For Marxist-Leninists, the question of the middle strata is of decisive significance for the proletarian, communist revolution. Without winning over a significant section of the middle strata, or neutralising it; without breaking its alliance with the big bourgeoisie, there can be no question of a victorious, communist revolution.

In the Russian revolution, the problem of the middle strata was the most important question for the revolution to solve. The main form taken by the middle strata in Russia and the former Tsarist Empire was, of course, the peasantry, which formed a huge petty bourgeois strata, constituting about 80 per cent of the total population. Yet, by virtue of winning over the middle strata as a whole, in the first bourgeois stage of the revolution, the working class was able to defeat Tsarism, and by later allying itself with the middle and poor peasants successfully defeated the bourgeoisie and began the transition to the socialist revolution.

Although the form taken by the middle strata depends on the state of development of capitalism, whatever its form it represents a class positioned between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

It is this intermediate position of the middle strata, which defines its basic social characteristics. Lenin noted its devilish instability, the vacillation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In a developed capitalist country the middle strata no longer assumes the form of the peasantry, living directly of the land. The form it assumes is usually a mixture of small business people, or professional employees.

In the normal course of capitalist development, the middle strata forms an alliance with the bourgeoisie directed against proletarian revolution. However, it should not be imagined that the middle strata are driven by absolute loyalty to the big bourgeoisie and its capitalist system. In fact its loyalty is of a relative nature, and depends on concrete economic and political factors. As a result of these changing factors, the middle strata vacillates now to one side, now to the other. Large section of the middle strata thus find themselves undecided about which side to support in the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They are swayed to this side or the other by the class struggle itself. Being undecided their minds are usually made up for them by one side of this struggle. This is usually the side which has a clear view of what it wants, and is most determined in pursuing its goals, offering a way out of a serious social crisis.

The vacillatory nature of the middle strata also finds its expression in the political groupings, which represent it. For Lenin, it was only when such groupings have demonstrated their political bankruptcy is the road clear for the working class to attempt the seizure of state power. But only a serious social crisis can serve to disrupt the alliance of the middle strata with the big bourgeoisie, and thereby allow the proletariat to win over the middle strata to its side, or leading it to adopt a position of benevolent neutrality. Wherever the working class failed to win over a large section of the middle strata, or at least neutralised it, counterrevolution has always carried the day.

As far as the proletarian revolution is concerned, the petty-bourgeois middle strata are an unreliable, vacillating partner. This 'unreliability' is something that the revolutionary party must bear in mind. With a correct policy, the middle strata can be won to the side of socialism. When this is achieved it means that the monopoly bourgeoisie loose its most important reserve, a resource from which it recruits its troops and servants to fight the working class and the revolution.

But, as already mentioned, the middle strata of the advanced capitalist countries is not formed by a countryside peasantry; rather it is formed by urbanised small business people and professional staff in the various organisations of bourgeois society. The working class must use the vacillatory nature of the middle strata in its own interest, i.e., socialism. Such opportunities will be created by capitalism facing possibly the greatest crisis in its history.

In order for the working class to win over the middle strata for the revolution, the aims of socialism must be made clear. Not only must these aims be clear, but there must also be clarity in the revolutionary ranks about the nature of the transition from capitalist to communist society. Firstly, then, what are the aims of communism? Communism is a movement opposed to all those who defend exploitation and robbery of the working people. While this is certainly the most ethical position to adopt, it must be remembered that ethical considerations aside, communism is based on the notion that, such is the massive productive forces available to humanity today, exploitation is not only ethically repugnant, but also scientifically objectionable. Naturally, all those, the bourgeoisie and its supporters, who defend the exploitation of the working people declaim against and organise to resist the introduction of communism. Communists must win both the ethical and the scientific arguments for communism.

The aim of the proletariat in communist revolution, therefore, is to isolate the capitalist exploiters, by winning over the middle strata to the justice of its cause. However, this struggle to win over these strata must not remain on the ethical and scientific planes alone. The economic and social interest of the middle strata must be taken into account. While communism opposes all exploitation in society, and is for the complete socialisation of productive property, it would be pseudo-leftism to suggest that a complete communist society can be introduced overnight.

Communism does not win over the middle strata, whose potential support is unstable in any case, by threatening to divest it of its property. Generally speaking, the socialisation of the middle strata, particularly its petty-bourgeois sections must be understood as requiring a certain length of time.

For instance, in the Russian revolution the communists led a relatively small proletariat to power. This would not have been possible had the working class failed to win over the peasant majority consisting of the middle strata. The Bolsheviks would have failed to make any headway if they had presented the working class as a threat to peasant small property. The view of the Bolsheviks was that having come to power and nationalising the basic means of production in industry, transport and banking, peasant small property could be gradually socialised in the process of remoulding the petty-bourgeois strata.

Obviously, the socialisation of the peasantry in the Soviet Union was conditioned, in large measure, by external and internal circumstances facing the revolution. Not least of all on the internal front was the class structure of the peasantry, composed of different layers with different interests. The form of petty bourgeois small property consists of small businesses. All these owners of petty bourgeois small property are potential supporters of the working class, that is if the working class does not threaten petty bourgeois small property. Both the working class and petty bourgeois strata, in one form or another, are threatened by big capital in a period of economic uncertainty. Rather than threaten petty bourgeois property, the working class must take measures to defend them against big capital, while, on the other hand, leading them gradually towards socialisation.

This raises the question of the nature of the period of transition from capitalism to communist society. We can, of course, turn to Lenin to find some answers to this question. For Lenin this period of change represents

This is a period that combines the features of both capitalist and socialist economy in a process of conflict.

In other words, this period combines the fading out of capitalism (allowing of course for correct leadership) and the increasing socialisation of the society. This also entails a correct understanding of the relation between 'persuasion' and 'coercion' in the transition period. To get an idea of this latter point readers can consult the essay on Stalin and the trade union debates.

In any event, the working class must seek an alliance with the middle strata, that is to attract these strata away from the willing embrace of the big bourgeois of finance and monopoly capital. This does not mean that the working class should close its eyes to the vacillatory, unreliable nature of the middle strata. Rather it is to realise that that the middle strata can be a friend to the working class but an unreliable friend.

What this means is that the proletariat must guard itself from the wavering of the petty bourgeoisie. The communist party must teach that the vacillation of the petty bourgeois strata, if transmitted to the working class and its revolutionary party, can lead to the defeat of the revolution. The communist revolution is a revolution led by the working class supported by a large layer of the middle strata, or petty bourgeoisie. It leads to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say working class political power.

In class terms, bourgeois society represents an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the middle strata, i.e. the petty bourgeoisie, against the working class. Socialism, on the other hand, is an alliance between the working class and the middle strata against the bourgeoisie, an alliance whereby the working class leads the middle strata over to the idea of socialisation.

In capitalist society, all bourgeois parties represent an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the middle strata directed against the working class and socialism. The political form of this alliance may change, but the alliance remains, in normal times. This alliance can be represented by social democracy on the one hand or fascism in periods of crisis. Fascism and social democracy are different ways of fighting the communist revolution. As regard opposing the revolution, and as regard defending the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system, Stalin was right to remark that social democracy and fascism are not antipodes but twins. However, this does not mean they are identical twins, on the contrary both these movements fight communism from different perspectives. To confuse these non-identical twins would be to fall into a pseudo-leftist error. This must be borne in mind in the struggle to win over, not only the working class followers of social democracy, but the middle strata as well.

CONCLUSION.

The main question for the proletarian revolution is the question of the middle strata. The working class and the communist party must seek to win over the middle strata from being a reserve of the bourgeoisie to being a reserve of the working class. Without this, the communist revolution is doomed to failure. The working class must win over the middle strata, or a decisive section of it, to support the struggle against the big monopoly bourgeoisie. The middle strata vacillates between the proletarian revolution and communism on the one hand, and the bourgeoisie on the other. Thus, the working class must make certain concessions to the petty bourgeois middle strata, while gradually leading over to the idea of socialisation. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is an alliance between the working class and the middle strata, directed against the bourgeoisie for the complete suppression of capitalist exploitation. Although social democracy and fascism are twins when it comes to opposing the communist revolution, they are nevertheless non-identical twins. This latter point must not be forgotten when it comes to winning over the followers of social democracy to support revolution.

Tony Clark, Communist Party Alliance.

4^th December, 2001