On Revival of The Real International Communist Movement
We know that the main task of a Communist Party is to educate and organise the working class, capture the political power on the basis of the strength of the working class (and of its allied forces- in the backward countries like ours) and after establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (after passing through the stage of People's Democratic Dictatorship in the backward countries) advance towards socialism, towards the establishment of a classless society. We also know that although nationally we had been lagging behind very much, internationally this particular work had been taken up in some countries, particularly in Russia and China . In these countries various experiments carried out under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat had created a particular type of society that had been called socialist society. Although failed in the midway, still, to the communists, these experiments had remained as shining examples, as unique educative subjects. Because, although the history of mankind up to the present time does not lack evidences of social practice, even of revolutionary practice for the change of social system, involving huge mass of people, still it has not seen such glorious, great, historic and advanced revolutionary practice. Hence all these experiences will surely provide a host of positive lessons to all the soldiers of socialism.
But the cruel truth is that after advancing some distance these so-called socialist countries have failed, have degenerated into capitalist countries. Any attack from the external imperialist camp did not bring about this change, but behind this change worked an internal reason. And this particular fact brings out the truth that in the post-revolutionary period the Communist Parties of these countries, on their way, have erred, committed mistakes, faulted. Hence along with assimilating the positive lessons from these past experiences the errors and mistakes will have to be freed of. Then and then only we shall be able to vigorously move forward towards socialism.
At present we are passing through a period when the first international socialist campaign have been defeated and the second international campaign has not taken its start. In order to be able to make a correct utilisation of this period an objective and realistic analysis of the past experiences is essential. Then only we shall be able to measure the successes and failures, to understand the wrongs along with the rights and to realise which of the errors need immediate rectification and which are to be rectified along the way.. Only if we can move forward in this way, then our (in the international sense) second international campaign will be more free of errors, more vigorous, stronger and more lively. This analysis is essential for another reason. The defeat of the first international socialist campaign have given birth to a sense of despondency, to number of questions and confusions among the people, among the workers and revolutionary intellectuals—even among fighting workers. If we can analyse and find out the reasons of our defeat and in the light of this analysis can rectify our future forward march, then the above reactions, the negative influences can be erased out and we can earn back conviction, faith and confidence.
The primary condition to be fulfilled before undertaking the task of analysing and explaining the causes of the defeat and taking necessary lessons from this, is the acceptance of this defeat. Before the fall of the Second International there was a revolutionary Communist Party in Russia (Bolshevik Party). And after the fall of the Second International the existing revolutionary social-democratic movement not only maintained its continuity through the almost immediate formation of revolutionary Marxist groups, the deepening of a mood of agitation, discontentment and anger among the workers, the spread of influence of the revolutionary Marxist groups, the victory of socialist revolution in a big and important country like Russia, the formation of the Third International, the growth of communist parties in different countries, but also developed into communist movement.
But what is the condition now? The systems that were established in Russia and China in the name of socialism had failed. Not only that. Almost all the communist parties formed at the time and initiative of the Third International have degenerated into reformist-revisionist parties; although revolutionary communist groups have been formed in different countries taking the name of M-L or any other similar such names their influence on a considerable section of the working class is almost non-existent; on the other hand, the feeling of respect, emotion and attraction that the working class and the mass had towards socialism in the 50s decade of the last century had almost vanished, not only among the mass in general, but even among the working class. The apprehension and the erosion of conviction about the real possibility of socialism, the what's, why's and how's about what happened in Russia and China—a host of similar such questions about socialism is now plaguing not only the toiling people in general, but also the working class. This fact reveals the truth that in the present condition a real communist movement (real or revolutionary Marxism + working class movement: Lenin: Note-1) is absent In order to work for the future resurrection of the real communist movement it is, first of all, necessary to recognise this cruel and terrible truth.
But, unfortunately, most of the present communist revolutionary groups refuse to confront this truth or attach any serious importance to it. They try to evade this in various ways. Some of them want to avoid the responsibility of analysis etc. by characterising this phenomenon as disaster, but not as defeat. To some others the whole episode was the result of the conspiracy of the US imperialism and Gorbachovs who, according to them, were CIA agents had masterminded the fall of Soviet Russia. These people do not understand, do not want to understand that neither a revolution nor a counter-revolution can ever be solely or mainly conspired or instigated from outside. Only the existence of an internal cause can activate the external causes. The Gorbachovs, the Politbureaus might be conspirators. But why the entire party elected them, abided by their decisions? Why the working class and the people as a whole accepted them? To fill up the gap inherent in such explanations many had come out with the argument that the downslide had started from the Khruschov-era, the inevitable results of which had been the Gorbachovs, the degenerated party and an inactive working class. According to them, before Khruscov's ascendancy to power, particularly in the Stalin-era everything was more or less right in Soviet Russia. Even if, for the sake of argument, this reasoning is accepted, then also questions arise. If everything had been all right in the Stalin period, then how did the Khruschov's (Khruschov along with the members of the Politbureau and the Central Committee) arrive? How did they ascend to the highest seat of power? Moreover, why did the more-or-less correct Party and the active working class of the Stalin period accepted, without protest, the decisions of Khruschov that came one after another in the downward slide and characterising the downslide? The answers to these would, naturally, lead us to the idea that with almost everybody, particularly the communists remaining ignorant, some faults started to creep in during the much acclaimed Stalin period and in the midst of peals of victory of the international working class and the communists. This facilitated the arrival of Khruschov's.
In this circumstance in order to gain an understanding about the whole events it is essential to reassess the experiments carried out and the measures adopted in Russia after 1917 with the aim of advancing towards socialism under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In the same way the declaration of the establishment of a socialist society on the basis of these experiments and measures also demands re-examination. At what point, from when and how the process of degeneration of the Socialist Revolution and of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat started and how did it attain momentum? An objective and realistic assessment of these questions has become essential now. Then only the reasons of the defeat can be explained (which is also necessary to re-install the faith and confidence of the working class and of the vast majority of the people) and the question of the determination of the subjects of acceptance and those of denouncement can be settled.
To start the discussion we are taking up the issue of socialism in the beginning. For a number of reasons this issue needs to be tackled in the beginning. Firstly, the experiments were conducted and the measures were adopted with the aim of advancing towards socialism and these were to attain accomplishment with the establishment of the socialist society. Hence the issue of socialism is occupying the central place in the subject under discussion and for this reason it needs to be discussed at the start. Secondly, if the socialist societies established in Russia and China had not overturned and started to move towards the opposite (i.e. towards capitalism), then the questions, doubts etc. presently confronting us, would not have arisen. This shows that the issue of socialism has come to the forefront. Thirdly, the idea of a socialist society that is now prevalent among the mass, particularly among the fighting section of the working class, even in the Marxist-Leninist camp, is that of a higher form of society than the capitalist society. New production relations, more advanced productive forces in comparison to the present ones, vast increase (in comparison to that of the immediate past) of total production, new social relations, etc. constitute a higher form of society. When such a higher form of society is established the members of the society enjoy better fruits in comparison to the previous one and so they do not want to return to the old social system of their own. As for example, in spite of being divided into classes, the members of the capitalist society are completely unwilling to return to the feudal society. Then why the members of a higher form of society than the capitalist society voluntarily (not as a result of imperialist aggression, but due to internal reason and without civil war) returned to the old form of society, even after the establishment of a socialist society which is a higher form of society than the capitalist one? Why, instead of advancing towards a more advanced form of society which should have been the case according to the laws of internal contradiction of society, the society slipped downwards to a lower form of society Hence questions and doubts about the socialist society cannot but remain messed up. For the resurrection of the real communist movement it is necessary to first disentangle the tangle.
So our discussion is beginning with the socialist societies that were established in Russia and China . Among the two the socialist society of Russia was established first. And not only that, the main characteristics of the socialist society established in Russia were also the main characteristics of the frame of the socialist society of China . Hence, the socialist society established in Russia naturally becomes our first subject of discussion.
The Soviet Constitution of 1936 declared that socialism had been established in that country. This is a well-known fact. According to Stalin "...The capitalist system has been abolished and the socialist system has been victorious in this country (i.e. in Soviet Russia)". 1 He further said, "Our Soviet society is a socialist society". 2
According to the Constitution of 1936 and the description of Stalin in 'About the Draft Constitution of U.S.S.R' the characteristics of that society had been: —
(i) The capitalist economic system and private ownerships over means and instruments of production had been abolished. The exploitation of men over men had come to an end.
(ii) Two forms of socialist property were in existence—one in the form of state property and the other in the form of properties of co-operatives and collective farms. Yet along with these, private economy of individual peasants and artisans based on their own labours still existed.
(iii) Although there were no antagonistic classes, yet class division still continued through the existence of working class, peasantry and intellectuals as a separate group.
(iv) The principle of 'Each according to the ability (should give) and each according to the work (should take)' was being followed in the case of all citizens. The differences between heavy and light works and between skilled and unskilled work were considered while measuring the amount of work done. After measuring the amount of work done in this way according to the quality and quantity of work, it was being determined how much a person had contributed in accordance with his/her ability and how much each person would get in accordance of his/her contribution. Apart from this, the principle, adopted earlier, of buying the bourgeois specialists by giving them higher wages, was continued.
(v) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the form of Communist Party- led soviets was being maintained.
The official description clearly indicated that the then socialist society of Soviet Russia still carried the following features.
? Apart from the state property there existed collective and co-operative properties and small private property based on individual labour (both in the field of agriculture and cottage industry).
? The working class and the peasantry existed as separate classes and along with them existed the intellectuals as a separate group.
? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was being exercised through the form of communist Party-led soviets.
? Taking into consideration the differences between heavy and light work and between skilled and unskilled work the quality and quantity of work were measured on the basis of which wages were fixed. The policy of giving higher wages to the bourgeois specialists was being followed from an earlier period.
Though this society was called socialist society in daily parlance, the truth that the society was not a full-fledged or complete socialist society, but a socialist society 'in main' (i.e. not fully developed) was acknowledged by Stalin in more than one occasion. "Our soviet society has already socialism in main ". 3 (The emphasis is ours. This will be followed in all subsequent similar occasions, unless otherwise mentioned.) "... We have already mainly attained the first stage of communism, i.e. socialism". 3 In another instance he said, " The social organisation which we have built, can be termed as soviet socialist organisation, though not fully complete it is mainly a socialist organisation of the society". 4 Again, "Those of us who have abolished capitalism and built socialism in main ..." 5
Along with denoting the society of the Soviet Union as socialist, some more aspects of its characteristic features had been focussed in some important documents of that period. While explaining about the position of the Soviet Union in the stage of development it had been written in The History of the CPSU (Bolshevik) [Abridged Course, 1938 Edition, Moscow , 1945]: -
"... USS has entered into a new stage of development. This stage is the stage of the completion of the process of building of the socialist society and gradual transition to the communist society". 6
In another occasion Stalin had said, ".... These people naturally do not understand that we are compelled to use money for many more days, till the first stage of communism, i.e. the stage of development of the socialist society is not completed ". 7
Two questions have been clarified in the above two quotations. Firstly, till then the process of building of the socialist society had not been completed in USSR . Secondly, this condition would continue for a further long period .
Let us now examine what does all these, as a whole, tell us about the development of the soviet society. Although the soviet society was generally designated as a socialist society, still Stalin and the soviet official circle had reminded everybody a number of times that it was not a fully developed socialist society. They had said that till then socialism had not been fully achieved in Soviet Russia, fully developed or fully completed socialist society had not been established. What had been achieved was socialism in main, a socialist society in main. According to them, the stage of development that the Soviet Union was in at that time could be correctly denoted as the stage of completion of the process of building of socialism and of gradual transition to the higher communist society. They had further reminded us that this stage would continue for a long period, hence the stage of socialist development would continue for a long period and the compulsion for the use of money would exist through out this period.
The above paragraph is highly important and in the revaluation of the question about the establishment of socialism in Soviet Russia this paragraph demands serious attention from us. Because of the general acceptance of the idea about the establishment of socialism in Soviet Russia it is all the more necessary now to put more importance to the analysis of Stalin and the soviet official block about the successes and incompleteness of the soviet socialist society.
Let us come back to the main discussion. We had already noted that Soviet Russia was then passing through the stage of completing the building of socialism. Hence the question that naturally arises is: how can it be understood that the process of building of the socialist society has been completed or socialism has been fully attained. Stalin's answer to the question can be understood from the following quotations.
While speaking on 'The results of the First Five-Year Plan' in the combined plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission held on 1933 Stalin said: "The fundamental tasks of the Five-Year Plan adopted for converting USSR into an industrially advanced country were to abolish the capitalist elements, to extend the economic centres of socialist form and to create the economic basis for the abolition of classes, for the establishment of a socialist society". 8
A close look at the above quotation will make it clear that the issue of building of a socialist society has been linked with the abolition of classes, that means, a socialist society is formed as a result of the abolition of classes. Hence separate classes, their independences and class differences do not exist. A socialist society is a classless society.
Hence it has been stated: " As for example , let us take the question of building a classless society . The Seventeenth conference [held on Jan—Feb., 1932] has declared that we are advancing towards the establishment of a classless society". 9
Afterwards, in 1936, Stalin said: "Side by side with the working class and the peasantry and unitedly with them they [the intellectual community] are involved there [in the soviet society] in the building of a new, classless, socialist society ". 10
So it could be clearly seen that Stalin had no doubt and hesitation in accepting socialist society as a classless society.
In that case how could Stalin unhesitatingly characterise the USSR society as 'a socialist society in main' when that society was not at all a classless society, rather was at a long distance from a classless society?
Stalin had answered this question in the second part of his speech on 'The Draft Constitution of USSR' delivered in the Special 8 th Congress of the Soviets held on the 26 th November 1936. We are quoting below relevant portion from it.
"Hence the victory of the socialist system in all the spheres of the national economy is now a fact...
".... We have now created a new, socialist economy....
"In conformity with these changes in the economic life of USSR the class structure of our society has undergone a change.
The landlord class has been abolished (earlier). About other exploiting classes it can be said that they have shared the same fate as of the landlord class. In the field of factory industry there is no existence of the capitalist class, and in the field of commerce the merchants and profit mongers have disappeared. In this way all the exploited classes have been abolished.
" Now there exist a working class, a peasant and an intellectual community" 11
"It will be mistaken to think that during this period [1924-1936] these social groups have not gone through any change and that they have remain unchanged as they have been in the previous regime, say in the capitalist regime". 12
After describing the nature and character of these changes Stalin had explained the significance of these changes in this way:
"Firstly, the significance of these is that the line of difference between the working class and the peasantry and that between these classes and the intelligentsia are getting obliterated and the old differentiation of class dignity is being abolished.
"Secondly, the significance of these is that the economic contradictions between these social groups are diminishing and vanishing.
"And lastly, the significance of these is that the political contradictions between them are diminishing and vanishing
" This is the condition in respect of the changes in the class structure". 12
In this context another quotation demands our consideration. In this quotation the above-mentioned discussions are placed in a very concise and exact manner. The quotation is like this:
" There exist no antagonistic classes in the society of.... USSR ; the society is composed of two ally classes, the working class and the peasantry; these classes—these labouring classes— are in power; the responsibility of administering the society by the state is in the hands of the most advanced class, the working class". 13
Hence, in spite of some existence of small individual ownerships of peasants and artisans in the society of USSR in 1936, after the establishment, in main, of the public ownership in the industrial sector and of collective and co-operative ownerships in the agricultural sector, Stalin and the leaders of CPSU came to the conclusion that in comparison to the previous capitalist society a qualitatively different society, a socialist society had been established in the USSR, although it was not a classless socialist society. The reasons behind this conclusion were:
(a) Capitalism had been abolished; all other forms of exploitations had also been abolished; the exploitation of men over men had come to an end.
(b) There were no antagonistic classes in the society.
(c) The society was composed of two ally classes—the working class and the peasantry; apart from these only the community of labouring intelligentsia existed.
(d) The class differentiations and the contradictions among these classes were diminishing and getting obliterated.
(e) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established.
It was their conclusion that as a result of these changes it was impossible for the capitalism to return solely on the basis of internal causes—only the imperialist attack could bring back capitalism.
For these reasons it was declared that socialism, in main, had been established in the Soviet Union .
Now let us arrange the broad explanations. analyses etc. of Stalin and the leaders of CPSU about the question of the establishment of socialism in the Soviet Russia.
1) Stalin and the then leadership of CPSU had no doubt or hesitation in accepting the truth that the attainment of socialism or the establishment of the socialist society meant the building of a classless society. This had been stated in more than one occasions and stated not only in the general perspective, but also in the particular perspective of Russia .
2) In spite of this, the class divided society that emerged in the Soviet Union after the establishment, in main, of public ownership in the industrial and commercial sectors and of collective and co-operative ownerships in the agricultural sector under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was declared as mainly a socialist society, i.e. not as a complete or fully developed society.
3) The main reasons behind declaring the Soviet society as mainly a socialist society were: the capitalist and all other exploitative systems had been abolished; all the hostile classes like the capitalist class, the landlord class, etc. had been swept out; the society contained only two ally classes—the working class and the peasantry and apart from these existed the intellectual community. The economic and political contradictions among them were diminishing as a result of which the line of difference between them was getting obliterated or the old differentiation based on class dignity was abolishing. In this way the contradictions among them were diminishing at a fast pace. On the basis of this analysis their common interest was highlighted. It was stated that all of them were unitedly engaged in the work of building a classless society.
4) All these meant that apart from the reason of external imperialist attack it was impossible for the Soviet society of that time to get distracted from its path of onward journey towards the establishment of a classless society due to ant internal reason. It was the assessment and firm opinion of Stalin and the then Soviet leaders. It was for this reason the Soviet society of that time was characterised as a socialist society in spite of it remaining a long distance away from a classless society.
5) Stalin and the then CPSU leadership had reminded a number of times that although described as a socialist society in common usage and parlance the soviet society of that time was not a fully developed or completed socialist society; it was only a socialist society in main (i.e. taking into account the main features). That was why they had designated the stage of development the soviet union was in at that time as the stage of completion of building of socialism (i.e. the stage of building of classless socialist society), the stage of gradual transition to the (higher) communist society. Along with this it had been stressed that this stage would continue for a long time, the stage of socialist development (i.e. the stage of building of the classless socialist society) would continue for a long time, and the compulsion for the use of money would continue through this period.
The Analysis and Conclusions of Mao
In the initial period, i.e. up to the contemporary time of attainment of socialism in China Mao Ze-Dong did not reflect any difference of opinion with Stalin on the questions of socialist society, the then Soviet Russia, etc. At least in his writings we do not find any trace of it. But with the passage of time the realisations and stands of Mao underwent a process of development. [If anybody harbours the opinion that the realisations and stands of Mao have not passed through a process of development and that the analysis and statements of his later period of life with which we are very familiar have been inherent in his conceptions right from the initial period, then we are sorry to point out that the person is mistaken.] The real experiences of Soviet Union , of the countries of Eastern Europe and of China enriched Mao very much. This was reflected in his later conceptions, analysis and conclusions. And as a result the differences between Stalin's formulations and his stands became very prominent.
Although it can not be exactly summarised how much the articles of the Great Debate carry the imprints of Mao, still it can be safely concluded that the letters and comments of the Great Debate do not carry anything which is contrary to the conceptions and conclusions of Mao. So we can take it for granted that the Great Debate has reflected the conceptions, analysis and conclusions of Mao.
While discussing about 'The Existence of Hostile Classes and Class-struggle in the Soviet Union ' it has been stated in the 9 th Comment of the Great Debate ("Khruschov's Phoney Communism and its Historical Lessons for the World"):
"Since Soviet Union was the first and the only country in its time which was engaged in the task of building of socialism and did not receive help from any previous foreign experience and since in realising the laws of class struggle in a socialist society Stalin moved away from the Marxist Theory of Dialectics, so after collectivisation was mainly completed in the agricultural sector he prematurely declared that "There are no hostile classes any more"[Stalin, 'On the Draft Constitution of USSR',Problems of Leninism, FLPH, p:-690] and that the country " is free of class struggles" [Stalin, The Report of the Work of the Central Committee placed before the 18 th Congress of CPSU(B), Problems of Leninism, FLPH, p:-777]. He placed one-sided stress on the internal common interest in the socialist society and failed to notice the contradictions. In the struggle against the forces of capitalism he failed to depend on the working class and the people and viewed the possibility of the restoration of capitalism only in connection with the armed attack of the international imperialism. In the light of theory and practice this is wrong. Yet Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist. As long as he led the Soviet Party and the State he remained firm in the path of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and socialism, followed the line of Marxism-Leninism and kept ensured the continuous march of the victorious campaign of the Soviet Union on the road to socialism". 14
If we arrange, one by one, the wrong analysis and the wrong conclusions on the basis of which Stalin has been criticised in the above paragraph then it will look like this: -
a) He prematurely declared that there were no hostile classes in the soviet society, which meant that the bourgeoisie no more existed.
b) He prematurely declared that the country had become free of class struggle, or in other words, the country had become free of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
c) He failed to notice the contradictions of that society and put one-sided stress on the internal common interest.
d) He failed to depend on the working class and the people in the struggle against the capitalist forces existing in that society.
e) He visualised the possibility of the restoration of capitalism in that society only in connection with the armed attack of the international imperialism, which meant that he considered that society to be free from the dangerous possibility of retracing its path, of the restoration of capitalism resulting from the victory of the forces of the capitalist path in the struggle between the forces of the socialist path and the forces of capitalist path.
Among the five points noted above the first three are quite explicit and need no explanation. Only the last two need some explanations.
We had already noted that according to Stalin's analysis and conclusions, there were no bourgeoisie in the soviet society of that period; actually the society was free from all the exploitative classes. The idea that the soviet society was free from the harmful activities of the capitalist forces and hence did no longer face the danger of capitalist restoration due to internal reasons was rooted in the international communist movement of that period. On the other hand, if the non-existence of the capitalist forces is assumed, then there cannot be any question about the contradictions generated from their presence and activities. Consequently, the common interest (sharing the interest of the working class which is the building of a classless society) of the forces present (the working class, peasantry and the intellectual community) is bound to be stressed one-sidedly. In other words, the idea will naturally develop that the society that is free from the dangerous possibility of the restoration of capitalism due to internal reasons, will, on its own motion, advance towards the formation of a classless socialist society. And with the development of such an idea naturally comes the decision that only the armed attack of the imperialists can restore capitalism in such a society. That such an idea and decision are wrong is expressed in points (3) and (5) of the previous paragraph.
Mao and CPC pointed out that the reasoning and explanation put forward by Stalin and CPSU in characterising the soviet society as a socialist society in spite of its not being a classless socialist society were wrong and also forcefully brought forward that these were the product of wrong thinking and wrong inquiry. The real experiences of the prevalent socialist societies also proved the correctness of these analysis and conclusions. Consequently, there remained no reason to consider the society of Soviet Russia (and similar ones of China and of countries of East Europe ) as socialist society.
But in spite of negating the reasons and explanations put forward in support of terming Soviet Russia as socialist, Mao and CPC continued to consider similar societies (e.g. fundamentally similar societies of China and of the countries of East Europe ) as socialists
CPC came out with their view of denoting the general features (formal features) of the societies established in Soviet Union , China and Eastern European countries and generally known as socialist, as general features of a socialist society.
"In a socialist society dictatorship of the proletariat replaces dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and public ownership replaces private ownership.... By nationalising the industry and collectivising the agriculture it opens the door for the lively development of the social productive forces and in this way ensures a rate of development many times more than that of the old society". 15
We have already observed that there is no justification in considering the soviet and other similar societies as fundamentally socialist or socialist (in common usages or writings) if we follow Stalin and consider a fully developed or complete socialist society as a classless society. Again, if we consider those societies as socialist societies, then the idea of 'classless socialist society' cannot hold good. Rather the essence, historical role and everything of the socialist society are completely changed.
The later eventuality happened in the case of Mao and CPC. While designating the society of post-1956 China and other similar societies as socialist they not only described the formal features of a socialist society, but also forcefully put forward their analysis and conclusions about socialism's essence, historical role, etc. In the process Mao brought about a fundamental change in the conceptions of socialism's essence, historical role.etc. In the working conference of the Central Committee held in August, 1962 and in the 10 th Plenary Session of the 8 th Central Committee held in the month of September of the same year Mao explained, in a consolidated form, the main line of the party for the entire period of socialism. In the explanation he said: —
"The socialist society exists for a considerably long historical period. During this historical period of socialism different classes exist, along with it exist class antagonism and class struggle, the struggle between the socialist path and the capitalist path and the danger of capitalist restoration. Of course, we have to understand the prolonged and complicated character of this struggle. We have to strengthen our watchful vigilance. We have to conduct socialist education. We have to correctly understand and conduct the antagonism between different classes and the class struggle. We have to differentiate between the contradiction within the enemy and us and the contradiction within masses and to take appropriate measures to solve these. Otherwise a socialist country like ours will turn into its opposite, will degenerate and a capitalist restoration will take place. Every day, every month, every year we must remind ourselves about this. Then and then only we shall be able to move with a judicious analysis of this problem and follow the Marxist-Leninist line". 16
All these (the analysis of Stalin and CPSU, the criticisms of Mao and CPC, their stand) have put us in a tight spot. It is necessary to clearly place the confusion so that everybody can understand the problem and feel the necessity of solving it.
We have already noticed that Mao and CPC have proved many of analysis and conclusions of Stalin about the post-1936 society of USSR to be wrong, from the point of view of both theory and practice. But Mao and CPC have never said or proved Stalin's analysis and conclusion, which equated a complete socialist society with a classless society, to be wrong, anti- dialectical materialism or anti- Marxism-Leninism. But still Mao and his party did not accept the conclusion that equated a full grown or completed socialist society with a classless society. Instead he had placed a complete different conception of a socialist society. According to this conception, in this socialist society encompassing a prolonged historical period, fundamental changes in comparison to the capitalist society take place only in the fields of state power (proletarian dictatorship in place of bourgeois dictatorship) and of the ownership structure of the means of production (public ownership in place of private ownership over the means of production— state ownership through nationalisation in the industrial sector and collective and co-operative ownerships through collectivisation in the agriculture sector). But like the previous capitalist society this socialist society is also a class divided society where class contradictions and class struggle exist along with the danger of the restoration of capitalism. Between the two different types of conceptions and explanations which one we should accept? Stalin was undoubtedly wrong in viewing and describing the soviet society of 1936- period as a society free of antagonistic classes and class struggle and free of the danger of capitalist restoration (afterwards both the theoretical analysis of Mao and CPC and the real experiences of the Soviet Union proved it). But it does not in any way prove Stalin to be wrong in equating a fully developed socialist society with a classless society. Again, the fact that Mao and CPC were right in pointing out the mistakes of some of Stalin's arguments and conclusions about the soviet society, did not, by itself, prove that the analysis and conclusions of Mao and CPC about the essence, features and historical role of socialism were true to Marxism-Leninism and should be accepted. As a result we are put in a condition of doubt and confusion. On one side there is Stalin and CPSU's views and conclusions about socialist society and on the other side there is Mao and CPC's views and conclusions about the same. We can as well accept any one of these according to our likings and inclinations. But that will be completely unreasonable and non-Marxist-Leninist method. Hence, if we do not follow this path, then in that case only one path remains open before us. That path is to find out what exactly the three original and great leaders and the founders of Marxism-Leninism (we should keep in mind that Lenin has been the founder of Marxism- Leninism, the Marxism of the imperialist era) have said, have taught about this subject (socialism), why we have to take into consideration those arguments and teachings and after examining the arguments and conclusions of Stalin and Mao in the light of these inquiries can decide to accept the appropriate one.
There is another problem. That the socialist society is a classless society and that the soviet society from little after the middle of 1930's, designated as a 'mainly socialist society', have been a society in a new stage of development—in the stage of completion of building of socialism—these arguments and analysis of Stalin and the leaders of CPSU have remained unfamiliar and unknown to the grass root Marxist-Leninists like us who are known as 'rustic' (but not fake) Marxist-Leninists in common parlance and to the advanced workers. Rather the prevalent idea about socialism and socialist society is quite popular in our midst.. This idea have been expressed in the afore-mentioned 9 th Comment of the CPSU which described the socialist society as a society where public ownership over the means of productions (which means state ownership in the industrial sector and collective and co-operative ownership in the agricultural sector) have been established under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Till towards the end of 1950's a different conception of this society (free from the existence of antagonistic classes and class struggle, and where the possibility of capitalist restoration due to internal causes have been exhausted) was in vogue. Afterwards, from the end of 1960's to be precise, we came to know from the analysis and conclusions of Mao and CPC and from the objective experience of Russia that this conception was wrong. Instead we have learnt that this socialist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat continues for prolonged historical period, in which exist different classes and with it class antagonism and class struggle and even the danger of capitalist restoration. From this perspective this society, although considerably different from the immediately preceding capitalist society (in the realm of state character and the type of ownership over the means of production), still is not totally different from it (because of the existence of different classes, class antagonism and class struggle). In moving ahead with our inquiry exactly here we are faced with a serious problem, which we have already referred at the beginning of this paragraph. From the analysis and conclusions of Mao it comes out that the socialist society established after the victorious socialist revolution, instead of originating through the resolution of the contradiction of capital and labour, contains it substantially. It means that the socialist revolution, carried out to resolve the contradiction between capital and labour—the main contradiction of the old capitalist society— establishes such a socialist society in which this contradiction is not resolved, rather occupies an important position. Is it not quite confusing?
Let us explain the subject a bit further. In every class divided society revolution develops on its own motion. The revolution aims is to resolve the main contradiction of the old society and through this resolution bring about a thorough change of the old society and establish a higher form of society. Consequently, in the just established new, higher society the main contradiction of the old society does not exist in any way. In this context we can consider the example of the anti-feudal bourgeois- democratic revolution and of the bourgeois democratic society. The main contradiction of the feudal society was between the autocratic monarchy and the feudal forces subservient to it versus the vast majority of the population. In the bourgeois democratic societies established after the bourgeois democratic revolutions, carried out for the resolution of this contradiction, the main contradiction of the old society did never find a place. But in the case of the socialist society established at the end of a transition period of some duration, the main contradiction of the old society—the contradiction between capital and labour—still remains as an important element (according to Mao and CPC). In that case, we are faced with a question. Why is this exception to the general law taking place? Is it due to some complications? Or is there a justified cause behind it? How can we explain the cause?
Moreover, there is yet another problem. Due to the influence of Mao and CPC on the communist revolutionaries the idea about the socialist society that is prevalent among them can be stated in this way. In spite of the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in spite of a change in the structure of the ownership of the means of production such a society contains the existence of antagonistic classes, class struggle and bears the danger of capitalist restoration. The picture that emerges from this conception is this: the socialist society occupies a place in the period of transition from the class divided capitalist society to the classless society, which starts under the dictatorship of the proletariat and where although a change is effected in the ownership of the means of production the task of effecting a total change of the society is left incomplete. Actually this is the conception that we have received from Mao and CPC:
"The socialist society exists throughout the entire important historical period of transition from class society to classless society. Through the period of socialist society mankind will enter into communist society (classless society)". 17
From this it comes out that according to Mao and CPC, the socialist society is the transitional society between the class divided capitalist society and the classless society. If that is so then why has this society of the transitional period been given a separate nomenclature of 'socialist society'? If named in this way then will it not help in forming the wrong conception or confusion that similar to the other steps or stages of social development like the feudal society, capitalist society, etc., this transitional society will also be more or less stable during its life span? A little more clarification will show that the matter really stands here.
Between the class- divided capitalist society and the classless society lies the transitional society under discussion. In the words of Marx, with the ushering of this stage starts the period of transformation of the first [capitalist society] to the second [classless society]. Consequently, in this period the society neither remains in the plane of capitalist society nor is raised to the higher stage of classless socialist society. In the initial part of the transitional period this transitional society contains far more of the characteristic elements of the capitalist society and far less of those of higher classless society, which remain almost in the embryonic forms. But with the passage of time and with the advancement of the transitional period the mutual ratio of the ingredients in the composition goes on changing— the elements of the first goes on diminishing while those of the second goes on decreasing. In this way through out the period of the transitional period goes on the process of transformation of the transitional society.
With the continuous change of the transitional society its characteristic aspects also goes on changing, e.g. the forms of ownership of the means of production, the extent of existence of the economy of commodity, money, etc, the intensity of the repressive character of the state, distribution, etc. As a result this transitional society differs in a big way from the other steps or stages of social development having different nomenclatures e.g. the feudal society, the capitalist society, etc. The characteristic aspects of the latter do not change very much during the duration of their existence while those of the former go through a process of continuous change.
In that case, if we denote this transitional society by the name of 'socialist society' then shall we not push towards considering this society as similar to those more or less stable societies?
Still, perhaps there may be a question. Among the characteristic element of a society the most important one is the mode of ownership of the means of production It may be argued that with the fundamental change being brought about in the realm of mode of ownership of the means of production the transitional society is being fundamentally changed, changed into a higher form of society.
In the socialist society defined by Mao public ownership is established over the means of production— state ownership through nationalisation in the industrial sector and collective and co-operative ownerships in the agriculture sector. Are these measures bringing about a fundamental change in the mode of ownership of the means of production? If we answer this question in the affirmative then we shall have to confront some questions.
Firstly, co-operative and collective ownership mean the ownership of some people or of a vast number of people. In comparison to the private ownership of individuals this form of ownership is undoubtedly is of a very much higher stage; the abolition of individual ownership clears the road for its arrival. But this form of ownership is still not social ownership and from the perspective of the whole society it is the private ownership of a part of the society. To come under the ownership of the whole society the mode of ownership in the agriculture sector will have to pass through a few more steps. It is getting clear that the collective and co-operative ownerships occupy positions on the path of transition from individual private ownership to social ownership—these are only transitional forms.
Moreover, have the collective and co-operative ownerships crossed the boundary of capitalist ownership? Under the capitalist ownership as there is individual private ownership, so also there are a host of forms of ownerships—from private limited, public limited to monopoly, corporate, trust, etc. All these are private ownerships. Keeping its own character intact the capitalist ownership advances towards assuming social forms. In the corporate establishments we can also find a few hundred thousands of shareholders. Hence, will it be justified to think that the collective ownership of a few hundred thousands means that the ownership has crossed the boundaries of capitalist ownership?
Secondly, real social ownership means that the whole of the society is exercising the ownership. Along with directly participating in labour every able-bodied person of the society takes direct part in the exercise of the social ownership, takes part in turn. When a person is not taking direct part in the exercise of the social ownership then also that person is taking part in the exercise of the social ownership through carrying out the task of supervision of the work of the direct participants Then and then only the formal social ownership or nationalisation is transformed into social ownership in the real sense. Hence with the establishment of state ownership through nationalisation in the industrial sector real social ownership is not established, the boundaries of the capitalist ownership are not crossed then and there. So probably it is not justified to take it for granted that with the change in the ownership structure of the means of production a qualitative change is taking place in such ownership.
We think that it is necessary to consider, from another aspect, the importance of the change in the ownership structure of the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat. That aspect is the aspect of the capitalist production
The essence of the capitalist production is the capitalist relations. In the capitalist system all the means of production and all the sources of livelihood remain in the possession of a very few; and in the other side remains the vast majority of the people of the society who are the possessor of their labour-power only. Production is necessary for living and for this the latter group has to sell their labour-power, or in other words, has to sell themselves for a fixed period to the former one. Before the industrial revolution the owners of the then primitive means of production had been the producers, i.e. the direct participants in the production and they mainly accomplished the development and improvement of these means of production. They were the main inventors of the primitive technology of that period. After the industrial revolution with the progress of the capitalist production the sellers of the labour-power were deprived of everything and were converted into wage-slaves. Like the barrack- soldiers they were converted to mere order carriers of the buyers of the labour-power or their hired staff. And the responsibilities of the preservation, development and improvement of knowledge-science-technology were entrusted in hands of a group of educated persons. These are the people who are managers, engineers, scientists, technologists, etc. As bourgeois specialists the labour-power of these people are being bought at a much higher price.
Another important has to be kept in mind. The most important factor behind the social progress is the accumulation-fund. This fund is spent for the development of the productive forces. For accumulation surplus production, surplus labour is necessary. In the capitalist production the capitalists realise this surplus labour from the workers in the form of surplus value. The workers remain unconscious, and the owners of the capital and their representatives unitedly decide what portion of the surplus value will be spent under which heading.
If under the dictatorship of the proletariat a substantial portion of the workers does not consciously come forward in every field and start playing the role worthy of conscious workers, if the workers remain stuck in the same backward position as before, then can it be concluded that the society is advancing towards the abolition of the capitalist production? In that case can it be summarised that the ownership structure has undergone a fundamental change?
Anyway, let us come back to the main discussion. We can see that a number of questions, doubts, confusions, etc. are associated with the formulations of Stalin and Mao about the socialist society, about the prevalent ideas formed under their influence. It is urgently necessary to find solutions of all these. And for this we need to know what exactly Marx, Engels and Lenin have said about the socialist society and why. Then and then only we can solve the present problems in the light of their teachings and analysis.
[ Note: - The readers should please remember that we have not carried on this discussion with the object of belittling such great leaders of the international proletarian movement like Stalin and Mao or their contributions. We have carried on this discussion for finding the solution of a big and most important problem of the present time. We want to continue this discussion in further two instalments. What, why, where and under what conditions Stalin has said in this context and what is Mao's extraordinary role in this question—— all these will be discussed in the last instalment. ——— Author
Note:
NOTE: 1 I have said that Real (or, revolutionary) Communist Movement = Real (or, revolutionary) Marxism-Leninism + Working Class Movement
To be precise, what Lenin said was not exactly this. But what he had said actually meant this. Lenin wrote,
Social-Democratic Movement = Social Democracy + Working Class Movement
Afterwards, during the period of First World War, on account of the nauseating role of the Social Democratic Parties the nomenclature of Communism came to the forefront in place of Social Democracy. Moreover, it is the correct scientific nomenclature. Later on the revisionist and adventurist versions of communist movement appeared in the field. I have used the term real (or, revolutionary) communism to draw a line of differentiation from these distorted versions.
Hence, Real (revolutionary) communist movement = Real (revolutionary) Marxism-Leninism + Working Class Movement.
Whether the existing revolutionary communist organisations are the possessors of real (or, revolutionary) Marxism-Leninism and whether these organisations follow revolutionary Marxism-Leninism in their analysis, decisions and practice is of course questionable. But let us put aside this question. Each of the revolutionary communist organisations thinks that they are the real Marxist ? Leninists. Yet it must be borne in mind that without the amalgamation of real Marxism- Leninism with the working class movement there can be no real communist movement. Hence, those who are assuming that without the amalgamation of the working class movement the real communist movement is continuing through one or a number of revolutionary organisations, are on the wrong track.
Bibliography:
a) Collected Works, Stalin, Vol.14, Nabajatak Publishers, 1979
b) The History of The Communist Party (Bolshevik) of the Soviet Union, Abridged Course, 1938 Edition, Moscow, 1945
c) Collected Works, Stalin, Vol.13, Moscow Edition, 1955
d) Has China Deviated? Publisher: T. K. Ganguly, 1967
References:
1) a, P:-128-129
2) a, P:-111-112
3) a) P:-127
4) a) P:-111-112
5) a) P:-182
6) b) P:-346
7) c) P:-349-350
8) c) P:-174-175
9) c) P:-357
10) a) P:-124
11) a) P:-120-122
12) a) P:-120-125
13) a) P:-129
14) d) P:- 61-62 ( 9 th Comment)
15) d) P:-52 (Ibid )
16) d) P:-163 (Ibid)
17) d) P:-52 (Ibid)
Comments:
No Comments for View