민주노동당 강령 개정:  노동자계급에 대한 공격

                                                                                                          - 이형로

   들어가며

 “민주 평등 해방의 새 세상을 향하여 : 민주노동당은 외세를 물리치고 반민중적인 정치권력을 몰아내어 민중이 주인 되는 진보 정치를 실현하며, 자본주의 체제를 넘어 모든 인간이 인간답게 살 수 있는 평등과 해방의 새 세상으로 전진해 나갈 것이다.
우리가 만들 세상 : 민주노동당은 노동자와 민중 주체의 자주적 민주정부를 수립할 것이다.
이윤을 목적으로 하는 사적 소유권을 제한하고 생산수단을 사회화함으로써 삶에 필수적인 재화와 서비스는 공공의 목적에 따라 생산되도록 한다.
민주노동당은 국가사회주의의 오류와 사회민주주의의 한계를 극복하는 한편, 인류의 오랜 지혜와 다양한 진보적 사회운동의 성과를 수용함으로써, 인류사에 면면히 이어져 온 사회주의적 이상과 원칙을 계승 발전시켜, 새로운 해방 공동체를 구현할 것이다.” 「2000년 1월, 민주노동당 창당대의원대회 제정 강령 중에서」

 

“자주 평등 인간해방의 새 세상을 향해 : 진보적 민주주의가 이 땅에 구현되지 않는 한 민중의 삶은 억압과 수탈에서 벗어날 수 없다. 이에 민주노동당은 자주적 민주정부를 수립해 자본주의 폐해를 극복하고 민중이 참 주인이 되는 진보적 민주주의 체제를 건설할 것이다.
민주노동당은 민중주권을 실현하며 자주와 평등, 인간해방, 자연과 인간이 생태적으로 공존하는 새 세상을 향해 전진할 것이다.” 「2011년 6월, 민주노동당 개정 강령 중에서」

   지난 6월 민주노동당은 정책 당 대회에서 창당 당시의 강령을 폐기하고 위와 같이 새로운 강령을 채택했는데, 한마디로 애매모호한 사회민주주의 강령에서 부르주아 좌파정당의 강령으로 당의 지향을 분명히 한 강령개정이었다. 민주노동당은 원래 태어날 때부터 혁명적 사회주의가 아닌 사회민주주의 노선을 채택했고, 당을 주도하고 있는 노선은 이른바 민족주의 노선과 사회민주주의 노선이 절충적으로 혼합되어 있다. 민주노동당은 계급적 기반으로는 노동자 대중정당을 표방하지만 정치적으로는 좌파 민족주의를 지향하고 있다. 그래서 그들이 강령과 정치노선에서 사회주의의 가치를 주장하든 사회주의를 참칭하든 그들이 말하는 사회주의는 노동자혁명, 노동자 권력과는 거리가 멀어 결국 자본주의 체제 내의 좌파 정치세력으로 자리 잡을 수밖에 없었다. 따라서 위의 개정 강령에서 말하는 ‘진보적 민주주의’란 사회민주주의보다 후퇴한 부르주아 민주주의를 의미하는 것이며, 민주당 같은 자본가 정당과 함께 하는 “자주적 민주정부”를 통해 실현될 수 있는 것으로 상정되어 있다.

  19세기 초 사회주의자들은 사회주의를 언젠가 얻어야만 할 이상으로 여겼고, 그 실현을 인간의 선한 의지나 지배계급의 선의의 결과로 보는 경향들이 있었다. 하지만 맑스주의는 역사를 계급투쟁의 전개를 통해 설명하고, 자본주의의 소멸과 공산주의의 실현을 위한 물질적 조건과 전제를 파악하여 과학으로 정립하였다. 맑스주의는 노동자계급이 자본주의를 타파할 혁명의 주체이며, 그 자신의 해방이 보편적 인간해방의 밑바탕이 되는 것을 승인함으로써 유일한 노동자계급의 과학적 세계관으로 자리 잡았다.

  사회민주주의는 이러한 노동자계급의 과학적 세계관인 맑스주의로부터 가장 먼저 이탈했는데, 이들이 바로 노동자계급을 정치의 주체에서 통치의 대상으로 전락시킨 ‘대리주의’를 탄생시킨 장본인이기도 하다. 대리주의는 노동자계급이 계급투쟁과 공산주의 혁명의 주체로 서는 것을 근본적으로 차단시키는 반노동자적 사상의 한 조류이다. 역사적으로 이들은 노동자계급이 혁명의 주체가 되어 자본주의를 타도하고 노동자평의회가 전 사회를 지배하면서 모든 착취를 폐절해나가는 프롤레타리아 독재의 과정을 폐기하거나 왜곡시켰다.

  대리주의는 사회민주주의와 스탈린주의라는 양 극단으로 나타났다. 사회민주주의는 자본주의에서 사회주의로의 평화적 이행을 추구했지만 자본주의를 극복하기는커녕 자본주의 약점을 보완하는 역할을 하면서 부르주아 진영의 한 축이 되었다. 한편 스탈린주의와 그것의 모든 변종들(김일성주의 포함)은 사회주의를 참칭하면서 당 독재와 국가자본주의를 탄생시켰고 서구 자본주의 체제와 경쟁하다가 결국 사적자본주의로 회귀하여 이들 또한 부르주아 진영에 완전하게 포함되었다. 민주노동당은 이러한 대리주의의 두 조류 중 사회민주주의를 공식적으로 추구하면서도 스탈린주의 변종 또한 인정하고 있다.

  최근 북한에서 자본주의의 상징인 코카콜라와 KFC를 받아들일 거라는 소식과, 민주노동당이 강령에서 사회주의를 삭제한 것은 우연이 아니다. 최악의 가짜 사회주의 국가인 북한에서 단 한 번도 노동자혁명이 일어나거나 사회주의적이었던 적이 없었듯이, 가짜 노동자정당인 민주노동당이 단 한 번도 노동자혁명을 주장하거나 사회주의적 실천을 한 적이 없었던 것은 같은 맥락이며, 이제야 자신들의 계급적 본성을 드러내 제 자리를 찾아간 것이다.

  민주노동당 정치의 근원

  서구에 비해 상대적으로 역사가 짧은 한국의 민주노동당 또한 위와 같은 대리주의의 폐해를 그대로 반영하고 있다. 그들 정치의 중심에는 대리주의가 자리 잡은 지 오래이며 노동자계급을 정치와 투쟁의 주체로 세우기보다는 존중해야 할(?) 득표의 대상으로 전락시켜버렸다. 민주노동당은 창당선언문에서 부터 노동자계급을 주체로 세우지 않고 있을 뿐 아니라 “다양한 진보세력과 민주주의를 열망하는 개인의 총화”를 이루어낸다고 함으로써 노동자계급 정당의 성격을 분명히 하지 않았다. 그 결과 자기 당에 대한 지지를 얻어내기 위해 탈계급적인 대중캠페인, 대중동원, 표 구걸, 계몽주의 같은 정치형태가 민주노동당 운동의 전형이 되었다.

  이곳에서 노동해방, 인간해방이 이라는 사회주의 가치는 당이 지향하는 운동의 목표가 아니라 노동자 대중의 표를 얻기 위해 계도용으로만 필요했다. 이들에게 사회주의가 계몽과 이상이 아니라 자본주의를 타도하고자 하는 강력한 실천이 요구되는 운동의 당면 목표였다면 처음부터 강령에 넣기조차 불편한 가치였을 것이다. 이것은 설사 민주노동당의 개정 전 강령에 ‘사회주의의 이상과 원칙을 계승 발전시킨다’는 문구가 들어있었다 할지라도 마찬가지다. 이들에게 사회주의란 19세기의 공상적 사회주의자들과 같이 언젠가 얻어야만 할 이상일 뿐이라서, 사회주의를 실현시키고자 현실에서 투쟁하기보다는 점진적인 개량을 통하거나 지배계급에게 선의를 촉구하여 자본주의를 바꿔 나가고자하는 개량의 정치, 계급협조의 정치에 다름 아니었기 때문이다. 자본주의 자체를 폐기하는 것이 아니라 ‘신자유주의 반대’ 정도의 자본주의 개조를 목표로 하여 진보대통합을 추진하는 것이 그들이 할 수 있는 최대의 정치인 것이다. 

  그렇다면 이러한 사회민주주의 정당의 강령에서 사회주의 가치라는 내용을 삭제한 것을 어떻게 판단해야 하는가? ‘반전 반자본주의 노동자운동’을 표방하는 다함께는 이번 강령개정을 ‘좌파적 사회민주주의 강령에서 진보적 민주주의 강령으로 후퇴한 것’으로 판단하며, “정권교체와 집권을 명분으로 민주당과 동맹하고 당의 정체성을 후퇴시키는 것을 합리화”하고 있다며 비판한다. 그러면서도 동시에 “민주노동당은 여전히 돈과 인력을 주되게 노동조합과 그 지도자들로부터 충당하고 있는 개혁주의적 노동자당이다. 그리고 급진좌파는 민주노동당의 기반인 이 개혁적 노동자 대중에 개입해야 한다. 이 노동자들이 개혁주의에서 벗어나려면 ‘옆에서 함께’ 싸우며 대안을 제시하는 게 필요하다. 따라서 급진 좌파는 새로 만들어질 통합 진보 정당의 강령 제정 논의에도 적극 뛰어들어야 한다”라며 당의 강령 후퇴에도 불구하고 “그들 옆에서 긴밀히 개입하고 앞으로 건설 될 통합진보정당의 강령 투쟁에도 적극 뛰어들어야 한다”고 주장하고 있다.

  하지만 우리는 민주노동당이 설사 “개혁주의적 노동자당”이라 할지라도, 그들이 의회주의를 기본으로 한 대리주의 정치노선과 노동조합주의에 뿌리를 두고 있는 한, 진보정당 운동에 대한 참여자체를 반대한다. 의회주의 정당이 조합주의를 극복할 수 없듯이 조합주의에 기반한 노동자정당이 결코 의회주의를 넘어설 수 없다. 이들은 타락한 조합운동과 개량화된 정치운동이 자본주의 체제 내로 편입된 결과물이며, 노동자조직, 노동자당을 참칭하고 있지만 현실은 자본주의를 철폐하는 것이 아니라, 체제 내에서 노동자계급을 통제하고 관리하는 역할을 하면서 살아남을 수밖에 없는, 쇠퇴해가는 자본주의의 필연적 공생관계 속에 있다. 이들이 노동조합의 상층부를 장악하고 진보정당의 지분을 행사하며 자본과 권력에 타협하고, 현대자동차 비정규직 투쟁을 비롯하여 수많은 계급투쟁에 중재자, 사회적 합의자로 나서 투쟁을 무너뜨린 행보를 보라.

  사회민주주의 정당의 강령 개정 의미

  이번 민주노동당의 강령개정의 의미는 두 가지 내용을 포함하고 있다. 첫째, 권력 재편기를 맞아 계급의식과 대중운동을 더욱 급진화 시켜 부르주아 정치와의 적대적 전선을 형성하는 것이 아니라, 오히려 탈계급적인 대중성을 좇아 자신들이 이미 공문구로 만들어놓은 사회주의라는 가치마저 삭제해버린 행위에 대한 판단이다. 이것은 노동자계급에 대한 명백한 배신행위이자 나아가 적극적 공격행위로서 결국 위기에 처한 자본가계급에 도움을 주는 행위이다. 야권연대, 민주대연합이라는 이름으로 자본가 정당과 손잡기 위해 강령에서 ‘사회주의’를 삭제했기 때문이다. 민주당과의 연립정부를 구성하기 위해 민주당이 꺼리는 ‘사회주의’를 일찌감치 삭제해서 민주대연합에 대한 걸림돌을 미리부터 제거해 버린 것인가? 자본의 위기전가로 생존권 위협과 생활수준의 급격한 하락에 직면한 노동자들의 고통마저 외면한 채, 오로지 선거와 득표를 위해 민주당 등 부르주아 정당과의 야합에 열중하고 있는 민주노동당이, 언제 자본가 정당과 손잡고 노동자계급을 공공연하게 공격할 것인가는 그 야합의 성공여부에 달려있다고 하겠다. 

  둘째, 유럽, 북아프리카, 중동, 동아시아를 막론하고 세계 도처에서 계급투쟁의 부활이 확연해지면서 혁명의 현실성이 대두되고 있는 상황에서, 그리고 한국에서도 민족주의, 사회민주주의 세력과 명백히 단절한 혁명운동 세력이 지속적으로 성장하여 아직 전면화 되지는 않았지만 새로운 당 건설의 주체로 나서고 있는 상황에서, 사회주의라는 가치가 이제는 단지 이상으로서가 아니라 현실로서 직접 다가오는 것이 너무도 부담스러워진 것이다. 혁명적 실천을 강제하는 사회주의 운동 자체가 진보정당/조합주의 운동과는 맞지 않기 때문에 더 이상 자신들을 사회주의라는 외피로 포장할 수없는 상황에 처해진 것이다. 이것은 스스로 쇠락해가는 운동들의 위기의식의 표현이자, 자기방어 행위이다. 자본주의 체제의 끝 모를 위기상황 속에서 위기의 결과가 혁명으로 진전되는 것을 두려워하는 자본가계급에게, 피할 수없는 일대격돌의 계급전쟁을 선포하고 강력한 투쟁을 전개해 나가는 것이 아니라, 오히려 투쟁을 기피하고 혁명의 당위성마저 제거하여 체제 내로 편입하려는 민주노동당의 ‘사회주의’ 삭제는 자본가계급에겐 산소 호흡기를 달아준 행위이고, 노동자계급에겐 총부리를 겨눈 행위이다. 결국 사회주의 운동과 사회민주주의운동은 사상적으로 전혀 다른 운동이고, 계급투쟁이 격화되는 시기에는 서로 적대적일 수밖에 없다는 것을 다시 한 번 확인시켜준 것이다.

  이와 같이 이번 강령 개정은 민주노동당이 아무리 노동자정당을 표방하고 노동자들에 기반을 두고 있다 하더라도 오로지 득표와 의석수, 집권을 위해서라면 노동자계급에 대한 배신도 불사하는 의회주의 정당의 본 모습을 가감 없이 보여주었다. 따라서 이들과의 강령논쟁은 부분적인 논쟁으로 개선될 성격의 것이 아니라 강령 전체를 전면적으로 거부하는 것만이 노동자계급과 사회주의 혁명을 방어하는 길이다. 나아가 노동자계급의 자립성과 정치적 독립을 훼손하고 계급의식을 갉아먹는 반노동자적인 사회민주주의 조류에 대해 타협 없이 투쟁해야 할 과제를 떠안아야 한다.

  다함께처럼 개혁적 노동자 대중이라는 환상에 사로잡혀 대리주의 정치에 개입하기보다 오히려 노동자계급을 그것에서 벗어나게 하는 것이 계급의식의 발전과 계급의 자립화를 앞당긴다. 이미 노쇠한 민주노동당-민주노총 운동에 발목 잡히지 말고, 새롭게 올라오는 노동자들의 투쟁과 비정규직 노동자들의 삶과 투쟁의 질곡에 착목하라! 여전히 노동자들의 99% 이상은 민주노동당의 밖에, 90%이상은 민주노총의 밖에 있지 않은가? 의회주의와 조합주의에 물들지 않은 이들이 바로 노동자계급의 미래임을 명심해야 한다. 만일 민주노동당 안에 아직까지 사회주의자들이 남아 있다면, 적어도 노동자계급의 미래가 되어줄 이들에게 이미 오염되고 깨져버린 그릇을 내밀지는 말아야 할 것이다.    

  대리주의의 기원과 본질

제2 인터내셔널(1889~1914)시기 사회민주주의는 공산주의 혁명을 위한 시기가 아직 무르익지 않았다고 판단하면서 점진적으로 노동조합 조직 기반을 확대해나가고 당의 의회 의석수를 늘려나가는 데 전념할 필요를 강조했다. 영국의 사민주의자 에드워드 데이비드가 “혁명주의의 짧은 개화는 매우 다행히도 과거의 일이 되었다. 당은 의회에서 그의 권력을 긍정적으로 활용하고 확장하는 데 전념할 것이다”라고 강조한 이래, 베른슈타인(1850~1932)의 수정주의와 카우츠키(1854~1938)의 중도주의가 득세했다. 경제투쟁과 정치투쟁을 분리시면서 조합주의와 의회주의가 더욱 노골화되어 갔다. 카우츠키는 이미 1902년에 ‘점진적인 운동을 통해, 민주주의적이며 거의 알아차릴 수 없는 수단을 통해 자본주의에서 공산주의로!’를 주창했다. 프롤레타리아 당의 임무는, 이러한 점진적인 운동을 체제 내적에 강제할 목적으로 의회에 참여하는 것, 그리고 부르주아 국가를 평화적으로 정복하는 것으로 간주되었다.

  카우츠키에게 프롤레타리아 당은 노동자계급의 일부로서 노동자들이 자신의 운명을 스스로 결정토록 하는 진정한 계급의 조직이면서도 동시에 혁명에 가장 앞장서는 전위이자 혁명기관이 더 이상 아니었다. 당은 통치기구가 되었고 노동자들은 당에 모든 것을 위임하고 그 당에 투표함으로써 자신의 정치 활동과 권력을 당에 위임해야 했다. 이것이 사회민주주의의 탄생 배경이며, 사회민주주의가 노동자계급에게 비극을 가져다 준 맑스주의 왜곡의 역사이다.

사회민주주의자들은 100여 년이 지난 현재에도 그들의 공공연한 목표로 부르주아 국가의 정복 또는 노동자정부의 창출을 말하지만, 노동자계급의 실질 권력인 노동자평의회와 같은 계급의 대중정치 조직과 직접정치는 언급하지 않거나, 과거 스탈린주의의 산물로 왜곡시켜 놓고 있다. 사회민주주의자들은 스탈린주의와 구분되기 위해 민주주의의 가면을 쓰고 있지만, 여전히 권력의 쟁취는 오직 당에 의해서만 획득되고, 그 당의 지도력과 물리적 힘은 대중들의 지지에 달려있기 때문에 대중들은 당에 투표하고 모든 정치활동과 권력을 그 당에 위임하기를 원한다. 혁명적 사회주의, 공산주의 운동은 이러한 사회민주주의에 맞서 싸워온 역사이기도 하다.

한편 스탈린주의 공산당들 또한 의회주의에 편입됨으로써 사회민주주의와의 결정적인 차이점마저 사라지게 되자, 이 두 조류는 대리주의 정치라는 공통점으로 인해 이제는 대중성을 얻기 위해 서로의 약점을 공격하는 경쟁관계에 놓이게 되었다. 북한을 지지하는 스탈린주의 변종노선과 사회민주주의 노선인 진보신당, 사회당 류가 대립하고 경쟁하는 이유가 바로 그것이다. 하지만 이들이 서로 대립하고 경쟁하면서도 동일한 정치를 하고 있는 것은, 이들의 대리주의 정치가 자발적 계급투쟁을 가로막고 계급의식을 갉아먹는다는 사실이다.

  조직적 측면에서, 이들이 부르주아 정치에 참여하는 것은 이들의 모든 조직체계를 선거를 치르기 위한 조직으로 바꾸어 놓았고, 대중투쟁의 참여조차 자신들에 대한 지지획득과 정파적 이익을 위해 이용할 수밖에 없게 만들었다. 부르주아 선거조직과 선거활동은 모든 것들을 경쟁의 대상으로 만들기 때문이다. 결국 노동자를 대변한다는 진보정당들의 부르주아 정치 참여는 오히려 계급의 단결을 저해하고 계급투쟁의 확산을 가로막는 장애물로 작용해왔다.

  주체의 측면에서, 이들의 활동이 가장 왕성한 선거 시기조차 현장의 노동자들과 평당원들은 투표하고 돈 대는 일 말고는 직접 발로 뛸만한 일이 거의 없다. 실제 정치활동을 하고 싶어도 대부분 작업장에 갇혀 있거나 합법적인 틀 내로의 정치활동 제한으로 인해 노동자의 직접정치는 존재할 수 없다. 그래서 이들을 대신 할 상층지도부나 명망가가 나서는 수밖에 없다. 이런 구조에서 이들 중 일부가 대리정치를 이용하여 이러저러한 권력과 기득권을 행사하는 일은 당연한 귀결이다. 이러한 부르주아 선거 정치와 타락한 노동조합주의가 만난 결과가 우리가 알고 있는 노동운동 내의 최악의 계급배신 행위들이었다.

  특히 민주노동당은 일상의 정치에서 노동자를 정치적으로 조직하고 대중투쟁을 일으키기보다는 민주노총 등의 배타적 지지에 기댄 채 관료적인 상층부 운동으로만 일관해 왔다. 여기서 현장노동자들은 투쟁의 주체에서 늘 대상화되거나 상부의 지침에 그저 열심히 따르는 수동적 당원으로 전락할 수밖에 없었다. 이것은 규모가 작은 진보정당들도 의회주의 정당이라는 틀을 유지하고 있는 한 동일하게 적용된다. 결국 이러한 수동화된 운동의 축적은 대중의 자발적 행동을 억누르는 역할과 노동자정치의 혁명성과 창조성을 유실시키는 결과를 초래했다.

  대리주의 정치의 본질은 혁명적으로 발전하려는 계급의식을 갉아먹는 부르주아 체제의 수호자 역할임이 밝혀졌다. 이제 모든 대리주의 정치와의 단절, 그리고 전면적 투쟁을 통해 이들에게 넘어간 노동자계급이 다시 계급성과 자립성을 회복해 전투적, 혁명적 계급운동 진영으로 넘어와야 한다.

  노동자계급의 자립화를 위하여

  노동자계급의 자립성은 사회 내부의 모든 다른 계급들에 대한 노동자계급의 독립성을 의미한다. 사회의 모든 계급들에 대한 노동자계급의 자립성은 혁명으로 향한 계급투쟁의 전개에 있어서 제1의 전제조건이다. 인민전선과 같은 타 계급 ⁃ 계층들과의 모든 동맹들은, 특히 부르주아 정파들과 동맹은 그 어떤 종류의 것이든 오직 적들 앞에서 노동자계급을 무장 해제시키는 것을 초래할 뿐이다.

  이번 민주노동당 강령의 개정은 부르주아 정파들과의 동맹을 완전하게 열어둔 것이기 때문에, 노동자계급의 자립성을 완전히 훼손시켜서 노동자정당이라는 성격조차 잃게 하였으며, 결국 부르주아 진영으로 투항한 것에 다름 아니다. 이제 노동자정당이 아닌 민주노동당에 남게 된 노동자들은 즉각 민주노동당과 단절하고 진정한 계급정당을 고민해야할 때이다. 계급정당에 걸맞게 노동자계급의 혁명적 계급의식이 실천적으로 반영되어 있는 혁명 강령을 중심에 두고 정치적 선택과 정치세력화를 고민해야 한다.

  노동계급에겐 스스로의 힘으로 자본주의를 타도하고 공산주의 혁명을 완수할 수 있는 두 가지 조직이 있다. 전체 노동자계급을 투쟁을 통해 단결시키는 것을 목적으로 하는 계급의 대중조직과, 계급의 가장 정치적으로 의식적인 부분들을 모아서 그들이 전체 계급투쟁에서 조직적인 역할들을 하게 만드는 계급의 정치조직이 그것이다. 노동자계급의 자립성은 위와 같은 노동자계급의 두 가지 조직인 노동자평의회와 혁명당의 조직수준으로 판단할 수 있으며, 그 내용은 혁명당의 강령으로 표현된다.

  우리가 힘이 없고 기세가 약하더라도 반드시 지켜야 할 혁명적 원칙은 노동계급의 자립성과 자기조직화 전망이다. 모든 대리주의 정치를 넘어 노동자계급 스스로의 힘으로 정치의 주체가 되어야 한다.

  첫째, 반노동자적인 사회민주주의를 넘어 노동자계급의 계급투쟁 성과물인 혁명 강령이라는 무기를 들고 혁명당을 건설해야 한다. 노동자계급의 단련되고 혁명적인 부위들은 혁명당으로 집결하여, 자본과 국가를 효과적으로 압박하고 투쟁의 힘을 집중시키기 위해 노동자들의 투쟁에서 가장 활성화된 부분을 전취하여 투쟁에 활력을 제공하는 역할을 해야 할 것이다. 노동자투쟁과 계급의식의 꽁무니를 좇는 의회주의 정당들이 아닌 혁명당만이 계급의식을 발전시키고 노동자계급이 자신들의 정치적 전망을 설정하고 혁명적 무장을 준비하는 역할을 수행할 수 있다.

  둘째, 갈수록 제도화, 관료화, 기구화 되어가고 있는 노동조합운동과 조합주의를 넘어 아래로부터의 직접행동과 노동자민주주의가 철저하게 실현되는 투쟁조직, 총회조직을 건설해야 한다. 공장의 담벼락과 업종의 울타리를 넘어, 정규직과 비정규직을 넘어, 전체 노동자계급을 단결시킬 수 있는 계급의 대중조직을 창출해야 한다. 이러한 수평적 노동자조직들의 출현만이 계급투쟁이 전면화 되는 시기에 노동자평의회를 현실화 시켜줄 것이다. 이미 민주노동당과 노동조합운동의 상층부는 노동자계급의 분리와 분열을 용인하거나 조장하는 세력이 되어 버렸다. 이제 이들을 넘어서서 직접행동을 더 넓게 조직하는 것이 노동자들의 단결과 투쟁의 동력을 회복하는 새로운 길이다. 이런 기운들은 투쟁하는 노동자들로부터 자발적으로 생성되고 있으며, 이것들이 커지면 커질수록 타락한 운동들은 더욱 반노동자적 본색을 강하게 드러낼 것이다. 낡은 형식과 분열을 넘어 직접행동하고 계급의 단결을 만들어나가는 노동자들이 바로 노동자투쟁의 새로운 주체이다. 세계적으로 새로운 계급운동은 이렇게 시작되고 있으며, 혁명당은 이것을 토대로 건설되어질 것이다. 이것이 바로 노동자계급 자립화의 실체이다.

  사람의 몸은 해로운 병균의 공격을 받으면 항상 반응을 한다. 사람의 몸은 나쁜 것을 점검하여 그것으로부터 몸을 보호하기 위해 병균을 파괴하는 항체를 만들어 낸다. 노동자계급의 혁명적 조직들도 사람이 하는 일이기에 사람과 똑같은 반응을 한다. 비록 부르주아 이데올로기의 거센 공격이 있을지라도 혁명적 조직은 살아남을 수 있다. 노동자계급 안에서 자라난 혁명적 방어기제가 건강하게 반응하기 때문이다. 하지만 병든 조직이 노동자계급을 떠나는 순간 그 조직은 죽음을 면할 수 없다. 아니 살아남기 위해 부르주아의 대열에 합류하는 길 밖에 없다. 이 때 노동자계급은 단호하게 그 썩어가는 시체를 포기하고 새로운 투쟁의 무기를 재구축할 수밖에 없다. 노동자계급의 혁명적 의식으로부터 떠나간 진보정당은 부르주아 진영으로 넘어가는 길만이 남아있다. 사회민주주의, 민족주의, 조합주의의 온갖 합병증에 걸린 진보정당들에 남아서는 마지막으로 간직하고 있는 건강한 노동자성 마저 병들어 썩어 갈 것이다. 언제까지 썩은 시체를 부여잡고 있을 것인가? 

  진보정당운동 10여 년, 이제는 진보정당에 의해 만신창이가 된 노동자정치세력화를 딛고 노동자가 직접 스스로의 힘으로 정치의 주인이 되고 권력의 주인이 되고 역사의 주인이 되자! 그것은 대리주의를 걷어내고 지금 당장의 직접행동과 노동자 혁명당 건설로부터 시작해야 한다.

계급투쟁과 계급의식을 갉아먹는 기생충(패러사이티즘)같은 부류들(종파주의, 개인주의, 기회주의, 모험주의, 반역주의)의 찬란한 역사와 그 전통에 대한 공산주의자의 경고와 프롤레타리아트의 철퇴!

Theses on parasitism

1) Throughout its history, the workers’ movement has had to deal with the penetration into its ranks of alien ideologies, coming either from the ruling class or from the petty bourgeoisie. This penetration has taken a number of forms within working class organisations. Among the most widespread and best-known we can point to:

• sectarianism
• individualism
• opportunism
• adventurism
• putschism

2) Sectarianism is the typical expression of a petty bourgeois conception of organisation. It reflects the petty-bourgeois mindset of wanting to be king of your own little castle, and it manifests itself in the tendency to place the particular interests and concepts of one organisation above those of the movement as a whole. In the sectarian vision, the organisation is “all alone in the world” and it displays a regal disdain towards all the other organisations that belong to the proletarian camp, seen as “rivals” or even “enemies”. As it feels threatened by the latter, the sectarian organisation in general refuses to engage in debate and polemic with them. It prefers to take refuge in its “splendid isolation”, acting as though the others did not exist, or else obstinately putting forward what distinguishes itself from the others without taking into account what it has in common with them.

3) Individualism can also derive from petty bourgeois influences, or from directly bourgeois ones. From the ruling class it takes up the official ideology which sees individuals as the subject of history, which glorifies the “self-made man” and justifies the “struggle of each against all”. However, it is above all through the vehicle of the petty bourgeoisie that it penetrates into the organisations of the proletariat, particularly through newly proletarianised elements coming from strata like the peasantry and the artisans (this was notably the case last century) or from the intellectual and student milieu (this has been especially true since the historic resurgence of the working class at the end of the 60s). Individualism expresses itself mainly through the tendency :

• to see the organisation not as a collective whole but as a sum of individuals in which relations between persons take precedence over political and statutory relations;
• to advance one’s own “desires” and “interests” as opposed to the needs of the organisation;
• consequently, to resist the discipline necessary within the organisation;
• to look for “personal realisation” through militant activity;
• to adopt an attitude of constantly contesting the central organs, which are accused of trying to crush individuality; the complementary attitude is that of looking for “promotion” through gaining a place in these organs;
• more generally, to adhere to an élitist view of the organisation in which you aspire to be one of the “first class militants” while developing a contemptuous attitude to those seen as “second class militants”.

4) Opportunism, which has historically constituted the most serious danger for the organisations of the proletariat, is another expression of the penetration of petty bourgeois ideology. One of its motor-forces is impatience, which expresses the viewpoint of a social stratum doomed to impotence, having no future on the scale of history. Its other motor is the tendency to try to conciliate between the interests and positions of the two major classes in society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. From this starting point, opportunism distinguishes itself by the fact that it tends to sacrifice the general and historic interests of the proletariat to the illusion of immediate and circumstantial “successes”. But since for the working class there is no opposition between its struggle inside capitalism and its historical combat for the abolition of the system, the politics of opportunism in the end lead to sacrificing the immediate interests of the proletariat as well, in particular by pushing the class to compromise with the interests and positions of the bourgeoisie. In the final analysis, at crucial historical moments, such as imperialist war and proletarian revolution, opportunist political currents are led to join the enemy camp, as was the case with the majority of the Socialist parties during World War I, and with the Communist parties on the eve of World War II.

5) Adventurism (or putschism[1]) presents itself as the opposite of opportunism. Under cover of “intransigence” and “radicalism” it declares itself to be ready at all times to launch the attack on the bourgeoisie, to enter into the “decisive” combat when the conditions for such a combat don’t yet exist for the proletariat. And in so doing it does not hesitate to qualify as opportunist and conciliationist, even as “traitorous”, the authentically proletarian and marxist current which is concerned to prevent the working class from being drawn into a struggle which would be lost in advance. In reality, deriving from the same source as opportunism - petty bourgeois impatience - it has frequently converged with the latter. History is rich in examples in which opportunist currents have supported putschist currents or have been converted to putschist radicalism. Thus, at the beginning of the century, the right wing of German Social Democracy, against the opposition of its left wing represented notably by Rosa Luxemburg, gave its support to the Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries, who were adepts of terrorism. Similarly, in January 1919, when even Rosa Luxemburg had pronounced against an insurrection by the Berlin workers, following the provocation by the Social Democratic government, the Independents, who had only just left this government themselves, rushed into an insurrection which ended in a massacre of thousands of workers, including the main communist leaders.

6) The combat against the penetration of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology into the organisations of the class, as well as against its different manifestations, is a permanent responsibility for revolutionaries. In fact, it can even be said that it is the main combat which the authentically proletarian and revolutionary currents have had to wage within the organisations of the class, to the extent that it is much more difficult than the direct fight against the declared and official forces of the bourgeoisie. The fight against sects and sectarianism was one of the first waged by Marx and Engels, particularly within the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA). Similarly, the fight against individualism, notably in the form of anarchism, mobilised not only the latter but also the marxists of the Second International (particularly Luxemburg and Lenin). The combat against opportunism has certainly been the most constant and systematic carried out by the revolutionary current since its origins:

• against Lassallean “state socialism” in the 1860s and 1870s;
• against all the Bernstein-type revisionists and reformists at the turn of the century;
• against Menshevism;
• against Kautsky’s centrism on immediately before, during, and after World War I;
• against the degeneration of the Communist International and the Communist parties throughout the 20s and at the beginning of the 30s;
• against the degeneration of the Trotskyist current during the 1930s.

The fight against putschism has not been as constant a necessity as the struggle against opportunism. However, it has been waged since the first steps of the workers’ movement (against the immediatist Willich-Schapper tendency in the Communist League, against the Bakuninist adventures over the Lyon “Commune” in 1870 and the civil war in Spain in 1873). Similarly, it was particularly important during the revolutionary wave of 1917-23: in particular, it was largely the Bolsheviks’ ability to carry out this struggle in July 1917 that allowed the October revolution to take place.

7) The preceding examples show that the impact of these different manifestations of the penetration of alien ideologies depends closely on:

• the historic period;
• the moment in the development of the working class;
• the responsibilities of the class in this or that circumstance.

For example, one of the most important expressions of the penetration of petty bourgeois ideology, and the one most explicitly fought against, opportunism, even if it is a permanent feature in the history of the workers’ movement, found its terrain par excellence in the parties of the Second International, during a period:

• in which illusions in conciliation with the bourgeoisie flourished because of the prosperity of capitalism and the real advances in the living conditions of the working class;
• in which the existence of mass parties gave credence to the idea that mere pressure from these parties could gradually lead capitalism to transform itself into socialism.

Similarly, the penetration of opportunism into the parties of the Third International was strongly determined by the ebb in the revolutionary wave. This encouraged the idea that it was possible to gain an audience in the working masses by making concessions to their illusions on questions like parliamentarism, trade unionism or the nature of the “Socialist” parties.

The importance of the historic moment to the different type of penetration of alien ideologies into the class is revealed even more clearly when it comes to sectarianism. This was particularly significant at the very beginning of the workers’ movement, when the proletariat was only just emerging from the artisans and journeymen’s societies with their rituals and trade secrets. Again, it went through a major revival in the depth of the counter-revolution with the Bordigist current, which saw withdrawing into its shell as an (obviously false) way of protecting itself from the threat of opportunism.

8) The phenomenon of political parasitism, which to a large extent is also the result of the penetration of alien ideologies into the working class, has not been accorded, within the history of the workers’ movement, the same amount of attention as other phenomena such as opportunism. This has been the case because parasitism has only significantly affected proletarian organisations in very specific moments in history. Opportunism, for example, constitutes a constant menace for proletarian organisations and it expresses itself above all when the latter are going through their greatest phases of development. By contrast, parasitism does not basically manifest itself at the time of the most important movements of the class. On the contrary, it is in a period of immaturity of the movement when the organisations of the class still have a weak impact and not very strong traditions that parasitism finds its most fertile soil. This is linked to the very nature of parasitism, which, to be effective, has to relate to elements looking for class positions but who find it hard to distinguish real revolutionary organisations from currents whose only reason for existing is to live at the expense of the former, to sabotage their activities, indeed to destroy them. At the same time, the phenomenon of parasitism, again by its nature, does not appear at the very beginning of the development of the organisations of the class but when they have already been constituted and have proved that they really defend proletarian interests. These are indeed the elements which we find in the first historic manifestation of political parasitism, the Alliance of Socialist Democracy, which sought to sabotage the combat of the IWA and to destroy it.

9) It was Marx and Engels who first identified the threat of parasitism to proletarian organisations:

“It is high time to put an end, once and for all, to the internal conflicts provoked daily in our Association by the presence of this parasitic body. These quarrels only serve to waste energies which should be used to fight against the bourgeois regime. By paralysing the activity of the International against the enemies of the working class, the Alliance admirably serves the bourgeoisies and the governments" (Engels, “The General Council to all the members of the International” - a warning against Bakunin’s Alliance).

Thus the notion of political parasitism is not at all an “ICC invention”. It was the IWA which was the first to be confronted with this threat against the proletarian movement, which it identified and fought. It was the IWA, beginning with Marx and Engels, who already characterised the parasites as politicised elements who, while claiming to adhere to the programme and organisations of the proletariat, concentrated their efforts on the combat not against the ruling class but against the organisations of the revolutionary class. The essence of their activity was to denigrate and manoeuvre against the communist camp, even if they claimed to belong to it and to serve it [2]

“For the first time in the history of the class struggle, we are confronted with a secret conspiracy at the heart of the working class whose aim is to destroy not the existing regime of exploitation, but the very Association which represents the bitterest enemy of this regime” (Engels, Report to the Hague Congress on the Alliance).

10) To the extent that the workers’ movement, in the shape of the IWA, possesses a rich experience of struggle against parasitism, it is of the utmost importance, if we are to face up to the present-day parasitic offensives and arm ourselves against them, to recall the principal lessons of this past struggle. These lessons concern a whole series of aspects:

• the moment of parasitism’s appearance;
• its specificities with regard to other dangers facing proletarian organisations;
• its recruiting ground;
• its methods;
• the most effective means of fighting it.

In fact, as we shall see, on all these aspects there is a striking similarity between the situation facing the proletarian milieu today and the one confronted by the IWA.

11) Although it affected a working class which was still historically inexperienced, parasitism only appears historically as an enemy of the workers’ movement when the latter has reached a certain level of maturity, having gone beyond the infantile sectarian stage.

“The first phase of the struggle of the proletariat was characterised by the movement of the sects. This was justified in a period in which the proletariat had not developed sufficiently to act as a class” (Marx/Engels).

It was the appearance of marxism, the maturation of proletarian class consciousness and the capacity of the class and its vanguard to organise the struggle which set the workers’ movement on a healthy foundation:

“From this moment on, when the movement of the working class had become a reality, the fantastic utopias were called upon to disappear....because the place of these utopias had been taken by a clear understanding of the historical conditions of this movement and because the forces of a combat organisation of the working class were more and more being gathered together” (Marx, first draft of The Civil War in France).

In fact, parasitism appeared historically in response to the foundation of the First International, which Engels described as “the means to progressively dissolve and absorb all the different little sects” (Engels, letter to Kelly/Vischnevetsky).

In other words, the International was the instrument that obliged the different components of the workers’ movement to embark upon a collective and public process of clarification, and to submit to a unified, impersonal, proletarian organisational discipline. It was in resistance to this international “dissolution and absorption” of all these non-proletarian programmatic and organisational particularities and autonomies that parasitism first declared war on the revolutionary movement:

“The sects, which at the beginning had been a lever to the movement, became an obstacle to as soon as they were no longer on the order of the day; they then became reactionary. The proof of this is the sects in France and Britain, and recently the Lassalleans in Germany, where after years of supporting the organisation of the proletariat, they have become mere instruments of the police” (Marx/Engels, The so-called split in the International).

12) It is this dynamic framework of analysis developed by the First International that explains why the present period, that of the 80s and above all of the 90s, has witnessed a development of parasitism unprecedented since the time of the Alliance and the Lassallean current. For today we are confronted with all sorts of informal regroupments, often acting in the shadows, claiming to belong to the camp of the communist left, but actually devoting their energies to fighting the existing marxist organisations rather than the bourgeois regime. As in the time of Marx and Engels, the function of this reactionary parasitic wave is to sabotage the development of open debate and proletarian clarification, and to prevent the establishment of rules of behaviour that link all members of the proletarian camp. The existence:

• of an international marxist current like the ICC, which rejects sectarianism and monolithism;
• of public polemics between revolutionary organisations;
• of the current debate about marxist organisational principles and the defence of the revolutionary milieu;
• of new revolutionary elements searching for the real marxist organisational and programmatic traditions,

are among the most important elements presently provoking the hatred and offensive of political parasitism.

As we saw with the experience of the IWA, it is only in periods when the workers’ movement leaves behind a stage of basic immaturity and reaches a qualitatively superior level, a specifically communist level, that parasitism becomes its main opponent. In the current period, this immaturity is not the product of the youth of the workers’ movement as a whole, as in the days of the IWA, but is above all the result of the 50 years of counter-revolution which followed the defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-23. Today, it is this break in organic continuity with the traditions of past generations of revolutionaries which above all else explains why there is such a weight of petty bourgeois anti-organisational reflexes and behaviour among so many of the elements who lay claim to marxism and the communist left.

13) There are a whole series of similarities between the conditions and characteristics of the emergence of parasitism in the days of the IWA, and of parasitism today. However, we should also note an important difference between the two periods: last century, parasitism largely took the form of a structured and centralised organisation within the class’ organisation, whereas today its form is essentially that of little groups, or even of “non-organised” elements (though the two often work together). This difference does not call into question the fundamental identity of the parasitic phenomenon in the two periods, which can be explained essentially by the following facts:

• the Alliance developed in part on the basis of the vestiges of the sects of the preceding period: it adopted their structure, tightly centralised around a “prophet”, and their taste for clandestine organisation; by contrast, one of the bases for today’s parasitism is the remnants of the student rebellion which weighed on the historic recovery of proletarian struggle at the end of the 1960s, and especially in 1968, along with all its baggage of individualism and calling into question organisation and centralisation, which supposedly “stifled individuals”; [3]
• while the IWA existed, there was only one organisation that regrouped the whole proletarian movement, and the currents whose aim was to destroy it, while still claiming to be fighting the same struggle against the bourgeoisie, had to act within it; by contrast, at a moment in history where the elements who represent the revolutionary struggle of the working class are dispersed in the different organisations of the proletarian milieu, each parasitic group can put itself forward as representing another “component” of the milieu, along with the other groups.

In this sense, it is important to say clearly that the present dispersal of the proletarian political milieu, and any sectarian behaviour which prevents or hinders an effort towards the regroupment of fraternal debate between its different components, plays into the hands of parasitism.

14) Marxism, following the experience of the IWA, has pointed out the differences between parasitism and the other manifestations of the penetration of alien ideologies into the organisations of the class. For example, opportunism, even if it can initially manifest itself in an organisational form (as in the case of the Mensheviks in 1903) fundamentally attacks the programme of the proletarian organisation. Parasitism, on the other hand, if it is to carry out its role, does not a priori attack the programme. It carries out its activity essentially on the organisational terrain, even if, in order to “recruit”, it is often led to put into question certain aspects of the programme. Thus at the Basle Congress of 1869, we saw Bakunin launch his battle cry of “the abolition of the right of inheritance”, because he knew that he could gather numerous delegates around this empty, demagogic demand, given that many illusions existed on this question in the International. But his real aim in doing so was to overturn the General Council influenced by Marx, and which fought against this demand, in order to constitute a General Council devoted to himself.[4] Because parasitism directly attacks the organisational structure of proletarian formations, it represents, when historical conditions permit its appearance, a much more immediate danger than opportunism. These two expressions of the penetration of alien ideologies are a mortal danger for proletarian organisations. Opportunism leads to their death as instruments of the working class through their passage into the bourgeois camp, but to the extent that opportunism above all attacks the programme, it only reaches this end through a whole process in which the revolutionary current, the left, is able to develop within the organisation a struggle for the defence of the programme.[5] By contrast, to the extent that it is the organisation itself, as a structure, which is threatened by parasitism, this leaves the proletarian current much less time to organise its defence. The example of the IWA is significant in this respect: the whole of the struggle against the Alliance lasted no more than 4 years, between 1868 when Bakunin entered the International and 1872 when he was expelled at the Hague Congress. This simply underlines one thing: the necessity for the proletarian current to attack parasitism head on, not to wait until its already done its worst before launching the fight against it.

15) As we have seen, it is important to distinguish parasitism from other expressions of the class’ penetration by alien ideologies. However, one of parasitism’s characteristics is that it uses these other expressions. This springs from parasitism’s origins, which are also the result of the penetration of alien influences, but also from the fact that its approach - whose aim, in the final analysis, is the destruction of proletarian organisations - is not encumbered with principles or scruples. As we have seen, within the IWA and the workers’ movement of the day, the Alliance was distinguished by its ability to make use of the remnants of sectarianism, to use an opportunist approach (on the question of the right of inheritance, for example), and to launch into completely adventurist undertakings (the Lyon “Commune”, and the civil war of 1873 in Spain). Similarly, it was strongly founded on the individualism of a proletariat which had barely emerged from the artisan and peasant classes (especially in Spain and the Swiss Jura). The same characteristics are also to be found in parasitism today. We have already mentioned the role of individualism in the formation of parasitism, but it is worth pointing out that all the splits from the ICC which have since formed parasitic groups (GCI, CBG, EFICC), have been based on a sectarian approach, splitting prematurely and refusing to take the debate to a clear conclusion. Similarly, opportunism was one of the marks of the GCI, which accused the ICC (when still a “tendency” within the organisation) of not imposing sufficiently rigorous conditions on new candidates, only to turn to the most unprincipled recruitment, even modifying its programme to accommodate the fashionable leftist mystifications of the day (such as “Third Worldism”). The same opportunism was demonstrated by the CBG and the EFICC at the beginning of the 1990s, when they entered an incredible round of bargaining, in an attempt to begin a process of regroupment. Finally, as far as adventurism-putschism is concerned, it is remarkable that, even if we leave aside the GCI’s softness for terrorism, all these groups have systematically plunged head first into the traps that the bourgeoisie lays for the class, calling on the workers to develop their struggle when the ground had been mined in advance by the ruling class and the unions, particularly, for example, during the autumn of 1995 in France.

16) The experience of the IWA has revealed the difference that can exist between parasitism and the swamp (even if the latter term was not used at the time). Marxism defines the swamp as a political zone divided between the positions of the working class, and those of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. Such areas can emerge as a first step in a process of coming to consciousness by sectors of the class, or of breaking from bourgeois positions. They can also contain the remnants of currents which at a certain point did express a real effort by the class to come to consciousness, but which have proved unable to evolve with the new conditions and experience of the proletarian struggle. The groups of the swamp can rarely maintain a stable existence. Torn between the positions of the proletariat, and those of other classes, they either fully adopt the positions of the proletariat, or go over to those of the bourgeoisie, or end up split between the two. Such a process of decantation is generally given greater impetus by the great events that confront the working class (in the 20th century, these have been essentially imperialist war and proletarian revolution), and the general direction of this decantation is largely dependent on the evolution of the balance of forces between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Faced with these currents, the attitude adopted by the left of the workers’ movement has never been to consider these groups completely lost for the workers’ movement, but to give an impetus to the clarification within them, to allow the clearest elements to join the combat while firmly denouncing those who go over to the enemy class.

17) Within the IWA, there existed alongside the vanguard marxist current, currents which we could define as belonging to the swamp. Such was the case, for example, with certain Proudhonist currents which in the first part of the 19th century had formed a real vanguard of the French proletariat. By the time of the struggle against the parasitic Alliance, these groups were no longer a vanguard. Nonetheless, despite their confusions they were capable of participating in the struggle to save the International, notably during the Hague Congress. The attitude of the marxist current towards them was quite different from its attitude towards the Alliance. There was never any question of excluding them. On the contrary, it was important to involve them in the struggle against the Alliance, not only because of their weight within the International, but also because the struggle itself was an experience which could help these currents to greater clarity. In practice, this combat confirmed the existence of a fundamental difference between the swamp and parasitism: where as the former is traversed by a proletarian life which allows its best elements to join the revolutionary current, the latter’s fundamental vocation is to destroy the class organisation, and it is completely unable to evolve in this direction, even if some individuals who have been deceived by parasitism may be able to do so.

Today, it is equally important to distinguish between the currents of the swamp[6] and the parasitic currents. The groups of the proletarian milieu must try to help the former evolve towards marxist positions, and provoke a political clarification within them. Towards the latter, they must exercise the greatest severity, and denounce the sordid role that they play to the great profit of the bourgeoisie. This is all the more important, in that the confusions of the currents in the swamp are particularly vulnerable to the attacks of parasitism (particularly given their reticence towards organisation, as in the case of those that come from councilism).

18) Every penetration of alien ideology into proletarian organisations plays the game of the enemy class. This is particularly evident when it comes to parasitism whose aim is the destruction of these organisations (whether this is openly avowed or not). Here again, the IWA was particularly clear in affirming that even if he was not an agent of the capitalist state, Bakunin served the interests of the state far better than any agent could have done. This does not at all signify that parasitism in itself represents a sector of the political apparatus of the ruling class like the bourgeois currents of the extreme left like Trotskyism today. In fact, in the eyes of Marx and Engels, even the best known parasites of their day, Bakunin and Lassalle, were not seen as political representatives of the bourgeois class. This analysis derived from their understanding that parasitism as such does not constitute a fraction of the bourgeoisie, having neither a programme or orientation for the national capital, nor a particular place in the state organs for controlling the struggle of the working class. This said, bearing in mind what a service parasitism renders to the bourgeoisie, the latter accords it a particular solicitude. This expresses itself in three main forms:

• a political support to the activities of parasitism; thus, the European bourgeois press took up the cause of the Alliance and Bakunin in their conflict with the General Council;
• infiltration and manoeuvres of state agents within parasitic currents; thus, the Lyon section of the Alliance was clearly led by two Bonapartist agents, Richard and Blanc;
• the direct creation by sectors of the bourgeoisie of political currents whose vocation is to parasite on the proletarian organisation: thus the Mazzinists joined the International at its foundation while the “League for Peace and Freedom” (led by the Bonapartist agent Vogt) was, as Marx put it, “formed in opposition to the International” and tried, in 1868, to “ally” itself with it.

Here it should be noted that while the majority of parasitic currents advertise a proletarian programme, the latter is not indispensable for an organisation in carrying out the functions of political parasitism, which is not distinguished by the positions it defends but by its destructive attitude towards the real organisations of the working class.

19) In the present period, when proletarian organisations don’t have the notoriety that the IWA had in its day, official bourgeois propaganda does not on the whole concern itself with providing support to the parasitic groups and elements (which in any case would have the disadvantage of discrediting them in front of the elements who are searching for communist positions). It should however be noted that in the bourgeois campaigns around “negationism” specifically aimed at the communist left, an important place is reserved for groups like the ex-Mouvement Communiste, La Banquise, etc, who are presented as representatives of the communist left, when in fact they have a strong parasitic colouring.

On the other hand, it was indeed a state agent, Chénier,[7] who played a key role in the formation within the ICC of a “secret tendency” which, having provoked the loss of half the section in Britain, gave rise to one of the most typical parasitic grouplets, the CBG. Neither should we exclude the possibility that certain elements who were at the origin of the 1978 split from the ICC which gave rise to the GCI were also agents of the state or leftist organisations (as some of those who seceded at the time now think).

Finally, the efforts of bourgeois currents to infiltrate the proletarian milieu and carry out a parasitic function there can be seen clearly with the activities of the Spanish leftist group Hilo Rojo (which for years had been trying to get into the good books of the proletarian milieu before launching an all-out attack on it), or those of the OCI (an Italian leftist group certain of whose elements have come from Bordigism and which today presents itself as the “true heir” of this current).

20) The penetration of state agents into the parasitic circles is obviously facilitated by the very nature of parasitism, whose fundamental calling is to combat the real proletarian organisations. Indeed, the fact that parasitism recruits among those elements who reject the discipline of a class organisation, who have nothing but contempt for its statutory functioning, who rejoice in informalism and personal loyalties rather than loyalty to the organisation, leaves the door of the parasitic milieu wide open to infiltration of this type. These doors are equally wide open to those involuntary auxiliaries of the capitalist state, the adventurers, those declassed elements who seek to place the workers’ movement in the service of their own ambitions, of their quest for a notoriety and power denied to them by bourgeois society. In the IWA, the example of Bakunin is obviously the best known in this regard. Marx and his comrades never claimed that Bakunin was a direct agent of the state. But this didn’t stop them from identifying and denouncing not only the services he involuntarily rendered to the ruling class, but also the approach and class origins of adventurers within proletarian organisations and the role they play as leaders of parasitism. Thus, with regard to the actions of Bakunin’s secret Alliance within the IWA, they wrote that the “declassed elements” had been able “to infiltrate it and establish secret organisations at its very heart”. The same approach was taken up by Bebel in the case of Schweitzer, the leader of the Lassallean parasitic current: “he joined the movement as soon as he saw that there was no future for him within the bourgeoisie, that for him, whose mode of life had declassed him very early on, the only hope was to play a role in the workers’ movement in keeping with his ambition and his capacities” (Bebel: Autobiography).

21) This being said, even if parasitic currents are often led by declassed adventurers (when not by direct state agents), they do not only recruit in this category. We can also find there elements who at the outset are animated by a revolutionary will and who don’t set out to destroy the organisation but who:

• impregnated by petty bourgeois ideology, impatient, individualist, elitist, preferring affinity relations to political relations;
• “disappointed” by the working class which doesn’t move ahead quickly enough for them;
• finding it hard to put up with organisational discipline, frustrated at not finding in militant activity the “satisfaction” they hoped for or the “posts” they aspired to,

end up developing a deep hostility towards the proletarian organisation, even if this hostility is masked by “militant” pretensions.

In the IWA, a certain number of members of the General Council, such as Eccarius, Jung and Hales, fall into this category.

Moreover, parasitism is capable of recruiting sincere and militant proletarian elements who, affected by petty bourgeois weaknesses or through lack of experience, allow themselves to be deceived or manipulated by openly anti-proletarian elements. In the IWA, this was typically the case with most of the workers who were part of the Alliance in Spain.

22) As far as the ICC is concerned, most of the splits which led to the formation of parasitic groups were very clearly made up of elements animated by the petty bourgeois approach described above. The impetus given by intellectuals seeking “recognition”, frustrated by not receiving it from the organisation, impatience because they did not manage to convince other militants of the “correctness” of their positions or at the slow pace of the development of the class struggle, sensitivity to criticisms of their positions or their behaviour, the rejection of centralisation which they felt to be “Stalinism”, were the motive force behind the formation of the “tendencies” which led to the formation of more or less ephemeral parasitic groups, and to the desertions which fuelled informal parasitism. In succession, the 1979 “tendency” which gave birth to the “Groupe Communiste Internationaliste”, the Chénier tendency, one of whose avatars was the defunct “Communist Bulletin Group”, the McIntosh-JA-ML “tendency” (largely made up of members of the central organ of the ICC) which gave rise to the EFICC, (now Internationalist Perspective) are typical illustrations of this phenomenon. In these episodes it could also be seen that elements who undoubtedly had proletarian concerns allowed themselves to be led astray by personal loyalty towards the leading members of these “tendencies” which were not really tendencies but clans as the ICC has already defined them. The fact that all these parasitic splits from our organisation first appeared in the form of internal clans is obviously no accident. In reality, there is a great similarity between the organisational behaviour that lies at the basis of the formation of clans and those which fuel parasitism: individualism, statutory frameworks seen as a constraint, frustration with militant activity, loyalty towards personalities to the detriment of loyalty towards the organisation, the influence of “gurus” (elements seeking to have a personal hold over other militants).

In fact, what the formation of clans already represents - the destruction of the organisational tissue - finds its ultimate expression in parasitism: the will to destroy proletarian organisations themselves.[8]

23) The heterogeneity which is one of the marks of parasitism, since it counts in its ranks both relatively sincere elements and those animated by a hatred of the proletarian organisation, even political adventurers or direct state agents, makes it the terrain par excellence for the secret policies of those elements who are most hostile to proletarian concerns, enabling them to drag the more sincere elements behind them. The presence of these “sincere” elements, especially those who have dedicated real efforts towards the construction of the organisation, is actually one of the preconditions for the success of parasitism since its lends credit and authority to its false “proletarian” passport (just as trade unionism needs its “sincere and devoted” militants in order to carry out its role). At the same time, parasitism, and its leading elements, can only establish control over a large part of their troops by hiding their real aims. Thus, the Alliance in the IWA was made up of several circles around “citizen B”, and there were secret statutes reserved for the “initiated”. “The Alliance divides its members into two castes, the initiated and the non-initiated, aristocrats and plebeians, the latter being condemned to be directed by the former via an organisation whose very existence is unknown to them” (Engels, Report on the Alliance). Today, parasitism acts in the same way and it is rare for the parasitic groups, and particularly the adventurers or frustrated intellectuals who animate them, to openly parade their programmme. In this sense, “Mouvement Communiste”,[9] which clearly says that the left communist milieu has to be destroyed, is both a caricature of parasitism and a mouthpiece for its real underlying aims.

24) The methods used by the First International and the Eisenachers against parasitism have served as a model for those used by the ICC today. In the public documents of the congresses, in the press, in open meetings and even in parliament, the manoeuvres of parasitism were denounced. Again and again, it was shown that it was the ruling classes themselves who stood behind these attacks and that their goal was the destruction of marxism. The work of the Hague Congress as well as Bebel’s famous speeches against the secret politics of Bismarck and Schweitzer revealed the capacity of the workers’ movement to give a global explanation for these manoeuvres while denouncing them in an extremely concrete manner. Among the most important reasons given by the First International for publishing the revelations about Bakunin, we can point above all to the following:

• openly unmasking them is the only way to rid the workers’ movement of such methods. Only if all the members of the organisation became conscious of these questions would it be possible to prevent such things happening in the future;
• it was necessary to publicly denounce Bakunin’s Alliance in order to dissuade those who were using the same methods. Marx and Engels knew quite well that other parasites were still carrying out secret activities inside and outside the organisation, such as the adepts of Pyat;
• only a public debate could break Bakunin’s control over many of his victims and encourage them to speak out. To this end, Bakunin’s methods of manipulation were revealed above all by the publication of the Revolutionary Catechism;
• a public denunciation was indispensable to prevent the International being associated with such practices. Thus, the decision to expel Bakunin from the International was taken after the arrival of the news about the Nechayev affair, with the danger that it would be used against the International;
• the lessons of this struggle had a historical importance, not only for the International but for the future of the workers’ movement. It was in this spirit that years later Bebel devoted 80 pages of his autobiography to the struggle against Lassalle and Schweitzer.

But at the centre of this policy lay the necessity to unmask political adventurers like Bakunin and Schweitzer.

It cannot be emphasized often enough that such an attitude characterised Marx’s whole political life, as we can see in his denunciation of the acolytes of Lord Palmerston or Herr Vogt. He understood very well that sweeping such affairs under the carpet could only benefit the ruling class.

25) It is this great tradition that the ICC is continuing with its articles on its own internal struggles, its polemics against parasitism, the public announcement of the unanimous exclusion of one of its members by the 11th international congress, the publication of articles on freemasonry, etc. In particular, the ICC’s defence of the tradition of the court of honour in the case of elements who have lost the confidence of revolutionary organisations, in order to defend the milieu as a whole: all this partakes of exactly the same spirit as that of the Hague Congress and the commissions of inquiry of the workers’ parties in Russia towards people suspected of being agents provocateurs.

The storm of protest and accusations broadcast by the bourgeois press following the publication of the principal results of the inquiry into the Alliance shows that it is this rigorous method of public denunciation that scares the bourgeoisie more than anything else. Similarly, the way that the opportunist leadership of the Second International, in the years prior to 1914, systematically ignored the famous chapter “Marx against Bakunin” in the history of the workers’ movement shows the same fear on the part of all defenders of petty bourgeois organisational conceptions.

26) Towards the petty bourgeois infantry of parasitism, the policy of the workers’ movement has been to make it disappear from the political scene. Here the denunciation of the absurdity of the positions and political activities of the parasites plays an important role. Thus Engels, in his celebrated article “The Bakuninists at work” (during the civil war in Spain) backed up and completed the revelations on the organisational behaviour of the Alliance.

Today, the ICC has adopted the same policy by fighting against the adepts of the different organised and “unorganised” centres of the parasitic network.

With regard to the more or less proletarian elements, more or less taken in by parasitism, the policy of marxism has always been quite different. It has always been to drive a wedge between these elements and the parasitic leadership which is directed and encouraged by the bourgeoisie, showing that the first are the victims of the second. The aim of this policy is always to isolate the parasitic leadership by drawing the victims away from its sphere of influence. Towards these “victims”, marxism has always denounced their attitude and their activities while at the same time struggling to revive their confidence in the organisation and the milieu. The work of Engels and Lafargue towards the Spanish section of the First International is a perfect concretisation of this.

The ICC has also followed this tradition by organising confrontations with parasitism in order to win back the elements who have been deceived. Bebel and Liebknecht’s denunication of Schweitzer as an agent of Bismarck at a mass meeting of the Lassallean party at Wuppertal is a well known example of this attitude.

27) The fact that the tradition of struggle against parasitism has been lost since the great combats within the IWA, owing to:

• the fact that parasitism did not represent a major danger for proletarian organisations after the IWA;
• the length and depth of the counter-revolution.

This constitutes a major weakness for the proletarian political milieu faced with the parasitic offensive. This danger is all the more serious as a result of the ideological pressure of the decomposition of capitalism, a pressure which, as the ICC has shown, facilitates the penetration of the most extreme forms of petty bourgeois ideology and creates an ideal terrain for the growth of parasitism.[10] It is thus a very important responsibility of the proletarian milieu to engage itself in a determined combat against this scourge. To a certain extent, the capacity of revolutionary currents to identify and combat parasitism will be an indication of their capacity to combat the other dangers which weigh on the organisations of the proletariat, particularly the most permanent danger, opportunism.

In fact, to the extent that opportunism and parasitism both come from the same source (the penetration of petty bourgeois ideology) and represent an attack against the principles of proletarian organisation (programmatic principles for the first, organisational principles for the second), it is quite natural for them to tolerate each other and to converge. Thus it was not at all a paradox that in the IWA we saw the “anti-statist” Bakuninists hand in hand with the “statist” Lassalleans (who represented a variety of opportunism). One of the consequences of this is that it is basically up to the left currents of proletarian organisations to wage the combat against parasitism. In the IWA, it was directly Marx and Engels and their tendency who assumed the fight against the Alliance. It was no accident that the main documents produced during this combat bore their signature (the circular of 5 March 1872, The so-called split in the International was written by Marx and Engels; the 1873 report on “The Alliance for Socialist Democracy and the International Workingmen’s Association” by Marx, Engels, Lafargue and Utin).

What was valid in the time of the IWA remains valid today. The struggle against parasitism constitutes one of the essential responsibilities of the communist left and is part of the tradition of its bitter struggles against opportunism. Today it is one of the basic components in the preparation of the party of tomorrow, and in fact is one of the determining factors both of the moment when the party can arise and its capacity to play its role in the decisive battles of the proletariat.