitably
reactionary role they denounce, not all of the Acción Comunista comrades seem to
completely recognize the implications of this capitalist modernism or the role of this
bureaucratic power in the world, or the interaction between the two (their simultaneous
rivalry and solidarity). The theory of revolutionary organization is clearly inseparable
from such a consistent analysis. In issue #1 (pp. 26-27), Acción Comunista
declares itself in favor of “a total freedom of criticism concerning the numerous and
increasingly evident negative aspects” of the so-called socialist countries (whose
global crises have had the salutary effect of undermining some of the illusions held by
the bureaucratically influenced underground organizations in Spain) and calls for “a
scientific analysis of the social system of those countries.” But this analysis is
not sufficiently developed. The lack of precision regarding the nature of the oppression
in Russian or China is still greater in the case of Cuba, Castro’s
“antidogmatism” seeming to have at least temporarily impressed some of the Acción
Comunista editors. Similarly, the Marxian critique of ideology has as yet
been taken up only vaguely in Acción Comunista; and without the foundation of
that critique it is not possible to understand and effectively combat the bureaucracy of
professional leaders. And in fact the democratic workers organization that Acción
Comunista evokes seems to be insufficiently distinguished from Leninism: the proposal
that “permanent” members be limited to a minority in its “Central
Committee” is certainly an inadequate precaution against the bureaucratization of the
party itself. In another place Acción Comunista seems to accept the project of
one big nonbureaucratic labor union, only to admit a few lines later that the predictable
union divisions and the examples of coopted trade unionism in the modern capitalist
countries render such a project very dubious (since the unitary enterprise committees must
maintain their sovereignty, there will be an inevitable open struggle between those
assemblies and any union).
Devoting itself to a concrete discussion under difficult conditions, and
having to begin by creating some of the very bases of information that need to be
discussed, Acción Comunista has presented to its readers a number of classic
texts of the workers movement. This presentation suffers from a certain empiricism,
because it is not criticized by the editors from any specific perspective. Documents that
are well worth reading — on the program of the Spartakus League, Christian
Rakovsky’s Letter to Valentinov, some texts from the First International, a
forthcoming text from Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness — are
presented alongside Trotsky’s 1936 analyses of the bureaucracy. Marx’s Address
of the Central Council to the Communist League (March 1850), reproduced in issue #4,
is appropriate in the part where it urges the workers not to give up their political
autonomy and warns them of the consequences of tagging behind the petty bourgeoisie, but
very dangerous in the final section which advocates the most Jacobin sort of statist
centralism. The first part is precisely applicable to Spain and its coming crisis. The
latter has been disproved by the experience of all the proletarian revolutions of our
time; and was already inapplicable to the situation of Spain in 1936, where regional
autonomy was the basis enabling the expression of the most radical tendencies. The present
position of Acción Comunista calls rather for a study of a party such as the Kommunistische
Arbeiter Partei in 1920 Germany. Moreover, the rich experience of the Spanish
revolution has been strangely neglected by Acción Comunista. The problem of
revolution can only be posed in a global and total form. Just as it must not forget the
scope of its terrain of struggle, revolution must not forget its own past. Acción
Comunista is aware of this when it states that its militants are “at the
forefront of all the fronts of struggle.” The fundamental theoretical critique of
politico-economic power, the understanding of the profound tendencies of modern society in
its production of culture and its regimentation of everyday life, the cohesion of all the
positions taken at the international level — these are fronts of the same unitary
struggle. In this context, it seems to us that Eduardo Mena’s article “Political
Regression in Algeria” (issue #3) somewhat underestimates the bureaucratic factor in
its condemnation of Boumédienne’s reactionary coup. More disappointing is the
reprinting in issue #4 of a particularly lame and superficial article on the Los Angeles
uprising by Bertrand Russell, and of another article by the Trotskyist economist Mandel,
whose book (currently fashionable among the Parisian intelligentsia) Treatise on
Marxist Economics by its title alone contradicts the whole revolutionary method of
Marx, who limited himself to criticizing political economy as a discipline
reflecting a society dominated by the logic of the commodity.
The first role of revolutionary organization, the very price of its right
to existence, is certainly its coherence, the ruthless critique which must smash
the “force of habit,” the most powerful force of the old world among the masses.
And the most important habits to smash are the “habits of the left” during a
revolutionary situation. At such a moment, if you don’t disarm Noske he will kill
you. For forty years this red police role has primarily been been carried out
under the “communist” label, whether in Barcelona in 1937 or more recently in
Athens or Budapest.
Revolutionary coherence must also be concretized. It is necessary to make
the workers aware of what they are capable of doing, and of the consequences of following
a revolutionary strategy, whether it ends in victory or in defeat. When workers councils
appear, there can be no moderation on either side. A councilist program has everything to
gain and nothing to lose from recognizing and facing all its implications. The old
principle of battle — “Don’t put your fate at stake without engaging all
your forces” — is its principle, and its forces are precisely the awareness of,
and desire for, what is possible. The enemies of workers councils are quite
justified in fearing the worst from councilist power, just as the councilists must fear
the worst from the inevitable retaliation their agitation will provoke, whatever they do
or don’t do. The bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy are forced by all their interests
(whether as established ruling class or as ruling class in the process of formation) to
totally combat the aims of the councils. So you might as well express those aims to those
who can recognize them as their program and their life.
Councilist power is the total enemy of existing “survival.” It
therefore cannot itself survive for very long without staking and winning its bet
on the total transformation of all existing conditions and the immediate liberation of
life. From the very beginning it must bring about the fundamental transformation of what
is produced and how it is produced, reorienting people’s needs and abolishing the
whole commodity production system. It must transform the organization of the environment,
the methods and goals of education, the implementation of justice and the very definition
of crimes. It must eliminate all hierarchies and the morality and religion that go with
them. The deepening, the defense and the illustration of such a program are the first
tasks of any organization that proposes to unleash such forces. But the same program can
be expressed by its other side: concrete methods of popular agitation. Acción
Comunista is well aware that what will unite the present “opposition” in
the immediate aftermath of the Franco regime will be respect for the capitalist order,
organized into some sort of democratic national front. The way to make a clear break with
this pseudo-opposition is to expropriate the foreign and domestic capital that owns the
means of production. This project seems rather abstract, and many people will be unable to
imagine any solution to such a complex problem except some form of statist
nationalization. To cut through this apparent complexity, let us propose a concrete
example.
Advanced European capitalism’s present organization of consumption is leading its
privileged strata to buy houses in Spain. An article in France-Soir (11 November
1965) notes that “there are now kilometers of villas, whole strings of
vacation-villages which have sprung up in six months on previously vacant beaches. For
Spain this is an economic godsend; for the middle classes of France, Germany and England
it’s a discovery of paradise — at only one million
(old) francs apiece.” The
article goes on to quote a representative of the “Constructores Ibericos” real
estate company: “Our buildings have been approved by ‘Securitas,’ which
verifies construction quality throughout the world, and are also guaranteed for ten years
by a Swiss insurance company.” But the insurance companies of Europe could be upset
in Spain as they were in 1905 by the “economic declaration” of the St.
Petersburg Soviet, which announced that loans contracted by the Czarist government to
fight the Russian people would in no case be honored by that people once they had
liberated themselves. Those who take advantage of the low price of local labor power by
investing in construction in Spain are economically supporting the regime that is
responsible for that condition, as well as littering the countryside with “second
homes” that will remain empty nine-tenths of the year. To this new form of
exploitation, reflecting a contemptuous indifference toward the Spanish proletariat, a
councilist program could respond by declaring right now that all foreign real estate
investments will be seized without compensation the moment workers councils come to power.
The Spanish workers would be able to recognize the highest moments of their past in this
project of direct expropriation; while the forces that strive for the democratization of
capitalism will see it as the most intolerable action imaginable. But the international
impact of this measure would be just as considerable. Everyone knows that the feeble,
years-long anarchist campaign urging tourists to boycott Spain has completely failed. This
campaign was carried on in the name of political issues that the masses have clearly
forgotten. It went against the whole general development of modern society — the same
development that has caused the 1936 revolution to be largely forgotten. This development
is resulting in poor people going on vacations (eight million French people
visited Spain during the summer of 1965) and no political voluntarism evoking some
seemingly incomprehensible detail is going to have any notable effect on this trend. In
contrast, a threat against the property of people capable of investing in Spain, in
apartments that cost them a million
old francs apiece, has the interest of bringing glaringly
into view a wealthy class whose existence has been completely hidden in Europe since
modern sociology’s discovery that classes no longer exist. The European ruling class
has been just as forgotten as the Spanish revolution: television never talks about it, and
the Left only talks about what is talked about on television. Thus, this scientific
demonstration of the existence of a privileged class could have the greatest practical
effect, and not only on sociologists. According to a report of the National Institute of
Statistics published in June 1965, half the wage laborers in France still have a monthly
paycheck of less than 750 francs (for 27% of them, less than 562 francs). It is quite
obvious that these workers would not be harmed by the decision of their Spanish comrades.
On the contrary, this example, by revealing both the disease and the appropriate remedy,
could have the most salutary influence in their own country. A workers power in Spain
would need such support from the masses of Europe, because it would immediately face the
active hostility of all the European rulers and “middle classes.” That
sector’s investment in “durable goods” in Spain reflects their confidence
in the capitalist future of Spain. Our business is to create, against all present
appearances, a totally opposite confidence.
SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL
1966
“Contribution au programme des Conseils Ouvriers en Espagne”
originally appeared in Internationale
Situationniste #10 (Paris, March 1966). This translation by Ken Knabb is
from the Situationist
International Anthology (Revised and Expanded Edition, 2006). No copyright.
[Other Situationist Texts]
| |
|