This article was published on The Masses before it was a part of the People’s Defense Committee. The editorial board of The Masses will occasionally republish articles from that period based on their practical, theoretical and historical significance.
By Yeni Demokrasi Gazetesi (New Democracy Gazette)
Old Editor’s Note: This is second of two articles we have opted to repost in English which were originally published on the website of Yeni Demokrasi. Because no English language version of this article is searchable online, we have opted to publish this translation to bring the attention of the masses and organizers everywhere, since we believe it to be particularly relevant to our understanding of the revolutionary situation currently. This article was originally published on 25 October 2021 as the direct follow-up to the piece “On Our Understandings of Mass Organizations”.
The issue of the relationship between mass organizations and the communist movement, which has emerged within the workers’ movement, has been one of the fundamental questions of the revolution. In our previous issue, we tried to explain that democratic mass organizations and the communist party have different essences in terms of defining this relationship. However, we particularly emphasized that these organizations are parts of a common movement. While they belong to a common movement, their different essences indicate that these organizations will either merge into a common essence or must be unified. In this article, we will try to explain this merging process in terms of the principles and basic understanding of the mass organizations that we explained in the previous issue.
To begin with, we must remind ourselves of the fact that mass organizations, in the end, will become formations that directly serve the revolution in its advanced stages, under the awareness that the revolution will be the work of the masses. In our previous issue, we pointed out that mass organizations are organizations that serve the revolution indirectly. Although this is correct, it is an incomplete statement in the context of the entire revolutionary process.
Over time, as developments occur, mass organizations will evolve into the apparatuses of the revolution or the organs of power. The determining factor for this is the view that revolutions are the product of the actions of the masses. This view, which is a basic principle of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, should always be one of our indispensable foundations in every theoretical discussion. It applies in this discussion as well.
We had emphasized that mass organizations are not the direct but indirect tools of the revolution. The organizations that engage in direct power struggle from the beginning to the end of the revolution are the communist party and the formations under its leadership. These are the tools of revolutionary leadership. However, the revolution is made by the masses! Accordingly, mass organizations, which develop as the self-organizations of the masses, should no longer remain indirect tools of the revolution after a certain stage of the revolution: these organizations will become the fundamental elements of the revolution as the masses directly participate in it. Their formation and the fact that they were originally formed based on the economic needs or necessities of the masses indicate that they differ from political movements, such as the communist party, that aim to seize political power and operate in line with a strategy for that purpose. However, the fact that the needs of the masses eventually drive them to participate in or make a revolution signifies that their merger with the communist movement, which leads this process, is inevitable and a necessity. Marx stated that trade unions were initially organizations that addressed workers’ economic needs for self-protection, but their future was to become “organizations that directly serve the seizure of power.” We know that this occurred in the revolutionary processes of countries that have experienced revolution. There can be no revolution without the participation of the masses, or as Marx and Engels emphasized in the Communist Manifesto, “the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.” This is the basic principle; in line with this principle, the transformation of democratic mass organizations, which are the self-organizations of the masses, into structures that serve the revolution, into organs of power that make the revolution, will be their future.
Lenin also explains the development of the working class’s mass movement in Russia in three important stages, linked to the development of the communist movement. These stages also reflect the above understanding.
“The first of these is the transition from narrow propagandist circles to broad economic agitation among the masses; the second is the transition to widespread political agitation and open street demonstrations; the third is the transition to actual civil war, direct revolutionary struggle, and armed popular uprisings. Each of these transitions was prepared by profound changes in the entire thought structure of the working class and in its life conditions, alongside the fact that one single socialist thought was primarily acting in one direction, and that the increasingly broad layers of the working class were mobilized for more conscious and active struggle.” (V.I. Lenin, New Tasks and New Forces)
It is clear that the revolution will not proceed in a straight line and will not continue with the same tasks and forces from beginning to end. Therefore, relationships with the masses, activities within the masses, and, of course, the role of mass organizations in the revolution will change in this process. The commitments and determinations of the masses, who are not yet engaged in the revolution, and those who participate in the revolution will be unquestionably different. This is why we understand the relationship between mass organizations and the revolution as a developing, therefore changing, dialectical process. The principles of this understanding are the views that “the liberation of the working class will be the work of the working class itself” and “the communists will lead the working class in their struggle for liberation”: on the one hand, the mass movement will advance through certain stages, and on the other hand, the communist movement will increase its influence within this mass movement using various tactics and tools. It is evident that this will happen according to conditions, in the type of stages emphasized in the above quotation.
Today, while the revolution is still in its early stages, it is impossible for mass organizations to act like instruments of power, as the masses are not yet fighting to seize or hold power. They are primarily organizing to improve their conditions, to secure better wages, more rights within the current system, and to act in solidarity as much as possible. Communists, as the leaders of the process between the current reality of mass organizations and their future reality, follow, study, and manage the transformations of these organizations throughout this entire process. We can say that the fundamental task of communists is to organize this process. Lenin formulated this as the unification of two different movements, two struggles.
For this reason, the “principles” or basic understandings we defend for democratic mass organizations today and in the future cannot be the same. The main characteristics of our relationship with the organizations of the masses, who are acting to defend themselves today, must be expressed as we explained in the previous issue. However, it must also be understood that this is not immutable. Let us deepen this discussion through the “principles and understandings of mass organizations” that we quoted in our previous article:
“Mass organizations should be established on a professional basis and organized separately according to the different conditions of various professions.”
The fact that mass organizations are initially formed on a professional basis should not lead us to think that they will remain that way forever, nor should it cause us to oppose their development politically and their tendency to form strong connections among different professional organizations. Today, mass organizations focused on self-defense may want to transform their professions into a struggle for their own power and politically develop their movements in the future. We cannot object to this; rather, we foresee this transformation as their future and actively work for the success of this transformation. What is wrong is trying to use mass organizations for power today, assigning them the political mission of the communist party when they are still in a defensive stage. The idea that even masses who are not yet capable of defending themselves should be viewed as elements of the apparatus of attack is, as we mentioned in the previous issue, a product of a left-wing approach. The main problem of this left-wing understanding is its failure to grasp that the revolution will be the work of the masses. Therefore, examining the objective conditions based on class analysis is an attitude that those following this line avoid. To confuse the characteristics of mass organizations in revolutionary processes with those of organizations in their early stages, when the masses are still organizing to defend themselves, is superficial and sectarian; hence, it is unlikely to succeed.
“Mass organizations should pursue a policy of uniting the broadest segments of society.”
The policy of mass organizations uniting the broadest segments of the masses should not only be the policy of mass organizations but the policy of all organizations. An organization that does not aim to unite the masses it addresses should clearly contradict its founding principles. The difference with mass organizations is that, in the beginning, they have the ability to bring together very large sections of society, in connection with their purpose of self-defense. This is why communist parties, first and foremost, are organizations of professional revolutionaries; they are formed as narrow cadre movements and gradually expand, grow, and strengthen as the masses join the revolution.
“Mass organizations should fight within legal boundaries and in the direction of expanding those boundaries.”
The view that mass organizations must fight within the “legal” boundaries is understandable, given that they are organizations of masses in a defensive stage. However, we know that no organization is obliged to confine itself to legal limits that threaten its existence. When legal limitations attack its existence, organizations can organize counterattacks, and this should not be considered an erroneous action. The core issue here is the “mass capability to defend itself”; this leads to the development of the ‘de facto-legitimate struggle’ line, which does not limit itself to legality.
“Mass organizations should serve the struggle for power indirectly; they should not assume the party’s duties.”
Mass organizations should not assume the duties of the party; however, the party must work to elevate the duties of mass organizations to its own level. Because the masses are the only force capable of making a revolution, and the party’s mission is to lead the revolution, its fundamental task is to equip the masses politically in order to take on the party’s duties. It must be clear that this will ultimately happen through the political transformation of mass organizations. The communist leadership of this process and the transformation of the masses within it is fundamental to understanding this relationship, and it should not be forgotten. We have all, in one way or another, heard the saying, “If the revolution were tomorrow, we wouldn’t have the cadres to run the state.” Isn’t this a natural situation? Revolutions will only be possible when the mass organizations, which are the self-organizations of the masses that will carry out the revolution, transform into organs of power. The cadres of the revolution and the new state’s cadres will emerge from the mass movements that will unite the different forces in this process. They cannot be ready-made cadres today; they will only be prepared during the revolutionary process, and the revolution will only be possible when these cadres are formed. It is clear that this is a difficult process; however, the cadres that emerge from this difficult process will be the strongest cadres in history…
“Mass organizations should not limit themselves to economic and democratic demands, nor should they discard these demands.”
It is actually impossible for mass organizations to act by limiting themselves to economic and democratic demands or by discarding these demands, given the characteristics of the masses in the defensive stage. Such attitudes, which correspond to both right and left deviations, may come from organizations that are called mass organizations but are far from being true mass organizations. A labor union, for example, can only avoid following a “reformist” line if it is part of a movement with developing political characteristics. Therefore, our view within this principle or basic understanding is that mass organizations will become political as they move from the defensive phase to the offensive phase. This will happen as the masses combine their actions with the communist movement.
“Mass organizations should not be the party’s legal propaganda bureau.”
The fact that mass organizations should not be the legal propaganda bureaus of the communist party is a warning about the failure to understand the self-preservation stage. At this stage, it is impossible for mass organizations to function as bureaus of the revolution. This is because they are still far from functioning as state apparatuses; they are the products of the masses’ steps and tendencies to protect themselves, before becoming organs of power. These organizations cannot be the propaganda bureaus of the revolution. The place where this propaganda takes place can only be the organs of the communist party itself.
It is inevitable that mass organizations will oppose imperialism, fascism, feudalism, and their systems and states, because the basic needs of the masses are in conflict with the interests of these systems. However, it should be anticipated that this opposition will not mark the beginning of the struggle; it should be viewed as a necessity that is understood as part of the larger struggle in this direction. The development of principles and understanding will unfold in this way. Therefore, we need to understand that the development of mass organizations will involve the communist movement educating these organizations politically and within the masses’ own actions, in a dialectical development of the principles and ideas we advocate. In today’s conditions, we need to recognize that mass organizations are indirect service areas for the revolution, based on the protection of the masses. However, it should also be remembered that this service will eventually turn into direct service for the revolution in the future of mass organizations.
Now, let us again draw attention to the central issue in this debate: The question is how to combine the struggles of the mass movement, which is driven by the working class, the defining element of the communist movement. It is clear that today’s mass organizations are primarily focused on protecting the masses. Where communists lead or encourage their establishment, mass organizations engage in significant economic struggle. It is clear that such a struggle, by itself, is far from a struggle for power. However, economic struggle is the source of the struggle for political power, and when this struggle is understood in the correct dialectical manner, and when it is guided toward revolution, it evolves into a struggle for political power. This evolution changes everything…
Let us conclude with a word to commemorate President Gonzalo, one of the great leaders of the world communist movement, who recently succeeded in the Peruvian People’s War. He is remembered as a leader who became one of the great figures of the world communist movement:
“Economic struggle is, as Marx said, a guerrilla war – for wages, for workdays, for working conditions, and other rights. When a strike is launched, it is a guerrilla war. In this war, the people do not just fight for concrete economic and political problems, which are in line with their general interests, but also, because of the great moments that are approaching, they are truly preparing for those moments. And this is its fundamental historical essence. So our problem is to make the economic struggle suitable for the conquest of power. That is what we mean by developing mass work within and in service of the people’s war.” (Abimael Guzman, Interview with Chairman Gonzalo)
The Masses 