On the Twenty-Second Congress of the French Communist Party

7/28/2019 On the Twenty-Second Congress of the French Communist Party

1/20

Louis Althusser

On the Twenty-Second Congress ofthe French Communist Party

3

I should like to thank the Sorbonne Philosophy Circle of the Union of

Communist Students for inviting me to participate in this discussion.* I was left

free to choose my own subject. I felt that in France today, not only for

Communists but also for all who want to get rid of the dictatorship of the

bourgeoisie, its exploitation, its oppression, its cynicism and its lies, there was no

subject more important than the 22nd Congress of the French Communist Party. I

shall therefore present a series of brief comments on the import of the 22nd

Congress. To make my position clear, let me say that I regard this congress as a

decisive event, a crucial turning-point in the history of the Communist Party and

the French workers movement. The reservations I may formulate on any par-ticular point should be seen within this perspective from the start. If what is in

question is indeed an event of such importance, then it is clearly impossible for us

to restrict ourselves to French political history, the details of the Congress and its

proceedings, or to the letter of its decisions and formulations alone. It is essential

to go beyond these immediate manifestations and examine under what conditions the


2/20

22nd Congress took place: from what history it was trying to emerge, andwhat history it was attempting to make.

Thus it is essential to understand what, not just on a national but also on aworld scale, are the economic and political problems which gave rise tothe Congress. It is essential to understand what general problems itattempted to respond to, and why it gave them the response with which

you are all familiar. To do this it is indispensable to step back and situatethe 22nd Congress at its date, 1976: in the history of imperialism, theperiod of revolutionary movements (Lenin), and in the history of theinternational Communist movement. And if imperialism is in crisis, it isessential to add: so is the international Communist movement. I shall,therefore, argue that it is impossible to understand the 22nd Congresswithout taking into account two major facts which dominate the politicalsituation and concern hundreds of millions of people throughout theworld: 1. the aggravation of the crisis of imperialism; 2. the accentuationof the crisis of the international communist movement.

After the first crisis of imperialism, sanctioned by the First World War(191418), then after its second crisis (the 1930s), when imperialism sweptaway any revolutionary stirrings by means of fascism and a Second WorldWar (193945)but on each occasion at the heavy cost of a revolution(Russian) or revolutions (China, Cuba)it can be said that imperialism,for the third time in its history, is today in a pre-revolutionary crisis, onewhose forms are quite new.

The near impossibility of resort to world war (the classic solution for animperialist crisis, re-dividing the world amid the destruction of vastquantities of capital and labour power) now leaves unchecked theinsidious aggravation of the economic and political forms of the crisis, ona hitherto unknown scale. Sheltered by what is called dtente, in whichthe strength of the peoples movement throughout the world and thebalance between the super-armaments of the USA and the USSR hold thenuclear threat at bay,something becomes possible in the narrow space wherethe zones of influence cancel each other out and where the revolutionarymovement of the masses is strong enough. As a result of the workers and

peoples class struggle, despite all theanti-crisis mechanisms set up andadjusted by the bourgeois states after and since the crisis of1929, a linkmay give way, somewhere, at the weak point of the chain. Somewhere,the revolutionary movement may prevail, but in forms which presupposea sustained effort, stages to be traversed and the mastering of greatdifficulties.

In fact, neverhas the mass movement, never has the workers and peoplesrevolutionary movement, despite serious local defeats and despite theproblems raised by the socialist countries, been so powerful in the world.

At the other end of the earth, the tiny Vietnamese people forced Frenchimperialism to its knees and defeated on the ground the worlds strongest

4

*I here present the text of remarks made on 16 December 1976, in a lecture theatre at theSorbonne, as an introduction to a public discussion. I have endeavoured to retain the limitsand the theses of my original argument, doing no more than to make certain passages eithersimpler and clearer, or more explicit. 6 May 1977. L.A.


3/20

military power, the United States of America. Before that victory, thebiggest strike in world history, in May 1968 in France, in its junction withthe student and petty-bourgeois revolt, partial, abortive, but fruitful inthe long term, announced that times had changed. The peoplesmovement has invented new forms of struggle; women and youth haveflung themselves into contestation and combat, as have other groups; theaims of struggle have widened to include conditions of labour and life,

housing, transport, health, education, the family, the environment. Allthis has not occurred without difficulties on the one side, reservations onthe other. But the general wave is immense and conceals unsuspectedforces. The movement of the masses today is shaking the big imperialistbourgeoisies in their national bastions. It is reinforced by the struggle ofthe peoples of the third worldamid terrible difficulties of which youwill be aware, but also with the help of the contradictions reigning in theworldto strengthen their political independence and win theireconomic independence.

But paradoxically, whereas some of the old divisions of the workersmovement are tending to diminish, and even occasionally here and thereare being transformed into a united struggle (for example, the Union ofthe Left in France), never has the crisis of the international Communistmovement been so profound: whether it is open (Sino-Soviet) or concealed(between a number of Communist Parties and the USSR, masked bydeclarations of solidarity).

If the 22nd Congress is not situated both within the basic contradiction ofthe class struggle (between the mass of workers and people on the onehand and imperialism on the other), and within its paradoxical forms(crisis of the international Communist movement), there is a risk thatneither the true import of the 22nd Congress, nor its peculiar problemsand contradictions, will be understood.

Having said this, it should not be forgotten that imperialism, which alsobanks on the crisis of the international Communist movement, still hasconsiderable resources and enormous forces at its disposal to make theinternational working class, the peoples of the third world, their emigrantworkers and the dependent capitalist countries foot the bill for its crisisand the maintenance, re-establishment or even reinforcement of itsdomination over the zones it controls. It should not be forgotten thatevery time in history one of its links has broken (Russia, China, Cuba,etc.), imperialism has managed to cut its losses, invent new forms ofexploitation and oppression and begin again with new vigour on thebases preserved. The horror of Vietnam and Chile should not beforgotten. Nor should Portugal. Hence, in the present situation, it wouldbe dangerous to under-estimate the strength of world imperialism,dominated by American imperialism. Its finance capital is gigantic and

tentacular, its productivity considerable, its forms of domestic andinternational class struggle merciless. It is armed with the most powerful,the most varied, the most insidious and the most cynical means.

It would be just as dangerous to underestimate the local representatives ofAmerican imperialism, its economic and political stand-ins, such as Japanin Asia and the Federal Republic of Germany in Europe. And as this

5


4/20

Germany is led by the classic Social-Democratic Party, which has greatinfluence in the Socialist International, it would be dangerous tounderestimate the threat of a substitute imperialist solution of a social-democratictype, which already has a very powerful grip on Europe (Portugal, forcedto return to normal by its direct financial and political blackmail, is aneloquent example). It would be equally dangerous to underestimate thestrength of a national bourgeoisie such as the French one, despite the

shakiness of its policies and the direct threats to its power. The fact thatthe bourgeois state is dominated by the monopolistic fraction, that thisfraction openly and cynically dictates to it, does not alter the fact that ithas at the same time to defend the mass base it needs socially andpoliticallyand does not alter the fact that, when this base weakens ortires, this same fraction attempts to recapture it and to restore it to life.

Even when it can no longer change its general policies, the bourgeoisiecan still change men and demagogy. It can go to the limit of its resources:economic measures, political pressure, last-minute promises, electoraltricks and so onnot to speak, of course, of violent provocations tosustain its great theatrical scenarios of fear. It is no accident that behindGiscard there is a Chirac, ready to exploit to the limit, in a brutaldemagogy, to save the threatened bourgeoisie, the advantages of the fearthat will be unleashed at any price. One must pay attention to thevariations in the forms of the bourgeoisies political action; to the play ofthe means, measures and arguments it has at its disposal. All these thingshave their effects on the fate of the bourgeoies mass base; hence not just onthe coming elections, but also, if it loses them, on the bourgeoisies

reaction and the revenge it is already preparing in advance.

In the same way, but inversely, and on quite a different front, it would bedangerous to underestimate, despite its open or concealed crisis, thecapacities of the international communist movement. In certain places, itmay be possible to attempt to emerge from this historical impasse, at leasttendentially. The first efforts undertaken by certain importantCommunist Parties constitute in this respect a historical event of greatimport, even if their prospects are still very uncertain.

Such, schematically summarized, are the historical conditions that have tobe remembered, that have to be considered as a whole and in their oftenparadoxical dialectical effects, in order to understand what I shall call theinitiatives of the 22nd Congress: the initiatives which give it historicalimport. This is the context in which I should like to examine, one afteranother, the initiatives of the 22nd Congress: their meaning, their import,their prospects, and also their limitations and their contradictions.

First Initiative

The 22nd Congress presented itself as a historical event, and as a turning-point in the history of the Party. Why is it a historic congress? Because,for the first time, it approached the immediate history of the class strugglein France in the name of socialism, while affirming that the transition tosocialism will be democratic, and that French socialism will be democratic:in liberty. The document adopted by the Congress is indeed somethingout of the ordinary: it is not a concrete analysis of a concrete situation, i.e.

6


5/20

an analysis of the state of the class struggle in France and the world, but atrue Communist Manifesto, expounding to the French people, and not justto the working class, what is the society the Communists want forFrance: socialism. An important difference: the 21st Congress did notspeak of socialism, but primarily of the Common Programme; but thewhole of the 22nd Congresss document is built round socialism. Inspeaking openly about socialism in this way, the intention of the 22nd

Congress was to go beyond a limited, and hence tactical point of view,dealing only with the application of the Common Programme, in order toexpound a true strategy which, through the Common Programme butbeyond the Common Programme, would lead to socialism.

The great innovation of the 22nd Congress is to have affirmed that thiswhole strategy depends on democracy. In all cases the Party commits itself torespect the verdict of universal suffrage, hence political alternation. TheCongress stated that the French people will not move to socialism byviolence or constraint, but democratically, by universal suffrage. But at

the same time the Party did not hide the fact that it is unleashing all itsforces in a struggle for which the electoral outcome will only be asanction. At this moment it is starting a great recruiting campaign,vigorously developing its factory branches, intervening openly andpowerfully in every quarter in the class struggle, and doing everything togather the masses of the people behind the slogans of their demands, ofthe Common Programme and of socialism. At this moment it is warningthat the transition to socialism will call for the development of mightymass struggles: Nothing can be achieved without a struggle, and

insistently recalling that union is struggle.However, as nothing is without its contradictions and problems, weshould here note, alongside this very important initiative and theprospects of a socialism I shall discuss later, the inadequate character ofsome of the analyses to which the 22nd Congress made implicit reference,and of the formulations it derived from them. Yes, we are living in the ageof imperialism or monopoly capitalism (Lenin), under the crushing ruleof the monopolies, under new forms of financial concentration and henceexploitation in which states play an unprecedented part in the service of

the trusts, taking on the political and ideological armament necessary forthat part. What is known as the theory of state monopoly capitalism hasprovided a good description of these essential aspects of the process(extension of the states productive sector, diversion of savings by thestate to the advantage of the trusts, crushing of democratic representationat all levels). However, by basing everything on a questionableinterpretation of the devaluation of capital and centring everything onthe national state, it fails to provide any way to explain the world-wide formsof financial concentration: its ability to invest in exploitation andspeculation according to the state of the class struggle throughout the

world, to shift its capital (money, raw materials, machines, labour force)from one country to another, and to resolve some of its problemsprecisely through the crisis itself.

The theory may fail to explain why the monetary crisis and inflation areworld-wide phenomena, affecting the imperialist countries dominated byAmerican imperialism and its regional representatives. For, if it is true

7


6/20

that imperialism is first rooted in each imperialist nation and its classstructures, the dialectic of world finance capital, its market and effects, issubject to laws which cannot be reduced to the existence of nationalmonopolies. And when it is said that the crisis is a global or structuralone, this is correct so long as it means that it goes very deep; that itinvolves the capitalist relation of production itself and all its forms ofexistence (exploitation, politics, ideology), and can hence shatter the rule

of the national bourgeoisie. But it must also be realized that this crisisgoes beyond our frontiers, that its results will not be the sameeverywhere, and that if the Left wins it will have to confront this crisis notjust in its national roots but also in its international effects, which are notso readily within our grasp.

And to talk politics at last, establishing that the French economy isdominated by twenty-five great trusts 500 auxiliaries 500,000 bigbourgeois does not allow one to pose and resolve thepoliticalproblem ofbourgeois class power in all its breadth and complexity. For this poweralways takes the political and social form of what Gramsci called a powerbloc allying directly or indirectly several class fractions beneath thedomination of the monopoly fraction. Thus establishing an economic factalone does not allow one to settle thepoliticalproblem of the mass base ofthe rule of the bourgeoisie as a class: for politics cannot be reduced toeconomics; and as a class the bourgeoisie cannot be reduced to itsmonopoly fraction, even though the latter does overwhelminglydominate it. If as a class the bourgeoisie was reduced politically to itsmonopoly fraction, it would not hold out for a quarter of an hour.

Obviously this question goes far beyond the coming elections and theirresults. This is not an abstract or theoretical remark; at stake areconcrete realities which have already found their sanction in the famouselectoral barrier and other failures to advance, slightly too quickly putdown to various secondary causes (television, etc.), whereas it is amatter oflimitations,functions and effects ofclass politics, definite and hencedefinable and analysable in every case. It is a matter of realities which willclearly find their sanction in other difficulties than the electoral barrier, ifit can be removed: other difficulties and rather more formidable ones. For

if the monopolies are beaten at the polls and the bourgeoisie loses powerfor a time, it will not give up the fight. Then everything will depend onthe popular forces: their unity, their lucidity and their courage.

Second Initiative

It is to the credit of the 22nd Congress that in its political line it drew theconsequences from the important changes that have occurred in theworld. If that political line suggests a new perspective, that is becauseclass relations have changed and the masses have become aware of this in

their own struggles, however hard those struggles may be in a period ofinflation and unemployment. Georges Marchais expressed this historicalexperience when he insisted on the fact that things have changed and thatthe Party had to change too.

Yes, the Cold War is more remote, despite very dangerous flash-pointssuch as the Middle East and Southern Africa, where American

8


7/20

Imperialism is intervening directly or through its lackeys. Yes, theeconomic crisis of imperialism is shaking the political power of thebourgeoisie and giving better opportunities to the workers and peoplesclass struggle. Yes, new social strata have been drawn into the ranks ofwage-earners and have joined the working class in its struggle. A newbalance of forces suggests an unprecedented perspective:for the first timein history the transition to socialism may be peaceful and democratic in some

places. For the first time the historical horizon reveals a different form ofsocialism from the grey form of constraint and even repression: agenuinely democratic popular socialism. This historical opportunity isanything but an accident. It is the result of a very long struggle: it must beseized.

The 22nd Congress was able to draw the lesson of the objective needs, theexperience and the demands of the people of this country. When it spokeof socialism in French colours, this was an allusion, in its own terms, tothe long French revolutionary tradition which has also combined libertywith revolution. It went much further than a repudiation of the militaryoccupation of Czechoslovakia. It made central to its strategy the defenceof existing liberties, the struggle for new liberties, and identified livingsocialism with living liberty. But as nothing is ever without itscontradictions and problems, it should be pointed out that the sameCommunist party that speaks so generously and amply of liberty for thepeople, remains silent about the current practices of democraticcentralism, i.e. the concrete forms of the liberty of Communists in theirown Party.

Third Initiative

The 22nd Congress has taken up a new position in respect to the crisis ofthe international Communist movement. The paradox is that theCongress discussed thisallusively, without providing any analysis of thiscrucial question; and its silence cannot but weigh on the history it wantsto make. The paradox is that the crisis of the international movement hasbeen dealt with obliquely, indirectly: in the guise of abandonment of thedictatorship of the proletariat. Here is a case where it is essential to step

back and not be content with taking these decisions and formulationsliterally. For what is at issue is far more important than the explanationsprovided.

In fact, it was said: After Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc., the worddictatorship has become intolerable. It was said: Theproletariat, the hardcore of the working class, is too narrow a notion for the broad popularunion we want. Now, the notion that the working class (or theproletariat) is at the head of a broad popular alliance, indispensable, vitalfor its class struggle, descends directly from Marx and Lenin. The 22nd

Congress was only repeating a classical thesis in speaking of the leadingrole of the working class in a broad popular alliance. Thus there is noserious problem on this point. On the other hand, it is difficult to takeseriously the argument about the word dictatorship, for it is incomplete. Itlacks something very important, in the very perspective of the 22ndCongress. The list of examples provided to show that the worddictatorship is intolerable includes Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet,

9


8/20

etc. It forgets to mention Stalin: not just the individual Stalin as such, butthe structure and the confusion of the Soviet Party and state; the line,theory and practices imposed by Stalin for forty years, not just in theUSSR but on Communist Parties the world over.

I am not pretending that this is a simple matter, and not for a moment canone reduce the social reality of the USSR to Stalinist practices. But fascismis fascism: the workers rapidly realized what they could expect from it.On the contrary, they expected from Soviet socialism, in which they hadplaced all their hopes for emancipation and liberation, something quitedifferent from the rgime of mass terror and extermination which heldsway beneath Stalin after the 1930s, and the practices that persist in theUSSR sixty years after the Revolution and twenty-two years after Stalinsdeath. Yes, there were the Red Army, the Partisans and Stalingrad,unforgettable. But there were also the trials, the confessions, themassacres and the camps. And there is what still survives.

The commentators on the abandonment of the dictatorship of theproletariat said: Dictatorship Hitler Mussolini, etc. Really, theywere also saying something else, without saying it: Dictatorship Stalinism. Really they were saying: We want no more of that kind of

socialism, ever. At any rate, that is how the words made their way into theirhearers heads. For it is not words that determine their meaning, but theirechoes.

That is why there is little doubt that in the abandonment, or rathersymbolic sacrifice of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the 22nd Congresswas killing two birds with one stone. While adopting a new strategy ofdemocratic socialism (a different socialism), it in fact adopted a newposition with respect to a decisive aspect of the crisis of the internationalCommunist movement (relations with the USSR). The advantage of thisnew position is that the 22nd Congress gave reasons for thinking that it isnow at least in part possible to get out of this crisis and its dead ends.Despite its immediate limitations, this initiative may bear fruit. In thisperspective, the abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat has

played its part as a symbolic act, making it possible to present inspectacular fashion the break with a certain past, left vague verbally,while opening the road to a differentsocialism (from that reigning in theUSSR).

All this obviously took place over the head of the concept, i.e. of thetheoretical meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat. For theabandonment of a theoretical concept (whichneed it be said?cannot be thought by itself, all alone, but is bound up with a set of other

concepts) cannot be the object of a political decision. Since Galileo everymaterialist has known that the fate of a scientific concept, which is theobjective reflection of a real problem with many implications, cannot bethe object of a political decision. The dictatorship of the proletariat can beabandoned: it will be rediscovered as soon as we come to speak of thestate and socialism.

10


9/20

Fourth Initiative

Here, too, things were not openly stated by the 22nd Congress, but theyare important and must be deciphered. This is the question of the sloganunion of the people of France, that George Marchais had proposedbefore the 21st Congress and that the 22nd Congress readopted in itsstrongest form. This slogan is not synonymous with the slogan of the

Union of the Left. It is broader than it, and different in nature; for it doesnot designate just the union or united action of the political organizationsof the Left, parties and trade unions. How are we to understand theslogan of the union of the people of France?

In the best of cases, it is conceivable that the union of the people of Francemay become something quite different from the means to a new electoralbalance, but is rather aimed, over and above the organizations of the Left,at the popular masses themselves. Why address the popular masses in thisway? To tell them, even if still only as a hint, that they will have to organize

themselves autonomously, in original forms, in firms, urban districts andvillages, around the questions of labour and living conditions, thequestions of housing, education, health, transport, the environment, etc.;in order to define and defend their demands, first to prepare for theestablishment of a revolutionary state, then to maintain it, stimulate it andat the same time force it to wither away. Such mass organizations, whichno one can define in advance and on behalf of the masses, already exist orare being sought in Italy, Spain and Portugal, where they play animportant part, despite all difficulties. If the masses seize on the slogan of

the union of the people of France and interpret it in this mass sense, theywill be re-establishing connections with a living tradition of popularstruggle in our country and will be able to help give a new content to thepolitical forms by which the power of the working people will beexercised under socialism.

Something may come to fruition in the union of the people of France,something which has been destroyed by Stalinist practices but which iscentral to the Marxist and Leninist tradition, something which concernsthe relationship between the Party and the masses: restoring their voice to the

masses who make history. Not just putting oneself at the service of themasses (a slogan which may be pretty reactionary), but opening ones ears tothem, studying and understanding their aspirations and theircontradictions, their aspirations in their contradictions, learning how tobe attentive to the masses imagination and inventiveness. The conditionsof the current broad Party recruitment may be favourable to these massdemocratic practices, as well as to other daring practices (the opening ofbranch and section meetings and of the Party press to workers who arenot Party members) or, in a general way, to everything that can assistdiscussions and common actions between Communists and non-

Communists.

But as nothing is ever without its contradictions and problems, a dangershould be pointed out here: the danger that the slogan of the union of thepeople of France will remain, if not verbal, at least tactical, not giving riseto the broad innovatory practices it implies; the danger that it will bereduced to a form of voluntarism to extend the influence of the Party

11


10/20

beyond the Union of the Left. Not that an electoral gain would beinsignificant; not that a gain in influence would be insignificant. But the

Partys gains are far from exhausting the wealth implied by the slogan ofthe union of the people of France. Hence there is a political battle to bejoined and won to give the slogan of the union of the people of France itsstrongest sense, the sense in which the future of the workers and peoplesclass struggle is at stake: its mass sense.

Fifth Initiative

The 22nd Congress has taught us several times to be very careful withwords. Here is much the most surprising case. Indeed, I think aparadoxical merit must be recognized in the 22nd Congress. Paradoxical,because not only did the Congress say nothing about this merit, it evenas it were retreated before it. In deciding to abandon the dictatorship ofthe proletariat, which had long since become no more than a password

without any theoretical content except the travesty Stalin had forced on it(and in fact no serious study of the question was published by the Partybefore the Congress), the 22nd Congress, for the first time since theCongress of Tours,publicly put on the agenda the theoretical and politicalquestions of principle linked to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the end, it does not much matter how things went in detail. We havebetter things to do than subject the unusual procedure of the 22ndCongress to a legal examination. Here, too, things count much more than

words. We have to reflect on the following fact: whether it intended it orno, the 22nd Congress has made it imperative to reflect on a questionobscure or obscured for most militants. The 22nd Congress has alreadyencouragedand will do so more and morereflection on the conceptof the dictatorship of the proletariat, starting with the concrete questionsit discussed itself: e.g. the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,the question of the state, the question of socialism, the question of thedestruction of the bourgeois state and that of the withering away of thepeoples state.

Indeed, it will not disappear from workers heads that the hard conditionsunder which they work and live described in the document of the 22ndCongress are in fact those imposed on them by the class dictatorship or classrule of the bourgeoisie. They know that the class dictatorship of thebourgeoisie cannot be reduced to its political forms alone, which aredemocratic and parliamentary in France anyway, but extends from theworst forms of economic exploitation to the crudest forms of ideologicalpressure and blackmail, sometimes backed up by gangsterism pure andsimple. The workers experience concretely every day the intervention of

the bourgeois state in economic exploitation and ideological domination.Nor will it disappear from workers heads that the proletariat exists,whether it is called the hard core of the working class, or even theworking class, or anything else. They know that behind the word there issomething that exists and resists. Georges Marchais was understoodwhen, talking recently to semi-skilled workers, he called them theproletariat of modern times.

12


11/20

Now it should be realized that it is this experience of the class dictatorshipor, if you prefer the old term from the Communist Manifesto, the class rule ofthe bourgeoisie, an experience that the working class and the mass of thepeople undergo every day, that holds the key to the famous formuladictatorship of the proletariat or class rule of the proletariat and its allies. Isay and its allies, for never in the Marxist tradition has it been a questionof the class rule of the proletariat by itself. Thepolitical form of this class

dictatorship or class rule of the proletariat is social democracy (Marx);mass democracy, democracy taken to the limit (Lenin). But as the ruleof a class, this class rule cannot be reduced to its political forms alone; it isalso class rule in production and in ideology at the same time. It is thisnew class rule (called dictatorship of the proletariat by Marx and Lenin)that will counteract bourgeois class rule (called dictatorship of thebourgeoisie by Marx and Lenin). It will gradually transform bourgeoisforms of exploitation, bourgeois political and ideological forms, bydestroying or revolutionizing the state machine of the bourgeoisie,which is simply the state of bourgeois class rule (dictatorship).

A correct grasp of this point is the way out of the absurd dilemma: eitherpure theory or pure historical relativism. It will be clear that theexpression can retain intact its theoretical value while helping to thinkrelatively contingent elements, i.e. elements subject to circumstances,in other words to the existing balance of forces. For the revolution cannotbe made whenever one wants. Even when, after the bloody defeats of1848 and the Commune, it is concluded that under imperialism therevolution is generally on the agenda, in addition a revolutionary

situation must present itself for the mass of the people to be able toconquer the bourgeois state. Hence one cannot choose the hour of therevolution, and if one cannot choose its hour, neither can one choose its

forms of action. It is when the balance of forces in the class struggle shifts infavour of the masses of the people that a revolutionary situation begins:but it is also the balance of forces that decides the forms of revolutionaryaction possible and necessary. When the bourgeoisie is politically in aposition to use violence, when it uses it, then the masses can only respondby revolutionary violence. But if, at the end of a long class struggle andheavy sacrifices, the balance of forces is found, in some particular place, to

be both highly favourable to the proletariat and united workers, and highlyunfavourable to world imperialism and the national bourgeoisie, then apeaceful and even democratic transition becomes possible and necessary.

Neither Marx nor Lenin ever set up absolute and obligatory forms of actionfor the seizure of state power. Hence, logical in their thought, they neverexcluded the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism. But short ofabdicating in the face of a revolutionary situation, they recognized that ingeneral in their own times the process of the class struggle and the balanceof forces were such that the bourgeoisie would use violence and the

working class had no choice: it, too, had to resort to violence to takepower. Now it is reasonable to think that today, as a function of thepower of the peoples class struggle and its influence over very broadsocial strata, as a function of the crisis of imperialism which in places isinhibited from direct intervention, it is conceivable that as a function ofthe overall balance of forces in the world, a local balance of forces in someparticular country may give rise to historically unprecedented political

13


12/20

possibilities. Then the political forms of action may change: becomepeaceful and even democratic.

Just the same is true of the broadest alliance around the working class.This, from the Communist Manifesto to Lenin and Mao, is a constantleitmotifeverywhere in the Marxist tradition, a basic and vital objective. Ifthe proletariat had to be alone in its struggle, said Marx, this solo would

be its swan song, its suicide. Moreover, if it is to be more than anincidental alliance, if it is to exist, this alliance has to be constructed at very longrange, become durable, strong and as broad and deep as possible. It mustgo beyond the limits of political parties and become the property of all themass of the people. Here too, however, one is not always master of all theelements of the situation. If the class struggle gives rise to a revolution-ary situation when the class alliance, however broad, is still weak, or ifthe counter-revolution is strong enough to break it, then the workingclass even in power may find itself relatively isolated and forced to resortto violent measures, not only against the counter-revolutionary bour-

geoisie, but also against other social strata that fall in behind it. Thus theforms of action may also depend on the nature of the alliance.

Contingent Elements

To say that these two conditionsa balance of forces allowing a peacefuland democratic transition to socialism, and the broadest and deepestpossible alliance around the working classare relatively contingentelements of the dictatorship of the proletariat, means that for all sorts ofreasons these conditions may be united or may not, wholly or partially,

when a revolutionary situation breaks out. As we know, they were notreally united during the 1917 Revolution in Russia, when therevolutionary situation demanded the seizure of state power. As weknow, they were much more nearly united in 1949 in China. Hence theRevolution in Russia took place in non-peaceful forms, and with aworker-peasant alliance which proved weak; in China in non-peacefulforms; on the basis of a much stronger popular alliance. I shall not discusswhat has happened since. I just want to point out the nature of therelations between a theoretical principle and history; how theoretical

principles can be present in history, in the class struggle, when itsconditions change (history changes constantly), without tailing behindhistory, being left behind or destroyed by it. I just want to point out,vis--vis what have since Marx been two very sensitive points: 1. that thebalance of forces may allow other forms of action, since it is ultimatelythat balance which imposes them; 2. that it is vital to strengthen thebroadest possible popular alliance around the working class, since notonly the seizure of state power but the forms and destiny of the socialismto come will depend on it, hence for revolutionaries the forms of actionalso depend on the power of the alliance.

On these two questions, the peaceful and democratic transition and thebroadest alliance around the working class (which will perform theleading role in it), the 22nd Congressin the paradoxical form of theabandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariathas dissipated some ofthe errors that some comrades may have entertained about the seizure ofstate power and socialism: errors inspired by the history of the USSR, by

14


13/20

Stalinist theory and practices. But, short of regarding the Stalinistpositions and formulations as the truth of the long tradition from Marx toLenin, the 22nd Congress contributed nothing really new on these twoquestions. It simply adopted, in a new conjuncture, and with force, thesesthat Marx and Lenin had constantly defended (the peaceful transition ispossible in principle, the broadest possible alliance is vital). Now thesetheses have always been part and parcel of the dictatorship of the proletariat. For

the dictatorship of the proletariat is not an isolated concept that can beabandoned to its solitary fate (an absurd notion, for in a theory everyconcept is part and parcel of other concepts). It thereby implies othertheses which suggest to us in advance, in principle, the quicksand that hasto be avoided at all costs, unless the revolution is to falter, bog down andperhaps even fail. Besides, as everyone knows: whether or no thedictatorship of the proletariat is abandoned, the essence of the question ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat has shifted today, i.e. it has moved to

socialism and the state.

When it presented socialism as a society governed bygeneralized democracyand thegeneralizedsatisfaction ofneeds, the problem the 22nd Congresssupposed resolved by these means was an imaginary one. An official whois not afraid of contradiction spoke aptly of concrete utopia. It is animaginary problem because it does not correspond to the reality of theproblems of socialism, to that reality such as we can conceive it not only intheory but by real experience. Socialism was not presented as what it is:acontradictory period of transition between capitalism and communism. It waspresented as a goalto be reached, and at the same time as the endof aprocess. Let us say, to be clear:as a stable mode of production, and one which,like every other mode of production, finds its stability in relations of

production of its own which resolve, in the classic formula, thecontradiction between the developed forces of production (and here onecan appeal to the scientific and technological revolution as a back-up)and the old, out-dated relations of production.

Now, this conception of socialism is foreign to the ideas of Marx andLenin and, it must be said, if we are really prepared to understand them intheir difficulties, to the concrete historical experience that we have of thesocialist countries. For Marx and Lenin, there is no socialist mode of

production, there are no socialist relations of production, no socialist law, etc.Socialism is one with the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. with a newclass rule, in which the working class fulfils the leading role over its allies inthe broadest possible mass democracy, in order to put paid to thebourgeoisieejected from state power but still powerful. Socialism is thetransition period (the only one discussed by Marx and Lenin) betweencapitalism and communism, a contradictory period during which capitalistelements (e.g. wage labour) and Communist elements (e.g. new massorganizations) co-exist in a conflictual way. It is a period that is unstable

in essence, during which the class struggle survives in transformed forms,forms which are unrecognizable for our own class struggle, hard todecipher and which may, according to the balance of forces and the linefollowed, either regress towards capitalism or mark time in fixed forms, or

advance towards communism. Everything we know about socialism fromhistorical experience (and we should be very wrong if we judged thesocialist countries from on high just for what, to save having to look

15


14/20

further, are called shortcomings of democracy and so clearly to becondemned) also proves that this historical period, far from being a societyin which problems are resolved automatically (under the rule of needs), isprobably one of the most difficult periods in world history, because of thecontradictions which have to be unmasked and dealt with at every step initas if, in order at last to give birth to communism, mankind had still,even after priceless social conquests, to pay very dear in struggles,

intelligence and initiative for the right to reach it.

This completely original conception of socialism, to be found in Marxand Lenin, has one crucial consequence. Unlike modes of production thatare defined by their own relations of production, socialism cannot bedefined by itself, by its own relations of production, because it does nothave any of its own, but only by the contradiction between the capitalism itemerged from and the communism of which it is the first phase: hence as afunction of its position vis--vis the capitalism from which it is graduallyemerging and the communism which is its future. Very concretely thisrecalls Marxs slogan: communism is not an ideal but the real movementunfolding beneath our eyes. Very concretely this means: the strategy of theworkers movement must take this dialectic into account: it cannot bemerely the strategy of socialism, it is necessarily the strategy of communism,or else the whole process is in danger of marking time and getting boggeddown at one moment or another (and this must be foreseen). Only on thebasis of the strategy of communism can socialism be conceived as atransitory and contradictory phase, and a strategy and forms of strugglebe established from this moment that do not foster any illusions about

socialism (such as Weve arrived: everybody outLenins ironiccomment) but treat socialism as it is, without getting bogged down in thefirst transition that happens to come along.

Now it has to be said that the answer given by the 22nd Congress to thisvery important question is a disappointing definition sustained by anexaggerated optimism. Far from stressing the decisive contradiction thatcharacterizes the transitional phase, socialism, the 22nd Congresspresented socialism, which will bring immense advantages for theworkers, as the general, non-contradictory and quasi-euphoricsolution to

all problems. Manifestly, instead of thinking in the strategy ofcommunism, which alone allows this contradiction to be thoughtand henceits forms unmasked and deciphered, in order to dominate its movement,the 22nd Congress (and this is not to deny the importance of the firstinitiative) thought in a pseudo-strategy, the strategy of a socialism whichruns the risk ofconcealing contradiction and hence of handling it wrongly,not just in socialism, but as a consequence also in the period preceding it,if the United Left wins the election of1978.

Socialism and the State

The same is true on the question of the state. Here I am not talking aboutthe seizure of state power which can, if the national and internationalbalance of forces allows, be peaceful and legal. Nor am I talking about thebourgeois state which, however democratic, will remain in place duringthe application of the Common Programme. I am talking about the stateof the socialist revolution, supposing that its peaceful attainment is

16


15/20

possible. It is here that the dictatorship of the proletariat makes itsinevitable effects felt, just as it does in the case of socialism. For thisbourgeois state, the instrument of bourgeois class rule, as Marx and Leninrepeatedly stated, has to be smashed. And, a much more importantnotion, they related this destruction of the bourgeois state to thesubsequent withering away of the new revolutionary stateawithering away which is indispensable if socialism is not to mark time

indefinitely but to give rise to communism. In other words, they thoughtthe destruction of the bourgeois statealso on the basis of the witheringaway and end of any state. This is part ofa basic thesis of Marx and Lenin:it is not just the bourgeois state that is oppressive, but any state.

Obviously, the 22nd Congress could not avoid the thesis of thedestruction of the bourgeois state. Here too we must be careful aboutour words, for destroy is a strong word which, like dictatorship, maybe frightening if its meaning is not grasped. Well here precisely is aconcrete example which will make it clearer. Lenin said: we must smashthe bourgeois parliamentary state apparatus. In order to smash it (ordestroy it), what does Lenin suggest?1. the suppression of thedivision of powers between the legislature and the executive; 2. thesuppression of the division of labour on which it depends (theoretical,practical); and above all else, 3. the suppression of the bourgeois breakbetween the mass of the people and the parliamentary apparatus. This is avery special kind of destruction, not at all an annihilation, but thereorganization, restructuring and revolutionization of an existingapparatus, so that the rule of a new class, profoundly linked to the mass of

the people, is successfully established in it. The question is posed: it is nota simple one.

Truly, and I ask that these words be carefully weighed, to destroy thebourgeois state, in order to replace it with the state of the working classand its allies, is not to add the adjective democratic to each existing state

apparatus. It is something quite other than a formal and potentiallyreformist operation, it is to revolutionize in their structures, practices andideologies the existing state apparatuses; to suppress some of them, tocreate others; it is to transform the forms of the division of labourbetween the

repressive, political and ideological apparatuses; it is to revolutionize theirmethods of work and the bourgeois ideology that dominates their practices; it isto assure them new relations with the masses in response to mass initiatives,on the basis of a new, proletarian ideology, in order to prepare for thewithering away of the state, i.e. its replacement by mass organizations.

This requirement is part of the Marxist theory of the state. For Marx, thestate apparatuses are not neutral instruments but in the true sense theorganicrepressive and ideological apparatuses of a class: the ruling class.

In order to ensure the rule of the working class and its allies and toprepare in the longer term for the withering away of the state, it isimpossible to avoid attacking the existing state apparatuses. This is thedestruction of the state. Without it, the new ruling class may be defeatedin its victory, or forced to mark time and get bogged down in itsconquests, giving up any serious prospect of the transition tocommunism. If you want examples in which the state has not been

17


16/20

destroyed and is therefore not en route to withering away, you need onlylook towards the socialist countries and note the consequences thatfollow. The Soviet leaders state: With us the withering away of the stateis achieved via its reinforcement . . .

It is a fact that the problem of the state is, as Lenin said, a difficult one,even a very difficult one; it is a fact that it deserves historical and concrete

investigations and thoroughgoing theoretical reflections. But it is a realand inevitable problem which is thus signalled to us by a necessary elementof the dictatorship of the proletariat. I insist that it is not just a question ofthe problem of the bourgeois state, but also one of the problem of therevolutionary state, which is oppressive too. And it is indisputably one ofthe interesting things about the 22nd Congress that it forces us to reflecton this. But it is also a fact that by abandoning, for obvious politicalreasons, but without serious theoretical reasons, the concept of thedictatorship of the proletariatin other words, the simple and obviousnotion that the proletariat and its allies have to knock down, i.e. revolutionizethe bourgeois state machine in order to raise the proletariat to theposition of ruling class (Communist Manifesto); have to attack thesubstance of the bourgeois state they inheritthe 22nd Congress at thesame time deprived itself of the possibility of thinking the destructionand withering away of the state, except in the vague and edulcoratedform of democratization of the state,as if the mere legal form of democracy in

general could be enough not just to handle and resolve, but even to pose correctly thevery redoubtable problems of the state and its apparatuses, which are class problems

and not problems of law.

Sixth Initiative

Can it be said that it is contained potentially in the 22nd Congress or in theconsequences foreseeable from the logic of the 22nd Congress? At anyrate, we are here in the order of a historical experience which concerns allCommunists and the workers movement and which already goes beyondthe borders of this country. I have spoken of the need for Communists totake this contradiction seriously: the 22nd Congress spoke the languageof freedom for the outside, but remained silent about the inside. It is

therefore essential to broach the question ofdemocratic centralism, whichgoverns the workings of the Party and the freedom of militants in theParty. Georges Marchais has insisted on the will to change in the Party. Itis obvious that the new line of the 22nd Congress will necessarily haverepercussions on the inner life of the Party, on the forms of expressionand freedom of Communists, hence on the current conception andpractices of democratic centralism. It is clear that, in order to emergefrom a past which is only too familiar and in order to enter into newstruggles, certain of these practices must be modified. It is not my part toanticipate the decisions of the Party, of its militants and leaders. I should

just like to attempt to make some remarks about what is not a simplequestion.

To what is democratic centralism a response? To the vital politicalnecessity of ensuring the best possible unity (for we do not want unity forunitys sake) of thought and action in the Party, so as to replyvictoriously to the bourgeois class struggle. The strength of the

18


17/20

bourgeoisie in the conduct of its class struggle lies in its whole system ofexploitation, in the state and its apparatuses. The working class only hasits revolutionary will, its theory and its free organization of the struggle,sealed in the unity of thought and action. The aim of democraticcentralism is this ideological and practical unity. Its mechanism is simple:according to the statutes, decisions are freely discussed and democratic-ally adopted at each level of the Party organization (branch, then section,

then federation, then Congress). Once decided and voted for by PartyCongress, they become obligatory for all militants in action. So long asthey accept this discipline, all militants can retain their own opinion. Thusin principle things are clear: I would even say limpid. But in fact they areinfinitely more complicated.

First, because this principle (democratic centralism) cannot be separatedfrom another principle concerning not the unity but the very existence of theParty. Just as unity is not an end in itself, so the Party is not an end initself . If its existence is vital, it isfor the struggle of the working class: to

provide it with a vanguard organization. Hence it is only meaningful as afunction of the struggle of the working class, more broadly of theworkers and peoples class struggle. Hence Lenins famous dictum: itmust be one step ahead, and one step only. Now, in order to be one stepahead of the masses and one step only, the Party must be profoundlylinked to the masses, attentive to their aspirations, their contradictions, toeverything new and important that happens in the working class and inthe social strata that join in its struggle. It must be in a state to hear andunderstand. In a state to understand those who speak. In a state above allto understand those who remain silent. Only on this condition can theParty take initiatives and perform its vanguard role without fallingbehind, reacting from day to day to, or floating above the struggle. If thisbasic responsibility is not assumed, concretely and at every moment, thequestion of democratic centralism may become a formal one. And someof the arrangements and practices which ensure, in certain inwardlysatisfying forms, the inner unity of the Party, can block its vanguardfunction in the workers and peoples class struggle. For the inner unity ofthe Party only has one raison dtre: to serve the workers and peoplesclass struggle, which essentially takes place outside the Party alone, in the

broad masses.

It is at this point that things become complicated and have to be treatedpolitically: not just as a function of the letter of the statutes, not just as afunction of the principle of inner unity alone, but as a function of thevanguard role of the Party, i.e. of its policy in its close relations with themasses. For example, the question of the election of delegates to theCongress. It may be remarked that they are elected by majority vote in . . .three stages! (branches-section, sections-federation, federations-Con-gress). This is in itself not particularly democratic, and in fact results in

the elimination of all difference in the plenary sessions of the Congress,which produces unanimous decisions (which is not necessarily wrong initself ), but without any discussion. In the television appearance in which heevoked the abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, GeorgesMarchais forcefully expressed the wish that the 22nd Congress would belively and that a real discussion would take place at it. GeorgesMarchais was obviously talking about the final sessions of the Congress,

19


18/20

for as everyone knows discussions are lively in the branches, the sectionsand many of the federations, Now, with the structure of the Party, theapparatus controlling the process of its inner life, the habits of thisapparatus and also of militants, as with this mode of election by successiveelections, the wish of the General Secretary of the Party himself couldonly remain a wish. There was no real discussion at the 22nd Congress;detailed amendments were tabled and speakers did no more than para-

phrase the document. The question of the mode of election of the dele-gates (it can easily be improved) is not a decisive one. But its existence canserve as an index of the existence of a certainfiltration system that worksnaturally. It is to be feared that it does not just work in the election ofdelegates or officials: and also that it does not just work from bottom to top(which is an easy assumption), but also occasionally from top to bottom.Without this two-way filtration, how can one explain the fact thatGeorges Marchais publicly expressed wish remained without effect?

Tendencies and Factions

For my part, therefore, I shall not linger over formal considerations(important, but secondary). For the question of democratic centralismcannot be reduced to a legal question: it is above all a politicaland theoreticalquestion; it is also a historicalquestion. We know that the history of theorganizations of the class struggle of the workers movement, and even ofthe Communist movement, has been a very eventful one: marked not justby conflicts between organizations, but also by splits and, within organi-zations, by the creation of factions and by often very violent tendencystruggles. And every time, the question of the forms of organization hasbeen more or less implicated in these struggles, occasionally directly. Itwas Lenin who introduced democratic centralism as the form of organi-zation par excellence of the revolutionary party. Gramsci, who counter-posed it to bureaucratic centralism, said that democratic centralism wasa plastic notion: thus signalling that it is not immutable, but can changein form. It should be realized that Lenin was against factions, and hadhimself to fight in a party in which there were organized tendencies. Shallwe say:factions, no; tendencies, yes?

In order to be serious here, it is necessary to specify these terms. In everyCommunist Party that is alive, i.e. not just united but also really opentowards the masses, there are necessarily differences of opinion, divergen-cies and even contradictions; there are currents and even tendencies,which vary moreover with the moments and problems of the day. Why?This is a matter of the diversity of the social origins of its members; thenature of their links with the masses; the echoes of the ideologicalstruggle; and, of course, the complexity of the political problems of thehour. In certain neighbouring Communist Parties, the leaders themselvesat Central Committee meetings publicly confront their different and

sometimes divergent opinions on the policy to be pursued, beforemaking their decision. Not only is a living Party not afraid of thesedifferences, but it is their expression and confrontation that give a strongsense to the decisions taken in commom. Then the unanimity is a full oneand the Party, enriched by all this discussion, is strengthened by it.

Now, differences, etc., are one thing; legally recognized, stable,

20


19/20

autonomous and hence organized tendencies are something else. Organizedtendencies did, it is true, exist in Lenins Bolshevik Party. But in order tobe serious here, it is necessary to discuss the French Party of today.Recognition of organized tendencies seems to me to be out of thequestion in the French Party. I am not speaking in opportunist termshere. One must know where one has come from and where one wants togo. I believe that the Party today expectssomething else and that it is right.

Communists know or feel that in the existence of organized tendenciesthere is a threat to the unity and hence to the existence and effectiveness ofthe Party. They know or feel that this form ofrepresentation of opinions doesnot really correspond to their aims or to the conditions of their struggle.For two reasons. First, because the Communist Party is not constitutedby individuals with particular opinions and their electoral resultant. Itrecruits and lives in quite a different way: on the basis of the workers and

peoples class struggle and of Marxist theory (it represents one of the forms oftheir historical fusion).Second, because the Partys goal is not in itself torepresent opinions, but to unite all the most conscious workers, manualand intellectual, in a common will and strength; to give a revolutionaryorganization to the workers and peoples class struggle.

Today the party expectssomething else, and it is right. For if recognized andorganized tendencies are rejected, it is not so as to fall behindthat politicalpractice towards less freedom or the crushing of all freedom in the Party(as under Stalinism or its variants), it is to go beyondit, towards morefreedom. Not for the pleasure of freedom for freedoms sake, but thebetter to respond to the demands of the political practice of the vanguardof the working class, to ensure a closer and deeper relationship with theaspirations of the masses of the people, the better to prepare itself for thehard struggles ahead.

Not organized tendencies, but real discussions which are not confined toCongress periods but go on, as a function of Congresses and the problemsthey pose. Not organized tendencies, but not bureaucratic centralism,let me specify, not the two-way filtration system, not that division oflabour which gives one part of the apparatus (no Party can do without anapparatus) the material means (schools, journals, press) and the politicalmeans (official posts) to think for militants and in fact to impose, in suchand such a domain, on such and such an issue, an arbitrary decision. I usearbitrary not so much in its legal as in its political sense: a decision whichis fixed below the level of the real requirements and possibilities andwhich, by its more or less immediate effects, can block the development ofthe struggle or the influence and reputation of the Party in some sector orother. Open your mouths, no puppets in the Party, said MauriceThorez, to get the Party out of the authoritarianism of the Barb-Celorperiod. Communists should start to use their heads, says GeorgesMarchais, calling on them to shake off the habits of another period. These

appeals must be taken seriously. But it should be realized: if one part ofthe apparatus tends (by mechanisms that demand examination) as ifnaturally to think for militants, militants can help reinforce this only tooreal tendency by neglectingto use their heads, to think for themselves(Marx), to open their mouths, i.e. by tacitly abandoning to the apparatusor the leadership of the Party, out of trust among other things, theresponsibility to think for them.

21


20/20

It is clear that in the Party today there are new expectations and newrequirements: for new forms of expression, communication of informa-tion, exchange of experience, discussion and debate. The moment theParty opens itself wide to the exterior and practices new forms ofexchange and discussion with non-Communists in order to strengthenthe popular unity, this same requirement will make itself more stronglyfelt within the Party. More information (e.g. about the real workings of

the Party, its organisms, their practices); better concrete analysis; a betterpress (on this point there is some movement); a real freedom of expres-sion and one which has real effects, instead of being confined within thelimits of the branch or some organism of study and research, or beingrelegated to the cupboards of the journals. In short, a Party its militantsreally know and in which those militants know each other better; a Partymore daring about itself, free of niggling and tendentious controls thathave had their day; a Party freer within in order to be more open to theexterior, more attentive to the masses of the people.

These are no more than suggestions. But in the current situation, itshould be possible to initiate a discussion about the forms and practices ofdemocratic centralism in the Party: with the aim of improving them andhence modifying them. With the aim of seeking out and defining the newconcrete forms which, while avoiding tendencies, will allow a better flowof information, real, broader, non-academic discussions with real con-sequences, within the unity of the class struggle and Marxist theory. Ifthese measures reveal differences or problems and even contradictions, sowhat? It is infinitely better that they should all be expressed rather than

smouldering in silence. All militants will gain thereby in information andexperience, and the Party will gain a more profound unity, the better toserve the workers and peoples class struggle. For, once again, the innerunity of the Party is only really strong if it ensures the decisive unity of the Partywith the mass of the people.

If the Party poses and confronts this problem in Marxist terms, andwithout avoiding those questions that have very often only become sensi-tive issues because they have not been approached openly and promptly,it will be making its contribution to the necessary change called for in the

Party itself by the current state of the class struggle and the great popu-lar movement now under way. And it will become the Party of the 22ndCongress.

Translated by Ben Brewster

Documents

On the Twenty-Second Congress of the French Communist Party