On what socialism is and about socialism in Norway

Communism is the goal of communists; a classless society based on common ownership and community. The intermediate society between capitalism and communism is socialism.


Written by an activist and translated by a friend of the league.

Norsk versjon


Moving from primitive communism to the communism of the future

Human history shows us many examples of communist ways of life. For the majority of human history, people lived under a sort of “primitive communism”. In most prehistoric times, tools were usually shared commonly among all the members of the tribe. There were no classes of people, where some worked and others made the decisions. There are still people that live this way today, for example in the Amazon. They live relatively isolated from more developed societies.

This period – which Marx calls primitive communism – was good in many ways but had a fundamental weakness. This weakness was the low level of productivity. Knowledge and tools were so primitive or difficult to make, mend, systematize and use that people largely lived at the mercy of mother nature. One bad summer and the entire tribe died of hunger. One bad winter and the entire tribe would have to flee. The lack of systematized knowledge led most people into mysticism and supestition.

This type of communism is not the goal of communists today, but rather a modern communism. A communism based on the advanced production, knowledge and technology that humanity has developed – and continues to develop under a class society.

But also within class societies – or alongside them – people still need to solve a series of problems in a communist way. In congregations, peasant cooperatives, between friends and within families, people usually organize around mutualism and cooperation. No one keeps score of friendly favors and volunteer work is very popular. The goal of the communists is quite simply to release these cooperative ways of life and build a society from top to bottom, on the base of this truly human cooperation.


Marx and Lenin define socialism as a necessary transitional phase

The path from capitalism of today to a communist society, is through socialism. Between capitalism and communism there must be a transitional phase. Perhaps we can liken this to all the transitional forms we see in nature, for example when a new species evolves from a previously existing one. Marx systematized our knowledge of the current society. In Marxism, communists have collected his teachings, which are just as relevant in the present day:

• Class struggle is the driving force – the motor – that drives human society forward and has the power to uproot old societal forms and bring in new ones.
• Capitalism itself creates the class that is capable of ending capitalism – namely the modern working class; the proletariat.
• Between capitalism and the classless society there is a transitional state that can only be the political dictatorship of the working class.

Dictatorship, as it is commonly understood, is something exercised by a single person. But dictatorship can – and usually is – exercised by a class of people. Since the emergence of class society, with private property and the division of labor; priests, kings and warriors have ruled over slaves and peasants. Here, the ruling class has always exercised its dictatorship over other classes through the state. The state is an instrument of political power. According to Marxism, communism is stateless in the sense that without classes, there will be no political class-dictatorship. But Marx believes that in order for this to happen, the working class must first establish its own state which, with its new-found power, crushes the old capitalist relations and builds new communist relations. Socialism therefore, has proletarian class-dictatorship as its precondition.

Lenin expanded upon this in the book, “The State and Revolution” and while Marx and Engels often speak of a transitional phase as the first phase of communism, Lenin spoke of this phase as socialism.


Stalin and Mao enriched and expanded upon Marxism’s theory of socialism

Stalin carried the theory of socialism forward by concretizing what Marx, Engels and Lenin also had described, namely that socialism must not only build a political class dictatorship, but also a class dictatorship within production. Stalin says socialist production must build on two forms of socialist property: collective property and state property. An example of collective propety is an enterprise owned by the workers or an agricultural cooperative owned by the peasants. Furthermore, he wrote that the main economic law of socialism is the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the people. The Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism is thusly working class dictatorship where production is mainly state or collectively-owned and serves the people.

Mao enriched this theory and developed it further to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in part by the method of Cultural Revolution. Lenin and Stalin had written about class struggle under socialism and Stalin said that even though the working class had state power, class struggle would not diasppear – it would in fact intensify – but they did not develop methods for this struggle such as Mao did. Mao did a great service to Marxism by showing that class struggle doesn’t just happen in society or in production, but within the communist party itself and the socialist state. Mao showed that under socialism the working class is not only threatened by imperialist invasions or foreign spies. After the consolidation of the workers dictatorship, socialism is first and foremost threatened from within by capitalist roaders in the Communist Party and state organs; the same people Lenin and Stalin called “red bureaucrats”.

Marxism-Leninism defines socialism as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism – but it is initially with Mao, the mass line and the cultural revolution that we get highly developed tools for carrying this process forward. Just as Marx had said that class struggle drives society forward, so it is for the class society of socialism.


Some of the major changes under socialism

In the “Communist Manifesto”, Marx and Engels list a series of initiatives which the modern socialist countries must perform immediately:

• Expropriation of land property and the use of the basic rate for funding state initiatives.
• A very progressive income tax.
• Abolition of the right of inheritance.
• Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels (meaning the property of capitalists that leave the country during the revolution or revolt against socialism).
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an absolute monopoly.
• Centralization of the transportation sector in the hands of the state.
• Increased nationalization of factories and means of production; growth and development of the earth according to a central plan.
• Equal coercion to work for all, establishment of indsutrial armies, especially for agriculture.
• Joining initiatives in agricuture and industry to overcome the contradiction between town and country.
• Free and public child care for all. Abolition of child labor in factories in its current form. Harmony between upbringing and material production, etc.

The Manifesto was published with these points in 1848. Over one hundred and fifty years later, several of these measures are still relevant in many countries. But in all countries, regardless of their level of development, the communists must develop national programs for the revolution and socialism. Our actions must be based on the specific circumstances in the specific countries.

In a country like Norway, it is very important to expand land for agriculture. It is unacceptable for a socialist country to rely on imports as much as the current imperialist Norway. In Norway, most of the food is imported, and most of the industrial goods are as well. Cultivated land per capita has declined dramatically over the last fifty years. A workers’ state in Norway must take control of all the land that today is unused and develop a diverse and modern agriculture. Where good soil today is left untilled and is being overgrown, the land must be cultivated and grown so that Norway will be as self-reliant with food as possible. This is a question both concerning self-determination, confidence in the people and solidarity with the world’s poorest countries that through social revolutions will free themselves from the perils of producing for consumption in the imperialist countries.

It has almost always been difficult for Norway to feed its people. Even in the Middle Ages it was necessary to import food to Norway. A socialist Norway will not be hermetically sealed, and can of course trade goods with other countries. But the goal of maximum self-sufficiency can, in today’s modern world, with highly developed tools, technology and knowledge, be more possible than ever.

In a socialist Norway the working class will be the ruling class and the tax system must reflect this. The government must not seize all businesses and all major property in one action, but the workers’ state will tax the ones that can afford it most, the hardest. Socialism will not be like today, where the richest companies with their lawyers and auditors can avoid taxation.

All banks and all bank capital will be taken over by the state, and thus the working class will be able to make an indebted people debt-free. It makes no sense that one should be in debt for life simply to have a roof over one’s head. The new Norway would imply that one can live by one’s own work without putting oneself in bottomless debt to foreign or domestic financial capital, or to the state.

Marx and Engels speak about equal employment coercion – i.e. no longer being able to live off the work of others. This primarily concerns capitalists and paper pushers. It must not be read as an attack on those who due to illness cannot work or cannot work as much as others. But socialism will abolish unemployment and the degrading NAV system (Norwegian welfare and unemployment institution). Everyone in Norway should have the opportunity to contribute through productive work. Those who can not work full days will work shorter days or fewer days. In the current extreme competitive economy, capitalists would rather have people be unemployed than having employees who are not running at peak performance. Within socialism, it will be seen as better that people do a little, than people doing nothing at all.


Learn from the people’s communes and build people’s power

Otherwise, we can learn from the Chinese people’s communes in the organization of society. The Chinese people’s communes pointed towards communism, since they collected and organized all aspects of human society. People’s communes were political organs of power, they were social welfare institutions and economic production communities. They were a kind of municipality, health care and business, all in one – controlled by the people. The Chinese people’s communes would consist of between four and twenty thousand households – perhaps between ten and a hundred thousand people. The commune was divided into smaller units and work groups.

Under socialism and in the march towards communism, politics and manufacture will increasingly fall into the people’s own hands. In today’s society a big point is made out of sharing power. But the consequence is that the responsibility is shared so much that no-one has responsibility any longer. People are sent around in endless circles when dealing with the public sector. Nobody can answer questions, and they constantly push tasks and responsibilities around so that some decisions take months and years. In such systems, class oppression and bourgeois power are hidden in a mist, while the bourgeoisie get enormous benefits and the poorest with the least resources are left to the bureaucracy’s faceless violence.

Under socialism, the principle is people power and workers’ power, and legislative and executive power will be one. Those elected to represent the people may be withdrawn by the voters, but as long as the people trust them, they have the power both to decide and to act. In people's wars in Nepal, India and the Philippines, we have seen how people have established people’s governments and people’s courts that can exercise people’s power directly.

When such a system as described here works, people cannot evade work and bureaucrats cannot evade responsibility. Individuals can not abuse their power through corruption and to serve their own interests. For this to work the masses must continually be mobilized to criticize the leaders, to replace the bad bureaucrats and make cultural revolutions against all forms of capitalist and bureaucratic domination.


What is red power and dictatorship of the working class?

A key question is of course what the working class dictatorship actually entails. If a company is state-owned or not, is easy to determine. But whether the state is a working class dictatorship or a bourgeois dictatorship (or bourgeois bureaucracy in red disguise) is more complicated. We often see people who call themselves communists that simply are not able to see this difference. Thus we get parties and individuals who call the Soviet Union up until 1991 socialist or socialists who believe North Korea is socialist today. It is therefore crucial that we can create clarity on this.

Serve the People has expressed itself as Mao did, in his theory on the Protracted People’s War – we must build red power. Red power is the starting point for the revolution and the new state; the dictatorship of the working class. Red power is workers’ power and people’s power, red power is revolutionary power – in other words a power that will overthrow the present capitalist system by challenging the bourgeoisie in all areas; in production, in the relations between people, culture and politics.

The core of the working class dictatorship is state power. The first states arose with the first class societies. These were the power organs of the ruling class – primarily their armed power and the administration of this armed power. Through the ages there have been many different states, but the core has always been what the bourgeois call “monopoly of violence within a given area”. This is also the core of the working class state – to create its monopoly on force. Engels writes that the state is simultaneously part of the class struggle and stands outside it. He describes the state organ as an instrument of the ruling class, but also standing above it. The government’s task under capitalism, as the political form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, does not always side with the individual capitalist, but takes joint responsibility for the bourgeoisie as a whole and capitalism as a whole. This is how we get bourgeois states that occasionally run contrary to the immediate interests of the bourgeoisie – and especially certain groups within the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie itself – like all things – is a unity of contradictions. The bourgeois are fighting all the time among themselves. We can affirm that class dictatorships hitherto have usually been exercised by representatives of the ruling class, which are both part of the ruling class and “above it”. Officials, politicians, bureaucrats, parties – have all been given the job of executive political dictatorship on behalf of the ruling class. When we say “above it” we do not mean that they actually stand over the ruling class. Politicians who do not serve the bourgeoisie will not have a long career in a capitalist society.

Although the working class dictatorship must differ radically from the bourgeoisie and even though the workers’ state must be different from top to bottom – and from bottom to top – it will in essence also be both a part of the class struggle and above it. It will consist of representatives and administrators, who although they basically represent the working class, will also develop their own perspectives and interests. They’ll in essence be representatives. As a result of the divisions of labor in society, the state will not be a so-called “direct democracy”. Although the Communists will and must mobilize the masses for their own interests, leaders and administrators will still have to make certain decisions.

The Anarchist notion of direct democracy without any state presupposes a world where classes are already completely gone, where there are no capitalist states and no bourgeois military apparatus. A state where all production is directly in the producers hands and where there are no labor divisions between for example intellectual work and manual work. Or in other words – anarchism assumes a direct transition to communism in one stroke and therefore is just a utopia.

Communists believe that the working class dictatorship is given political form by a workers’ state, acting on behalf of the working class, even though it must rely on the working class’ self-organization and participation. Marx and Engels write that this state is the working class organized as the ruling class. But because of the division of labor, necessary bureaucracy, military apparatus and the like, there will be a state bureaucracy that partly stands outside the working class. Therefore, this state from the outset will have some of its own interests, as a separate entity distinct from others. It will develop its own evolutionary laws, and its elected officials and bureaucrats will separate themselves, as a group, from others. These aspects of the government cannot be, as some hope, easily removed by the rotation of elected positions and limitations on how long people may keep a position. In Russia, Putin and the forces around him circumvented such restrictions simply by putting Putin's friend Medvedev in power after his own eight years were up. He even took a tenure as prime minister. And few will assert that the US' restriction on presidential terms, for a maximum of eight years, really changes much in the character of this bourgeois and imperialist state.

Communists are not in principle against rotating leaders, but this is a mechanical paper solution that in no way prevents the bourgeois forces from gaining influence. History seems to suggest that it is the bourgeoisie who benefit from intricate and complex political structures. They have far more means to learn the loopholes and exploit laws and regulations than most working people.


The Communist Party has a definitive role in the working class’ dictatorship

According to Lenin and Stalin, the main institution for ensuring working class power and that the state serves its interests is the Communist Party. The Leninist party should act as the working class’ political general staff. The goal is to be the working class’ highest form of organization, a single organization consisting of the most active and selfless in this class. Leninism developed the theory of the party as a party of a new type, not a wide-open mass party but a party whose members must apply for membership and undertake to work actively for the party’s political line. This party has not only a critical role in the class struggle before the revolution and in the leadership of the revolution, but has a very important task under socialism. The party has a special position as an institution to lead the class struggle also under socialism. The party must ensure that the state not only follow its own or the people’s short-term interests, but in all areas have a revolutionary and communist perspective.

Under Stalin there developed a culture of viewing the party as infallible. There was much talk of “monolithic unity”. Cadre presented the party as an unbreakable unity with no class struggle in the Party itself. Meanwhile, Stalin led a fierce battle against bureaucracy and capitalist roaders in the state and party, which may seem like an irreconcilable contradiction to some. Stalin used largely “administrative measures” – through courts and secret police – to crack down on bourgeois tendencies. He also called for control from below, for example through purges in party branches where all members of the party participated in criticism and self-criticism and were encouraged to expell the most incompetent elements. The masses attended open criticism meetings against party members in Stalin’s time. But only with Mao’s theories about unity-criticism-unity and the two-line struggle in the party, coupled with the mass line and the Cultural Revolution, did an advanced method to treat these contradictions emerge. Mao stood in the Leninist tradition of the vanguard party, but broke with ideas of monolithic unity and a party without infighting. He introduced a highly developed theory of cultivation of the masses and mass control of the party.

Maoism also represents a more developed understanding of the military side of the revolution and the working class dictatorship. Engels wrote part of the working class military strategy and Lenin expanded on it slightly, but Mao developed the strategy of Protracted People’s War and upheld the famous thesis that “political power grows from the barrel of a gun”. Derived from this we got the People’s Liberation Army and the people’s militia, which breaks with the armies of the old class dictatorships; the conventional armies which, like the old class states, breed professionalization and alienation from the people. For the bourgeoisie, it is generally advantageous that the army is not too close to the people – except in situations where other states are invading the areas they control. In connection with invasions we often observe the development of national guards and arming of the people, as was the case after World War II in Norway. But normally in the imperialist countries, states develop professionalized armies for hire which they can send anywhere in the world. So it is with the Norwegian government’s army today.

The socialist state and the socialist army can develop military experts and professional soldiers, but Mao stressed how important it was that the army was a People’s Army and that the people themselves were armed. He formulated it as “without a People’s Army, the people have nothing”. Under socialism the masses will be systematically organized in rifle associations and other means of self-defense, in socialist national guards and the people’s army.


A concentrated description of working class dictatorship

We can summarize part of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of working class dictatorship as follows:

• Socialism presupposes a workers’ state based on the working class organs of power, elected by the working class and the rest of the working people.
• The workers’ state must serve the people and primarily the working class short-term and long-term interests through socialization (collectivization or nationalization) of production and an economy that will meet people’s needs to the fullest.
• The worker’s state rests on the people’s army, the direct arming of the people, the organization of people’s militias, and the working class' and people’s monopoly on violence within state borders.
• To lead the working class in the class struggle under socialism, to correct the state and the bureaucracy’s tendency to serve their own interests and develop their own privilege, the Communist Party plays a crucial role. The Communist Party must lead this fight and not leave it to government bodies, trade unions or other forms of organization. The Communist Party is a distinctive and specialized organization for class struggle in all areas and for revolution, even under socialism.
• The masses’ own activity, their control from below, the struggle for criticism of bad leaders and bureaucrats, rectification campaigns and cultural revolutions – these are prerequisites for socialism’s survival and evolution. This battle cannot be fully institutionalized through the state or the party or electoral laws; it cannot be resolved through legal texts and regulations. The masses must often circumvent conventional state organs to avoid having their wings cut. Communists must, like Mao, spearhead such a struggle and not act as conservative or reactionary administrators.

These points are useful for understanding the working class dictatorship and socialism but they can not constitute a complete definition. Indeed, an exhaustive and final definition is impossible to formulate. Lenin said that the concrete analysis of the concrete situation is Marxism’s living soul. We must never define ourselves out of the work of making concrete analysis. Instead, we can use the concentrated lessons of Marxist classics; from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, to separate the wheat from the chaff today.


What socialism is not

When certain individuals define Cuba and North Korea as socialist countries today, their evaluation is mainly based on four factors:

• That these states and their state leaders say that they are socialist. They use red flags, they use Marxist jargon (at least to some extent) and they link themselves to Marxism-Leninism.
• That these states are in competition with Western imperialism, mainly US imperialism.
• That production in these countries is mainly based on state or collective ownership.
• That laws and regulations in these countries guarantee “socialist” property and people taking part in elections to state bodies with the right to criticism and participation enshrined in law.

Despite all this, Serve the People says that these countries are not socialist. How can that be?

The first two points can be dismissed quickly as criteria for socialism. That a head of state calls himself something means little or nothing. Hitler called himself National Socialist, but were neither national nor socialist. America’s leaders call themselves democrats and Norwegian leaders call Norway a peace nation. To stand against the United States is not enough either – on a good day, the Iranian regime, Russia’s Putin, today’s capitalist Chinese leaders and Al Qaeda all stand “against the US”. Various bourgeoisies fight over the same resources, markets and political control. One bourgeoisie is not in essence better or worse than the other, just more or less effective, large or strong. US imperialism is the greatest enemy of the peoples of the world. Nevertheless, it is not the case that all who stand against it represent the future and socialism, although it is good that they resist.

The greatest source of theoretical confusion regarding socialist countries is property relations. Many who see themselves as communists think the main difference between capitalism and socialism is property relations. With that kind of view, state or collective property is synonymous with socialism. So that with more state production, more welfare and higher taxes, a country becomes “more socialist”. With such a view, social democrats are more socialist than liberal democrats, and the understanding of socialism becomes reformist rather than revolutionary. Marx, Engels and Lenin do not say that the revolution and socialism are initiated by state property but instead by the working class dictatorship. This is the key question and the watershed between capitalism and the socialist era. You can not have socialist property relations without a working class dictatorship. State property without the working class dictatorship is just another form of bourgeois property – directly under common capitalist (state) control instead of private capital.

Laws and regulations can mean as little as what the state calls itself and what flag is lifted on national holidays. Under capitalism, private ownership is seemingly sacred but the bourgeois state and the capitalist monopoly companies can suppress it and even put it completely aside. In fact, this happens all the time – primarily against workers, peasants and poor people but also towards individual capitalists.

Neither the people’s participation in elections to assemblies, nor a formal right to withdraw elected officials, proves that a country is socialist. In Norway, the majority participate in elections and have a number of formal rights to express themselves, gather and organize. The same applies to a great many countries that no one will call anything but capitalist. The question is not who votes or who gets a position but rather what policy is chosen, what political line is adopted, what perspectives it has and where it leads – or more succinctly; the class interests it serves in the short and long term.

There is no working class dictatorship in Cuba or North Korea – their systems are variations on the bureaucratic state capitalism of the Soviet Union from 1956 to 1991. This is a system developed by and for a bureaucracy that has constituted itself as a new bourgeoisie. Mao concentrated this insight in the phrase, “revisionism in power is the bourgeoisie in power”. Neither Cuba nor North Korea have seen cultural revolutions. They were developed by the Soviet model, and were wholly or partially linked to Soviet social-imperialism. The regimes in these countries expose themselves primarily in the weakness of the Communist Party, the leading ideology and the political line of the state. Some examples:

• The leadership of the Cuban revolution was basically not communist. After the revolution they merged with the admittedly small Moscow-loyal Communist Party, but the leadership was from the start politically weak.
• After the revolution in Cuba, the country was quickly integrated into part of the Soviet Union’s “socialist division of labor” and made to focus on trading raw materials – primarily sugar. A line of dependence instead of independence was cultivated. This policy showed its immense weakness when the Soviet Union disintegrated and parts the Cuban economy had to be rebuilt from scratch.
• North Korea’s ideology has little in common with Marxism. Juche is idealistic and has a religious character. The leadership is not working to spread revolution in the rest of the world. It has a friendly relationship with Chinese state capitalism and was strongly against the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s time.
• North Korea’s “military first” policy (Songun) and its inability to feed its own people reveal a distorted set of priorities, as production is not geared to satisfy people’s needs. Mao says that weapons are important in a war, but people are more important. Economic, political and military displays of force and an “army first” attitude reveal a non-marxist political line.
• There has been no cultural revolution or similar mobilization of the masses in either Cuba or North Korea. The masses’ participation are clearly marked by institutionalization within “safe” limits set by the state and the party.
• Both countries have developed an almost hereditary leadership cycle, where Raul Castro took over from Fidel Castro, and where Kim Il Sung was succeeded by his son and then his grandson. People are obviously free to choose anyone as leader, but hereditary privilege is a feudal custom that has no place in socialism.

Use MLM and the lessons of socialism for concrete analysis and praxis in Norway

Socialism in Norway must build on the general teachings systematized by the Communist classics and on our own assessment of good and bad experiences from socialist countries. These lessons and experiences must be applied to the specific circumstances we find here. Not mechanically transferred as blueprints but used creatively and virulently. This must be done both in theory and practice, primarily in praxis.


Tjen Folket
15.12.2015

Kaderparti eller ”masseparti”?

Vi mener at et parti er nødvendig for å organisere og lede en sosialistisk revolusjon. Men hva slags parti?


Tjen Folket arbeider for å etablere et kommunistparti i Norge. Vi mener at et slikt parti må bruke marxismen-leninismen-maoismen (MLM) som veiledning til handling og organisere seg som et kaderparti.

MLM har en partimodell som bryter med andre måter å organisere partier på. De vanlige borgerlige partiene er valgpartier. De er bare organisert for å samle stemmer til sine politikere. Et kommunistparti har helt andre oppgaver, og må derfor organiseres på en annen måte.


Partiet som ledelse

Siden Marx har kommunistene villet være de mest målbevisste innafor arbeiderbevegelsen. En forutsetning for dette var teoretisk innsikt i hvordan arbeiderklassen må organisere seg for å avskaffe kapitalismen. Kommunistenes Forbund, der Marx var med, organiserte seg med sikkerhetspolitikk.

Reformismen i arbeiderbevegelsen har derimot omfavnet ”massepartiet” som organisatorisk linje. Fra mensjevikene i Russland til Det Norske Arbeiderparti, har disse vært mot å stille krav til medlemmer verken om aktivitet og deltagelse eller politisk skolering.

Mao sier folk kan deles i tre – de relativt mest aktive, de relativt mellomliggende og de relativt tilbakeliggende. Et kommunistparti må først og fremst være en organisasjon av de mest aktive. De relativt tilbakeliggende vil ikke gå i spissen for bevegelsen, men heller dilte etter andre.

Oppgaven med å organisere de breie massene er også partiets oppgave – men verktøyet partiet må bruke til dette er revolusjonære enhetsfronter. Et eksempel fra i dag er Fillippinenes Nasjonaldemokratiske Front (NDFP) – en paraplyorganisasjon for revolusjonære masseorganisasjoner på Fillippinene – under ledelse av kommunistpartiet.

Enhetsfronten er en metode for å organisere massene og forene alle som kan forenes til kamp mot den felles fienden. I enhetsfronten finner vi også kimene til en ny stat, slik Russlands arbeiderråd, bonderåd og soldatråd ble grunnlaget for den nye sovjetstaten. For å gi disse masseorganisasjonene en retning trengs en målbevisst ledelse; et kommunistisk parti.

I partier som ikke er kaderpartier, der de fleste er passive medlemmer, blir det uansett en elite innad. De tillitsvalgte, byråkratiet og eventuelle parlamentarikere og regjeringsmedlemmer, vil bli et ”parti i partiet”. Om målsetningen er å motvirke elitisme så er ”massepartiet” en dårlig modell. Er man i tvil kan man se på Arbeiderpartiets utvikling.


Partiet må tilføre bevissthet

Kommunister mener arbeiderklassens politikk må utformes ved hjelp av vitenskaplige metoder, ikke ved følelser eller fordommer. Gjennom sanser kan vi danne oss et bilde av verden, men dette vil alltid være ufullstendig og overfladisk, ja ofte helt feil. Lenge trodde man sola gikk rundt jorda, fordi det er slik det ser ut herfra, fra vår posisjon på jorda.

Lenin mente at arbeiderklassen på grunn av sin posisjon i produksjonen, spontant ville utvikle bevissthet om at det er lurt å stå sammen og organisere seg. Men dette var fagforeningsbevissthet og ikke bevissthet om nødvendigheten av sosialismen. Den sosialistiske bevisstheten ble tilført arbeiderklassen ”utenfra” fra sosialistiske intellektuelle, der Marx og Engels var de fremste.

Marxismen er en praktisk filosofi som hevder at all virkelig kunnskap har rot i praksis, men før denne praksisen skaper virkelig innsikt så må den vurderes vitenskaplig. For eksempel må man studere svært mange praksiser – fordi én erfaring alltid er ensidig og begrensa, og vil derfor føre til begrensa og ensidige konklusjoner. Og man må forkaste de forestillingene som ikke holder vann. En forutsetning for å lære noe, er å sortere vekk mange feilaktige inntrykk og tanker.

Lenin mente at tilførelsen av bevissthet ikke skulle være en oppgave for grupper av intellektuelle, men et parti der industriarbeidere og intellektuelle organiserte seg sammen, studerte sammen og utvikla politisk taktikk og strategi i et kampfellesskap. Om et slikt parti hadde dype røtter blant massene, kunne det gi mange en innsikt i nødvendigheten av sosialisme.

Alle folk har et hverdagslivsperspektiv. Alle har sine egne erfaringer og tanker som er viktige for seg. Disse kan ikke erstatte en vitenskaplig forståelse av verden. De gir innsikt i hvordan man opplever samfunnet sjøl, men ikke hvordan samfunnet oppleves av andre eller hvordan det faktisk er. Og undertrykking i seg sjøl gir ikke innsikt i hva som må til for å fjerne undertrykking. Tvert om: mange undertrykte lærer å bøye nakken og holde kjeft, fordi dette er virker tryggere på kort sikt.

Kampmoralen, strategien og framtidsperspektivene må komme fra et annet sted; fra et kommunistisk parti. Og partiet kan bare utvikle dette om medlemmene er aktive og studerende folk. Det er ikke tilfeldig at studiene i de sosialdemokratiske partiene raskt ble noe for eliten av tillitsvalgte og ikke for ”fotfolket” i partiene.


Partiet som revolusjonær generalstab

Kapitalismen kan bare avskaffes hvis arbeiderklassen tar makta fra borgerskapet. Det kan den bare gjøre om den ødelegger borgerskapets viktigste redskap for å utøve makt; staten. Det er umulig og nesten utenkelig at dette skulle skje gjennom reformer der arbeiderklassens parti vant fram gjennom valg og avstemminger i parlamentet innafor den samme staten.

Denne strategien, reformismen, har vist igjen og igjen at den ikke fører til sosialisme. Arbeiderpartiet har hatt regjeringsmakt i lange tider og resultatet er et av verdens mest kapitalistiske land som plyndrer og kriger for profitt i de fattigste verdensdelene.

Mot dette setter vi innsikten om at politisk makt vokser ut av geværløpet og at arbeiderklassen må kjempe for å kunne gripe makta. Det krever langvarig revolusjonær folkekrig. Et kommunistisk parti må derfor ikke bare være en politisk ledelse, men en revolusjonær generalstab. Uten dette er det ikke mulig for arbeiderklassen å ta makta.

Borgerskapet har sine generalstaber – de har NATO, politidirektorat, forsvarsstab, forsvarskommando, forsvarsminister og forsvarsdepartement. De har også et overvåkingsapparat i PST og Forsvarets etterretning, samt samarbeid med andre lands etterretningstjenester. De har gjennom det meste av 1900-tallet og fram til våre dager, brukt enorme ressurser på å overvåke og sabotere statens politiske fiender.

Staten og dens mange redskaper for overvåking, undertrykking og vold har som viktigste oppgave å forsvare det politisk-økonomiske status quo. De skal forsvare dem som har makta i dag, deres system, deres eiendom og deres lover.

Det er med andre ord sånn at revolusjonære møter undertrykking og at en sosialistisk revolusjon ikke kan være et teselskap. En revolusjonær ledelse kan altså ikke organiseres som en teklubb. Kommunistpartiet må organiseres for kamp og for illegalitet, fordi et virkelig revolusjonært kommunistparti må møte undertrykking og forfølgelse.

Derfor må kommunistene praktisere en form for sikkerhet og gjøre det vanskeligere å overvåke partiet og medlemmene. Det må føre radikale kamper med radikale midler, ikke bare bevege seg innenfor rammene av det godtatte. Det må kjempe og utfordre, ikke tilpasse seg systemet. Det revolusjonære er ikke bare en politisk teori, det må også vises i praksisen til og organiseringa av partiet.

For å oppsummere – et kommunistisk parti må være et kaderparti, et kjempende parti, fordi det har tre helt særegne oppgaver:

• Partiet skal bli en ledelse, en fortropp for arbeiderklassens bevegelse, og ikke et haleheng for denne.
• Partiet skal tilføre den vitenskaplige sosialismen, en revolusjonær bevissthet, til proletariatet og massene.
• Partiet skal være en generalstab for å etablere proletariatets politiske makt gjennom langvarig folkekrig.

Et kaderparti er ikke et elitistisk parti

Kommunistpartiet av MLM-typen kalles et kaderparti – som motsetning til ”massepartiet” som ikke stiller spesielle krav til medlemmene. Men det er en farlig politisk feil om dette blir en form for borgerlig elitisme. Borgerskapet fremmer idealer om sterke enkeltindivider og om førere. De framstiller massene som sauer som må gjetes.

Dette er fremmed for MLM og Maos masselinje. Vi sier at massene er de virkelige heltene. Når Mao deler massene i tre, så deler han ikke etter elitens idealer om styrke eller mentale evner, men han deler etter hvor relativt aktive og revolusjonære de er.

Et kommunistisk kaderparti stiller krav til medlemmer om aktivitet, lojalitet og deltagelse, men utover dette må det ikke bli en klubb for en spesiell type veltilpassa folk. En rekke ML-partier i vesten på 60- og 70-tallet stilte krav om kort hår og formell klesstil, noen dyrka ideal om ekteskap og ”revolusjonær kjernefamilie” og noen, som RCP i USA, gikk så langt som å forby medlemmer å leve som homofile(!). Sexisme og homofobi har blitt rettferdiggjort med borgerlige normer om hva ”folk flest” liker eller ikke liker og hva som er ”vanlig”. Dette er ikke proletær ”masselinje”. Det er borgerlig sjåvinisme.

Kaderpartiet er ikke for én type folk, eller for de særskilt begava superproletarer. Mao formulerte denne innsikten da han sa:

”Massene er de virkelige heltene. Sjøl er vi ofte barnslige og uvitende, og uten denne forståelsen er det umulig å tilegne seg den enkleste kunnskap.”

Et kaderparti må være en form for lederkollektiv, ikke såkalt sterke individer. Det vil lede ikke gjennom medlemmenes fantastiske individuelle evner, men gjennom en vitenskaplig politisk linje, gjennom organisatorisk styrke og gjennom revolusjonær entusiasime, aktivitet og målbevissthet.


Noen sitater om partiet

Våre egne uthevinger.

Marx og Engels:

”Kommunistene er altså i praksis den mest målbevisste og pådrivende delen av arbeiderpartiene i alle land; de har framfor den øvrige massen av proletariatet en teoretisk innsikt i betingelsene for, forløpet og de allmenne resultatene av den proletariske bevegelsen. Kommunistenes nærmeste mål er de samme som de øvrige proletariske partienes: Å konstituere proletariatet til en klasse, styrte borgerskapets herredømme, proletariatets erobring av den politiske makta.”

Fra Det kommunistiske manifest

Lenin:

”Den politiske klassebevissthet kan bare tilføres arbeideren utenfra, dvs., fra et område utenfor den økonomiske kamp, utenfor den sfære som består av arbeidernes forhold til arbeidsgiverne.”

Fra Hva må gjøres?

”For deltakelse i vår bevegelse må det eneste alvorlige organisatoriske prinsipp være: den strengeste konspirasjon, det strengeste utvalg av medlemmer, utdannelse av yrkesrevolusjonære. Når først disse egenskaper er til stede, vil noe langt større enn «demokratisme» være sikret: full kameratslig tillit mellom de revolusjonære.”

Fra samme sted.

Stalin:

”Jeg har allerede behandlet vanskelighetene i arbeiderklassens kamp; de kompliserte forholdene i kampen, om strategi og taktikk, om reserver og manøvrering, om angrep og retrett. Disse forholdene er ikke mindre kompliserte, heller tvert om, enn forholdene i krig. Hvem kan se klart i disse forholdene, og gi riktig veiledning til millioner av proletarer? Ingen hær i krig kan klare seg uten en erfaren generalstab, hvis den ikke vil bli dømt til nederlag. Er det ikke klart at proletariatet enda mindre kan unnvære en slik generalstab, hvis det ikke ønsker å å bli slukt av sine dødsfiender? Men hvor er denne generalstaben? Bare det revolusjonære proletariatets parti kan tjene som denne generalstaben. Uten et revolusjonært parti er arbeiderklassen en hær uten generalstab.”

Oversatt fra Foundations of Leninism

Mao:

“Et disiplinert parti bevæpna med den marxist-leninistiske teorien, som bruker metoden med sjølkritikk og er knytta til folkets masser; en hær under et slikt partis ledelse; en samla front av alle revolusjonære klasser og alle revolusjonære grupper under ledelsen av et slikt parti – dette er de tre viktigste våpnene som vi har brukt til å beseire fienden.”

Oversatt fra Quotations from Mao Tse Tung


Tjen Folket
06.12.2015