A Preliminary Discussion About Communism, Socialism and Transition to Socialism
[International Communist Movement is groping to find a way out the present crisis. The last century has seen the collapse of Soviet Union and other Soviet countries of the East Europe which has proclaimed themselves as socialist. Capitalism has restored in China in the guise of market socialism. This is the English translation of a three–part article written originally in Bengali in mid– 1991 and published in the revolutionary Marxist journal “Sandhikshan” in three issues (February 1992, May 1994 and August 1994). The article is inspired by questions emerged after the Tiana–n–men–square firing and which culminated after the Berlin and then by Russian events marking the so–called “collapse of socialism”; about the questions “what actually socialism is?”, “Was there at all a socialist country in the true sense of the word?” etc. This was only an attempt to form the basis for further investigation of post– revolutionary development in Russia and China.]
Part– I
Some Preliminary Aspects
The International Communist Movement is facing host of questions regarding Soviet Union and C.P.S.U., China and Communist Party of China.* Arousal of such questions is of course not a characteristic feature of the present times only. Questions about C.P.S.U. and Soviet Union have started to appear after the 20th Congress of C.P.S.U. in 1956 and have gathered momentum particularly in the decade of the 1960s. Afterwards, since 1978, various questions have emerged, and are still emerging about the Communist Party of China and the functioning of People’s Democratic China.
Those who are familiar with these questions know that those are no more bounded within the limit of ascertaining the character of the post–1956 Soviet Communist Party, the State and the Nation led by it. With time, the questions have become broader in reach and also of increasing depth, endeavouring to encompass some fundamental subjects also. As a natural consequence, the pre–1956 period, particularly the period marked by Anna Louis Strong as the ‘Stalin Era’, has also became a subject of critical inquiry. Similarly, the attempt to analyse the activities of the Chinese Communist Party in the post–1978 period is demanding a critical analysis of pre–1978 period with a number of unanswered queries. Even the activities, theories and programmes of Cultural Revolution are being questioned.
It has become one of the most important task of the international communist movement to deliberate on these questions and to present an analysis of the experiences these countries— which had gone through revolution and started a march towards socialism. Any communist organization can not think of fulfilling this task alone, but at the same time, it can no more avoid committing itself to the task. For this reason, we have to initiate discussions regarding these among ourselves. In the process, we have realized that a lot of illusions, complications, wrong ideas regarding fundamental concepts such as communism, socialism, transition to socialism etc. prevail particularly in the communist movement of our country and without dispelling them, no really scientific or Marxist– Leninist discussion is possible. For this reason, it is necessary to clarify our ideas about these fundamental concepts (Communism, Socialism, Transition to Socialism, etc.) so that we can properly undertake the discussions regarding the principal questions of today, which are centred around the post– 1917 Soviet Communist Party and Soviet Union, post– 1949 People’s Democratic China and Communist Party of China — what had been wrong there which has led to defeat of communist movement, collapse of revolutionary; what are the lessons to be learnt by the communist movement from these defeat and collapses; and so on. To do these discussions properly, we should be equipped with the clear and scientific ideas regarding Communism, Socialism, and Transition to Socialism etc.
Marx’s views regarding these subjects (Communism, Socialism, and Transition to Socialism) can be found in a concise form in the ‘Critique to the Gotha Programme’ and that’s why Lenin has discussed this work with special importance. Accordingly, we will also start our discussions with the views expressed in the ‘Critique to the Gotha Programme’.
However, other relevant views, analysis and explanations of Marx and Engels (most of which are in Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’, for others sources will be mentioned) are used. Lenin’s relevant comments, explanations, notes, analysis etc. are also referred whenever needed. Needless to say, such discussions will be heavily weighed down with quotations. But any alternative path is not discernible at present. To get rid of various illusions, complications etc. and to build up a correct, scientific and truly Marxist– Leninist conceptions, it is necessary to base our understanding on the views, analysis and explanations of Marx, Engels and Lenin. This is going to be the content of the first part of our discussion.
Marx and Engels thought that the commencement of the Socialist Revolution will occur in the advanced capitalist countries as a result of the maturing of the internal contradictions of capitalism and through the revolutions which occur almost simultaneously in these countries, socialist society will be established across Western Europe and North America. They thoght that, in that case, this socialist society, by strength of its developed mode of production and culture will vigorously attract all the other countries of the world towards itself and gradually socialism will spread internationally. But the zigzag course of history in the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Socialist Revolution has resulted in something else and socialist revolution became successful in the then Russian Empire, which was backward in socio– economic considerations. Revolution was maturing in more than one adjacent country, but they were not successful. Only one revolutionary power that of Russia could weather the storm and finally the U.S.S.R. (in other words, Soviet Union) was established. The particular problems due to socio– economic backwardness that the revolution had to face there, the special steps that were taken to combat these and along with them some important path– indicators as expressed in various views, comments and observations of Lenin— they will comprise the second part of our discussion.
We have to keep in mind that though the present discussion is absolutely necessary and indispensable for attempting an analysis of the experiences of Soviet Union and China in their journey towards socialism, it is merely the perspective of the main discussion. With this discussion as basis, we are confident that we will be able to progress, at least to some extent, within the main discussion.
We feel it necessary to insert one more note before initiating on the discussion. We hope that those organizations or individuals, who have taken up the struggle of becoming a real communist, i.e. a revolutionary communist, will respond to this discussion. They can dispel our illusions, wherever they exist, and also help us to overcome our limitations and shortcomings. Succinctly speaking, we hope that they will extend their help to make this discussion rich and complete.
Let us now begin the discussion.
The time span from capitalism to the establishment of the advanced communist society
It is observed from the discussion in the ‘Critique to the Gotha Programme’ that Marx has divided the time span from the capitalist society to the establishment of the advanced communist society into three periods or phases, with the aid of the theory of development.
First Period (or Phase)
“....historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism.”[1] [Here and elsewhere, unless otherwise mentioned, the stress in any given quotation is by the original authors.]
In Marx’s words, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one [i.e. the former, the capitalist society] into the other [i.e. the latter, the communist society] . Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”[2] [Explanations within third brackets, above and elsewhere, have been inserted by the present author.]
Two aspects are clear from the quotes. Firstly, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat remains in active during the period of transition from capitalist society to the communist society. So, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is a characteristic feature of the period of transition from capitalist society to the first phase of communist society. It is not a feature of any more or less stable society formed after the completion of period of transition. Secondly, during this period of transition, the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society begins culminating in the formation of socialist society in the end. So, the completion of the period of transition is to be viewed by the fact that whether revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society is sufficient enough to reach the first phase of the communist society. We have to discuss this subject more elaborately later. For now, we leave it here.
Second Period (or Phase)
The society established at the end of this phase of transition has been termed by Marx as the “first phase of the communist society”.[3] Marx has called this society ‘communist’ as this is a “collective society based on common ownership of the means of production”.[4]
Though it is a communist society, it has not yet been able to fully flourish its vast potential, has not yet become vibrant in its own glory. Regarding this, Marx has said that it is such a “......communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth– marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”.[5]
Though this society shows enormous advancement in comparison to the old capitalist society, yet it carries as birth– marks various inconsistencies, flaws, limitations and incompleteness regarding the free, all round and harmonious development of the individual and the society.
As it was not the subject of his discussion, Marx had not elaborated on explaining how this just– born communist society bears the birth marks in all aspects.* The immediate aim of Marx in this discussion was to expound on the worthlessness, unreality and errors of Lassale’s fictitious and unscientific idea about the process of distribution in society [viz. “equal rights of every member of the society on the total product of labour, undiminished in any way.”], which was adopted by the Gotha Programme. While doing this, Marx had shown that even when the equal right of getting the means of consumption in proportion of the amount of labour performed has been established, this right still remains in principle a bourgeois right. “The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality: differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible”.[6]
Hence, showing that many defects still remain in such a society, Marx has commented: “But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth– pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development which this determines”.[7]
These unavoidable flaws, discrepancies and limitations of the first phase of the communist society can be done away with in the higher phase of the communist society which will develop on the basis (i.e. the common ownership of the means of production) already laid down by the first phase of the communist society.
Third Period (or Phase)
According to Marx, “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life, but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all round development of the individual, and all the springs of common wealth flow more abundantly— only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribes on its banners: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!”[8]
In the passage quoted above, Marx has explained what stage of development, based on the acquired basis, is to be reached or what conditions of development are to be fulfilled so that the advanced (or, higher) stage of communist society can be established removing the previously mentioned flaws, etc. At the same time, he has brought to notice some characteristic outlines (which can be scientifically elaborated) of the direction in which the first phase of communist society will develop by its inner logic.
The condition whose fulfillment has been said to be necessary at first is the dissolution of “the slave– like subjugation of the individual to the division of labour, and along with it the opposition between physical and mental labour”.[9]
Perhaps it does not require explanation that where Marx has said about the complete disappearance of the present division of labour, he has also implied therewith the complete abolition of the existing differences and divisions between city and village, industry and agriculture— and the ensuing unity achieved between industrial and agricultural work. In this context, it may just be reminded that the steps which were described in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ as necessary to be adopted at the very inception of the phase of transition after the proletariat assumed power in the most advanced countries (based on the stage of development at which they were in the mid nineteenth century), are given in 9th point as “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country”.[10] Hence, it is evident that it is not thinkable, and Marx had also not thought, that the existing division of labour would fade away without the condition mentioned above.
What is the significance of the fulfillment of the above condition? The significance is setting up of such an organization of production where “....on the one hand, no individual can throw on the shoulders of the others his share in productive labour, this natural condition of human existence; and in which, on the other hand, productive labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation, by offering each individual the opportunity to develop all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions and exercise them to the full....in which, therefore, productive labour will become a pleasure instead of being a burden”.[11] Thus, the place of the “....detail worker of today, crippled by life– long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man” will be taken by “..... the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scopes to his own natural and acquired powers”.[12],*
What is the historical necessity of the present division of labour? What is the significance of its abolition? Will the abolition in any way obstruct the creative work in both production and intellectual practice? Has the objective precondition of the abolition of division of labour been prepared within capitalism? Why is this abolition mandatory in a socialist society? Regarding these questions, there exist a bunch of queries, doubts, confusions, complications etc. among us. Deliberations upon them require separate discussion, which is out of scope of the present one. Still, while proceeding with the present discussion, at a later stage, some discussion on a few of the above questions will be necessary. Before leaving this subject at this stage, it is needed to make three more points.
Firstly, a necessary precondition of the abolition of the presently existing division of labour is to reduce the required time of the productive labour sufficiently. If this condition is satisfied, then taking part in productive labour will no more hinder intellectual practice or performance of creative labour— to the contrary, it will facilitate the process by all round development of both physical and mental capability of the participants. But, the question is, whether such reduction of the time required for productive labour is possible. Answering this question, Engels had said, “With the present development of the productive forces, the increase in production that will follow from the very fact of the socialization of the productive forces, coupled with the abolition of the barriers and disturbances, and of the waste of products and means of production, resulting from the capitalist mode of production, will suffice, with everybody doing his share of work, to reduce the time required for labour to a point which, measured by our present conceptions, will be small indeed”.[13] One hundred and twenty years have elapsed since Engels wrote the above lines. It is very much evident that during this period further development of the productive forces has taken place. Hence, the above assertion of Engels has become still more valid today.
Secondly, there is no reason to assume that the abolition of an individual’s slave– like subjugation to the division of labour and along with it fading away of the opposition between physical and mental labour, or the complete abolition of the present division of labour— however it is termed— signifies the abolition of division of labour. Society requires many types of work, different works require different amounts of labour– time for their performance, and the individuals can’t at the same time apply themselves to all the types of work required for the expression of all his abilities— hence the members of the society must make a division among themselves regarding which type of labour will be performed by whom and at which time. Hence, there will be a division of labour, but no one will get enslaved to any particular instrument of production due to this division of labour, no particular process or action will be able to devour any individual. Following a well– known expression of the ‘German Ideology’, it can be said that: an individual, not being any one of a fisherman, a textile industry worker, a researcher of Chemistry or a literature– critic solely, can still go to catch fishes in the morning, work in a textile factory at noon, go to a laboratory to experiment on some important problem of his favourite subject Chemistry in the afternoon and in night can compose a critical assessment of a much acclaimed novel published recently. Not only this, we can proceed a little more to say that as he has worked today in a textile factory, so he can do agricultural work the next day or work in a factory producing precise measuring instruments the day after that. Similarly, composing a literary criticism today will not bar him from practicing music or painting any time else; or researching in Chemistry today will not be an obstacle to his undertaking similar forays into other branches of Science.
Thirdly, Marx has said about the fulfilment of another condition: “....when labour ceases to be just a means of livelihood and becomes life’s prime want”.
“....every ....element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature– given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature– imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life”.[14]
Hence, labour existed as means of livelihood in the past, it exists as such in present, and it will continue to exist as such as long as human beings exist. Any alteration of this is impossible.
But when will labour cease to be just the means of livelihood and begin to be the principal need of life? This is when “....productive labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation, by offering each individual the opportunity to develop all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions and exercise them to the full — therefore, productive labour will become a pleasure instead of being a burden”.[15] We have already seen before that there will be no objective barrier to the creation of this condition once the present division of labour fades away. Along with this, the new generation of individuals, eager to accomplish all round development, who have been reared up by an appropriate education system (an education system in which general training and physical exercise will be amalgamated with productive labour — it is self evident that technical education, both theoretical and practical, will also have its place there) will no longer view labour only as means of livelihood; labour will become the principal need of life to them.
It can be conceived that in the society based on the common ownership of the means of production, along with time, the productive forces will develop more and more, and hence all the stream of co– operative wealth flow more and more abundantly. With that will be added a new force of production and that will increase the productivity of labour greatly. “By generating a race of producers with an all round development who understand the scientific basis of industrial production as a whole, and each of whom has had practical experience in a whole series of branches of production from start to finish, this society will bring into being a new productive force which will abundantly compensate for the labour required to transport raw materials and fuel from great distances”[16]( [i.e. will be able to compensate many times over for the additional labour required to build industries far away from the sources of raw materials and fuel.].
It is evident that the issue of the all round development of an individual is intricately entwined with the event of this new generation growing up as producers. For that reason, along with the all round development of the individuals, the forces of production will be enhanced and all the streams of co– operative wealth will flow more abundantly.
In that condition, on one hand, the society will have sufficient means of consumption to satisfy the human need of every individual; and on the other hand, the individuals who have undergone all round development will want to acquire only as much as is necessary to lead a real human— they will not be driven by lust for luxury or show of self– grandeur like an average person of today, they will not mount some impossible demand or waste extravagantly. On the other side, as productive labour has ceased to be a means of subjection and become a means of freedom, as it has ceased to be a burden and become a source of pleasure, as everyone has become accustomed to develop themselves through productive labour and hence enjoy it, as thus it has ceased to be just a means of livelihood and become a principal need of life, hence all individuals will participate in productive labour according to their capability, spontaneously by their own will, without any coercion, without any mode of measurement, without comparing whether he is getting more or less than others.
On that day, the principle— “....from everyone according to his capability, to everyone according to his need”— can govern the society.
Among the three periods or phases or stages in which Marx has divided the entire journey from capitalism to communism, the third phase compared to the first two phases (i.e. the phase of transition to communism and the first phase of communism) has been elaborated in greater details here. This is because, after this, we will no more have any separate discussion on this phase. In connection to this, it is necessary to note one more thing. Marx has brought to focus the above outline with the intention of showing that Lassale’s idea regarding the distribution in a communist society was unscientific, bogus and immaterial, i.e. while discussing mainly on the question of distribution. For that reason, several characteristics of the communist society, which can be stated scientifically, and which Marx and Engels have also stated elsewhere, are not presented in this discussion.* As we have taken this discussion of Marx as the focus of our discussion, we have not gone into other details here for the time being.§ As our discussion progresses, we may have to consider some of those.
A point to be noted
In this way Marx has divided the total journey from capitalist society to the advanced communist society into three periods (or phases, or stages). If we look a bit closely, we will note that among these periods (or phases, or stages) there is no mention of socialist system or socialist society. But the nomenclatures with which we are acquainted in all later Marxist literature till Lenin are: transition to socialism, socialism or socialist society (or system) and communism. The question that rises naturally is: why is this anomaly?
This anomaly is apparent only. Actually, what has later been termed as socialism (or socialist society or socialist system), Marx had termed that as ‘first phase of communist society’. The reason for this is as follows. The society, whose beginning demands the resolution of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, standing on its objective or material basis, can only be— and will undoubtedly be— a co– operative society based on the common ownership of the means of production. But this society has still not flourished fully on its own basis; to the contrary, as it has just emerged from capitalism, it has the birth– marks of the old society inscribed on it in every field. Hence he has called this society the first phase of communist society.
Explaining the significance of this nomenclature used by Marx, Lenin has said: “But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the ‘first’ or lower phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word ‘communism’ is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is notcomplete communism. The great significance of Marx’s explanations is that here, too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, ‘concocted’ definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is Communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism”.[17]
However, it is evident, that what Marx has termed as the first phase (or period, or stage) of communist society, that co– operative society based on the foundation of common ownership of the means of production has been referred as the socialist society by the later Marxist writers till Lenin.
Socialist society
Let us now proceed to build up an idea about some fundamental characteristics of socialism or socialist society, or as Marx has termed it, the first phase of communist society— i.e. the co– operative society built on the foundation of common or social ownership of the means of production.
§ Abolition of private ownership, establishment of classless society
We have already stated the first and the principal characteristics— the foundation of this society is common or social ownership of the means of production. If we analyse on this basis, we will arrive at many other characteristic features. Establishment of common or social ownership of the means of production is impossible without the abolition of private ownership over the same. Hence we must assume that not only the monopolistic capitalist private ownership, but all capitalist private ownership, even the many lakhs or some crores of private ownership of small owners based completely or chiefly on their own labour or their family’s labour, have also been abolished. (In this context, we may mention that even in advanced capitalist countries, the number of such petty– proprietors is not at all very small— they form a significant percentage of the total population.)
The process generally adopted for establishing common or social ownership over the land and means of production held by landlords and capitalists, are not applicable in the case of petty– proprietors. In the entire activity of production and exchange in the path of development, the landlords and the capitalists have no fruitful role to play (particularly in the advanced capitalist countries) any more. They occur merely as unnecessary burden, and hence their dissolution is not merely permissible, but also necessary in the interest of economic growth. But the situation is not at all similar in case of the petty– proprietors. The many lakhs or some crores of petty– ownership can not be abolished without changing the petty– production which serves as their basis, without converting the petty– production into large– scale production or socialized production. The significance of this is to create examples and give social support to the petty– proprietors such that the transition from individual possession and individual enterprise to co– operation can be effected in such a way that the petty– proprietors emancipate themselves from petty– ownership willingly— the petty proprietor shed the bondage which has kept his world narrow and contracted, which has kept him bonded with poverty and want, kept him tethered to a degraded existence which can hardly be called human— and by shedding the old bondage, they become a partner in the social ownership.*
The significance of the abolition of private ownership over land and means of production and the establishment of common or social ownership over the same is that not only the ruling class has been abolished, but all other classes have ceased to exist. Hence, a classless society has been established and every able– bodied individual has become a worker or a producer. In the words of Marx, in this society, “.....there is no class– discrimination, as each member is like everyone else only a worker”.*? And the “collective society based on the common ownership of the means of production”[18] is being established.
Role of an individual in social production process
Elsewhere, Marx has described this society in the following way: “Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour– power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour– power of the community ..... they [the labours of all the different individuals] are social, instead of individual. ..... The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organization of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. ..... The social relations of the individual, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution”.[19]* On another instance, Marx has said: “The life process of society, which is based on the process of material production ..... is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan”.[20], §
Abolition of commodity, value, money etc.
In this type of a society, do commodity, value, money, market etc. exist? Do they perform any role in the every– day life of human being? If they do so, how?
In the writing referred to above, Marx has said in this context: “Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour”.[21]
As opposed to the capitalist society based on production for exchange i.e. commodity production; in a co– operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, production is directed for satisfying the necessity for direct use as means of production or means of consumption. Hence the question of exchange do not arise there, also there is no scope for the produced objects to take the form of commodity.
In a capitalist society, the labour power of an individual is not applied consciously as integral part of the total combined labour power of the society. Hence, the character of individual’s labour as an integral part of the total social labour, i.e. the social character of the individual’s labour do not directly manifest itself when it is being harnessed for production. This social character manifests itself indirectly, through exchange. In the process of exchange, relations are established directly between the produced objects, and through these, relations between the producers are established in an indirect way. It is because of this that the amount of labour expended by the producers on any object produced, appear to them as value of those objects, or a material property of those objects.
To the contrary, in a socialist society or the first phase of communist society, the labour power of all different individuals are applied consciously as the total labour power of the whole society. Hence, no more through the indirect way of exchange, the individual’s labour exist as an integral part of the total social labour directly during the time of production. Thus there exists no scope for the labour expended on any object produced to appear as a material virtue of that object.
Money– form is only the completely developed shape of the commodity– form. Hence it is evident that when value does not exist, money can also not exist. Exchange is non– existent, value is non– existent, money is non– existent— hence the relation between human beings as seller and buyer is also non– existent, as a consequence of which market can not exist. Along with capitalism, the elements (or units) of capitalist economy are also eradicated.
We can note here two extremely significant and educating observations of Marx regarding the deeper truth that seeks to express itself behind the elements (or units) like commodity– production, money etc.; behind value expressing itself as image of labour, and measurement of value as image of labour– time:
“Political Economy ..... has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour– time by the magnitude of that value. These formulae, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him ....”[22]
“In the form of society now under consideration [a society based on commodity production, as is the capitalist society] the behaviour of men in the social process of production is purely atomic. Hence their relations to each other in production assume a material character independent of their control and conscious individual action. These facts manifest themselves at first by products as a general rule taking the form of commodities. We have seen how the progressive development of a society of commodity– producers stamps one privileged commodity with the character of money. Hence the riddle presented by money is but the riddle presented by commodities; only it now strikes us in its most glaring form”.[23]
Hence, in a socialist society, when the lives of the individuals being condemned to atom– like behaviour in the social process of production have come to an end and the labour power of all the different individuals are being applied consciously as the combined labour power of the whole society; where instead of the social process of production controlling over the human beings, the human beings have control over the social process of production (the social process of production is being carried on as the production of freely associated human beings and the process is being controlled by them consciously according to a definite planning); produced objects can no longer take the form of commodity since there is no scope for labour to derive its identity from value, similarly there can not be any scope for the categories (or units) of capitalist economy like money, market etc. to play any role.
In other words, if these categories (or units) continue to exist, they are bound to manifest their existence. And as result, the social system of production, instead of being controlled by human being, will continue to dominate over them; the behaviour of human being in social process of production will still be atomistic, and hence their mutual relation will continue to take a material character, independent of their control or conscious activity.
The process of distribution
What does an individual producer receive after performing the labour required of him in such a society (socialist society or socialism)? “He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another”.[24]
This is a form of equal right, but none the less, “in respect of principle, this social right is still bourgeois right”. Why? Marx has explained in the following way. “Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is the exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labour, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals except individual means of consumption. But, as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity– equivalents: a given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another form. Hence, equal right here is still in principle— bourgeois right ....”[25]
To dispel the confusions generated by the false ideas about ‘equal right’ and ‘just distribution’ in this society propounded by Lassale, which were incorporated in the Gotha Programme, Marx has explained in details how, even after this ‘equal right’ is established, equality and justice will still not prevail in the society. This is because: “It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right by its nature can exist only as the application of an equal standard .....”[26] But this equal standard is being applied on different individuals or producers, who are neither identical nor equal to one another. Hence, they are being considered from one angle only, one particular aspect of them is only being taken into consideration— as in this case they are being considered as workers only— nothing more is being considered, every other aspect are being neglected. For this reason, even after the establishment of equal right, there persist unequal rights and unjust distribution in life.
How do these persist and in what respect is equality established here? Marx has explained: “....the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labour. ....and labour, to serve as a measure must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement”.[27] However, even if this measure for equality is based upon labour, the inequality of rights is far from being eradicated. As stated earlier, after deduction of the part to be given to the social fund, the quantity of labour an individual producer is performing in one form, is being given back to him in another form. Hence, “the rights of the producers are directly proportional to the labour given by them .....”. But differences being existent between individual and individual regarding their physical and mental ability, some will give more labour than others within the same time or some will labour for longer time than others— and thus their rights will also be unequal. In this way, equal right is becoming “.....an unequal right for unequal labour. It recognizes no class distinctions, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes the unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity of the workers as natural privileges. It is therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right”.[28]
Besides this in a society “....one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, etc. etc. Thus, given an equal amount of work done, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, etc. To avoid all those defects, right would have to be unequal rather than equal”.[29]
“The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality: differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production— the factories, machines, land, etc.— and make them private property. In smashing Lassale’s petty bourgeois, vague phrases about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the ‘injustice’ of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods ‘according to the amount of labour performed’ (and not according to needs)”.[30]
“Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called ‘socialism’) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of ‘bourgeois law’ which continues to prevail so long as products are divided ‘according to the amount of labour performed’”.[31]
It is true that the establishment of social ownership over the means of production, by itself cannot bring an end to the anomalies in distribution and do away with the inequalities of the ‘bourgeois rights’ in the field of distribution of means of consumption; but it opens up the avenues for creation of a condition in which those can be done away with, and will be done away with, through the introduction of distribution according to the needs of the society’s members. For this reason, in a higher stage of development of this society, in the advanced phase of communism this anomaly will be eradicated. None the less, in the first phase of communism, due to the absence of the required preconditions, these discrepancies are bound to exist. Analysing the reasons behind this, Marx has said, “But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development which this determines”.[32]
“And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) ‘bourgeois law’ is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, that also only in respect of the means of production. ‘Bourgeois law’ recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent— and to that extent alone— ‘bourgeois law’ disappears.
However, it persists as far as its other section of the society is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labour among the members of society. The socialist principle, ‘he who does not work shall not eat’, is already realized. But this is not yet communism [i.e. not the communism which has flourished on its own foundations, i.e. not the higher phase of communism], and it does not yet abolish ‘bourgeois law’*, which gives unequal individuals equal amounts of products in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labour.§
This is a ‘defect’, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.[33]
Part– II
The phase of transition to socialism
We have noted in previous discussion that what Marx has termed as the first phase of communist society in the ‘Critique To The Gotha Programme’, has later been generally referred to as the socialist society. With this practice, the phase (or stage) of transition to communism has also been replaced by the phase (or stage) of transition to socialism.
None the less, there are wide– ranging differences of opinion regarding this in the communist revolutionary camp of our country. Many do not consider the phase of transition to socialism as identical to the ‘phase of transition to communism’, but see the former (the phase of transition to socialism) as a part (the first part) of the latter (the phase of transition to communism). This idea is, of course, wrong and misleading. Without going into details, we are presenting here in short two points to substantiate our contention.
First lesson
Firstly, in the quotation from Marx, around which we will build up our subsequent main discussion, we will see that the period of transition from capitalism to communism is the period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Again, it is the period of revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat which Lenin has referred to as the period of transition from capitalism to socialism: “In Russia today the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat are..... to strengthen and further develop the Federative Republic of Soviets as an immeasurably higher and more progressive form of democracy than bourgeois parliamentarism, and as the sole type of state corresponding, on the basis of the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 and equally of the experience of the Russian revolution of 1905 and 1917– 1918, to the transitional period between capitalism and socialism, i.e. to the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat;......” [Lenin Collected Works, Vol.– 29, Pg.– 105. Stress added by the author of this article.]
Thus we see that the period of transition from capitalism to communism has later been mentioned as the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. It is in this phase or period, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is functional.
Secondly, we can see from Lenin’s writings that transition to socialism and transition to communism are being used synonymously. We can find this in pages 214 and 233 of the 32nd volume of Lenin’s Collected Works. There, he has referred to the “direct transition to socialism” as “transition to communism”. (Page– 214)
Let us conclude here the discussion on confusions regarding nomenclature. We should only keep in mind that ‘transition to communism’ and ‘transition to socialism’ are synonymous— one or the other has been used from time to time to imply the period in which the dictatorship of the proletariat remains active.
The era in which we are living today is the era of imperialism and proletarian socialist revolution. At the particular juncture within this era, in which we are conducting the present discussion, even socialism or the first phase of communism (let alone the advanced phase of communism!) is appearing like a relatively distant prospect. At present era, the phase of transition to socialism has asserted itself as the most pressing and important subject of discussion. This phase, starting with the seizure of power by the proletariat, ends through the establishment of the socialist society (or the first phase of the communist society). Discussion regarding this phase of transition to socialism is also very necessary and important in context of the analysis of the events in Soviet Union, East Europe and China, which have emerged as ‘problems of socialism’ or ‘defeat of socialism’ and the the task for undertaking this analysis has became one of the principal tasks of the communist. In fact, it is necessary for us to keep in mind that in the above countries, commonly referred to as socialist countries, socialist society in true sense— i.e. in the sense discussed by Marx, Engels and Lenin— was never established. All these countries were in the phase of transition to socialism— in varying degrees of progress. For all these reasons, discussion regarding the phase of transition to socialism (or phase of transition to communism), is so important and necessary.
Marx has said about this phase, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”.[34]
Four very important messages can be deduced from this immensely educating, illuminating and suggestive comment of Marx.
Firstly, there exists a special phase (or period, or stage) of transition between capitalism and communism.
Secondly, throughout this phase continues the process of revolutionary (i.e. thorough going, or complete) transformation of the capitalist society— the culmination of which results in the birth of the communist society from the womb of the old society.
Thirdly, this phase is, at the same time, one of political transition. Clearly, this is the phase of transition from a state, which acts as an instrument of class repression, to the non– state, i.e. the withering away of the state.
Fourthly, in this phase, the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
The internal contradictions of the capitalist society are constantly and unavoidably pushing it towards communism— this truth has been established through the scientific analysis and explanations of the founders of Marxism. But this does not mean that the last form (or stage) of class society makes its exit from the stage of history by establishing a classless society smoothly, effortlessly, without any violence or destruction, without any phase (or period, or stage) of transition, driven forward solely by its own internal contradictions. This is the first point to be noted. Regarding this Lenin has said: “The first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole – – – a fact that was ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present– day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution– – – is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase of transition from capitalism to communism”.[35]
While explaining the views of the founders of Marxism regarding ‘the phase of transition from capitalism to communism’, Lenin has brought to relief some aspects with particular stress. Breaking them up in points, they are:
“Historically, there should necessarily exist a particular stage or a particular phase of transition between capitalism and communism”— referring to this view of the founders of Marxism as the ‘first truth’, Lenin has stressed that this is not just some ‘presumption’, ‘idea’ or ‘idealistic thinking’ on their part. The ‘founders of Marxism’ has ‘established’ with the help of ‘the entire theory of development, the entire science’. In fact, when one is transformed into a qualitatively different other, then between them there exist a phase of one being qualitatively changed into the other— this is the teaching of the entire science, entire theory of development (i.e. dialectics). Hence, it is not possible for the last form of classed society, the most developed form of classed society, capitalism, to develop into classless communist society without a particular stage or phase of transition and this is certain and unavoidable.
This phase of transition comes to an end through the establishment of classless communist society (i.e. the co– operative society based on the common ownership of land and means of production). Till this later society is brought to life, the phase of transition continues. Hence, considered together with the previous discussion, this implies that: the phase of transition between capitalism and communism=the period of execution of the socialist revolution (or social revolution)=the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat=the phase of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Not only the utopian thinkers (it can be understood that Lenin included the anarchists also among these ranks), but also the modern revisionists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution, tend to gloss over this unavoidable occurrence of the phase of transition.
The second lesson
The second truth or teaching upheld here is that throughout the entire phase of transition should continue the work for revolutionary or radical transformation of the old capitalist society for the establishment of the new socialist society. The transformation of the old society that is being talked about here is not the change of any particular part of the society; instead it is complete radical change of the whole society. It is not the case of changing one classed society to another classed society; it is the case of radical transformation of the last and the most developed form of classed society — the capitalist society, with the intention of abolishing class and establishing the classless society. Such a complete and radical transformation of the capitalist society is not possible unless the process continue over a whole period— whether that period will be short or protracted is a matter of separate discussion.
We have already got acquainted in the course of this discussion with some fundamental characteristics of the classless society which has just emerged from the womb of a capitalist society by the process of revolutionary transformation of the latter. We have noted that in such a society, private ownership over land and means of production has been abolished completely and social ownership (or common ownership or co– operative ownership of the freely associated producers) has been established over the same; commodity production, exchange mediated by money, etc. have become unnecessary and hence redundant; class differences and class divisions have also already performed their historical task and taken their exit from the stage of history; distribution is being effected in such a way that after deducting the amount required for maintaining the continuity of the production process and its subsequent development, providing for compensation of the losses in the probable accidents and for maintaining the common fund intended to cater for general expenses of the society, each one will take from society’s store means of consumption produced by such amount of labour as has been allocated to him in the production process. As there is no class– division, the state as an instrument of class– rule, an instrument for repressing one class by another becomes useless, starts to wither away, and so on.
The task of the phase of transition is to effect radical (or revolutionary) transformation of the old capitalist society with the aim of establishing a socialist society with the above fundamental characteristics. As the significance of revolutionary transformation of society is to accomplish the social revolution ranging from the very beginning to the very end, hence the social revolution remains continuous till the classless society is established. This social revolution tends to do away with the class differences for the establishment of the classless society, such that class division is abolished completely from the society. Again, class division stands on the basis of the relations of production. Different types of social relations crystallize conforming to different types of relations of production; and from different types of social relations emerge different types of ideas and ideological forms. Hence, basically, the meaning of accomplishing social revolution comes out to be abolishing those relations of production upon which the class differences are based, abolishing those social relations which are compatible with the previous relations of production, effecting radical changes of those ideas which emerge from those social relations. This explains the famous passage from Marx: “This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations”.[36]
A fundamental difference between the old bourgeois democratic revolution and the socialist revolution lies here. In history, the bourgeois revolutions have ended by the overthrow of the old ruling power and subsequent seizure of power by the– then revolutionary bourgeois. Also the people’s democratic revolution of today— in socio– economic analysis which is nothing but the bourgeois democratic revolution— comes to an end, in effect, through the seizure of power by the revolutionary classes (i.e. revolutionary mass based on the alliance between workers and peasants, under the leadership of the working class). But it is different for the socialist revolution. In this case, seizure of power by the working class through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end but rather it’s the beginning of socialist revolution. After the seizure of power by the working class, the radical transformation of the capitalist society continues through an entire period, i.e. the social revolution.Only after conclusion of this social revolution the classless socialist society is born and thus the socialist revolution is completed. Hence the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat just marks the beginning of the socialist revolution by setting up the conditions necessary for carrying on the social revolution aimed at the establishment of the socialist society.
The above difference between bourgeois democratic revolution and socialist revolution has been explained by Lenin in the following way. The economic institutions of capitalism are slowly born and developed within the womb of the feudal society and they continue to change in increasing degrees every aspects of the old society; there remains only one task before the growing bourgeois democratic revolution— that is to crush and wipe away all the obstacles in the path of the development of capitalism— through the completion of this task, the bourgeois democratic revolution completes it’s required role. The bourgeois democratic revolution comes to an end and the development of capitalism is quickened. But the case of the socialist revolution is entirely different. The development of capitalism increasingly prepare the preconditions of the establishment of socialist production relations; various events like economic crisis, etc., repeatedly bring forward the absolute necessity of communism and also agent of change— the working class— for affecting the socialist transformation is build up within capitalism. But even then, socialist relations of production can not emerged by itself within the capitalist system. Hence in socialist revolution, after assuming power, the triumphant proletariat is faced with the task— not only of destroying the old relations of production, but of building up the new relations of production also.
The task of building up socialist production relations and socialist society is an organizational task. [It may be done— if situation permits— by explaining the idea of organizing the producers in a completely different manner with examples drawn from the workers’ and peasants’ experiences.] Under capitalism, the capitalist relations of production grow up spontaneously through market; there occurs no necessity of building them up consciously. But, the socialist relations of production, as they do not appear by itself within capitalism, so also after anti– capitalist revolution and seizure of power by the working class, they do not appear spontaneously. They have to be built up consciously, by organizing the producers in a completely different way opposed to that in the capitalist system. It is by performing these organizational tasks that the working class enacts the social revolution, enforces the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society for the establishment of the communist society. For this reason, in context of the nature of the tasks performed by them, the bourgeois democratic revolution and the socialist revolution can be compared to each other— the bourgeois democratic revolution dealt with the problem of destruction, while socialist revolution deals with the problem of organization.
In this way, through the entire phase of transition, there continues through the performance of various organizational tasks, the activity of completely renovating the society, the ongoing social revolution, the process (or programme) of the revolutionary transformation of the old capitalist society. This is the fundamental content of the socialist revolution. For this reason socialist revolution is also referred to as social revolution in Marxist literature. Marx has explained the fundamental content of socialist revolution as follows: “Revolution in general— the overthrowof the existing power and dissolution of the old relationship— is a political act. [i.e. revolution stays within the bound of political revolution till this stage.] But socialism cannot be realized without revolution. It needs this political act insofar as it needs destruction and dissolution. But where its organizing activity begins, where its proper object, its soul, comes to the fore— there socialism throws off the political cloak.”[37]
The third lesson
In the main quotation from Marx around which we have started this part of our discussion, the third lesson is that concerning the phase of political transition. According to Marx, there exists a phase of political transition consistent with the stage of socio– economic transformation of the old capitalist society.
Right at the beginning of the socialist revolution through the assumption of political power by the working class, radical transformation of the social system is not yet completed. There still exists old class divisions, class conflict and hence also the state as an instrument of class repression. Though there remains the existence of state in this way at the beginning of the socialist revolution; yet as the socialist revolution mature, state no more exists as an instrument of class repression, state begins to wither away. The reason behind this is that the socialist (or the first phase of communist) society born through the completion of the socialist revolution is a classless society— a society which is free of class divisions. In that society there exist neither any ruling class, nor any class to be ruled over. So, the necessity of state ends in that society. State gets withered away. Throughout the entire period of socialist revolution, i.e. the period of revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society into communist society, there continues this political transition, this journey from state to non– state, this journey towards the withering away of the state.
Hence, in the phase of transition— between capitalism and communism, it is not only the task of establishing the socialist society by revolutionary transformations in the socio– economic field of the capitalist society, but along with it, the advancement from state to non– state, towards the withering away of the state bears equal importance.
Fourth lesson
The third lesson from Marx’s quoted passage makes it evident that the state in the phase of transition should have such characteristic feature that besides being a state, the element or orientation of non– state should be present and be continuously growing towards becoming dominant ultimately. What is merely a dialectical riddle or unrealistic matter to the bourgeoisie and their paid preachers, become possible in reality not by the touch of any Marxist magic wand, but because the preparation for it has progressed through the historical development of the entire human society. As in the capitalist system appearing in the course of development the growth, development and organizational as well as ideological preparation of working class continue to occur; as the working class is the one and only force which can liberate the socialized production, the great historical contribution of the capitalist system, from the fetters of private property and thus lead to its unlimited growth by nurturing it with advanced relations of production; as the freedom of all other classes of the society is intricately related with the freedom of the working class, with the abolition of their existence as a class; so the instrument of class repression built up by them to repress the exploiters contain at the same time characteristic features of not remaining an instrument of class repression. That state is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. This constitutes the fourth lesson from the immensely significant passage quoted from Marx.
Classless society is being established at the end of the phase of transition through the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society. Hence, it is not difficult to understand that this phase of transition, and the period of dictatorship of the proletariat which prevails during this phase, is also the period of preparation for the abolition of class rule. But how the dictatorship of the proletariat, being a state, can simultaneously contain the characteristic features (or properties, or elements) of not remaining an instrument of class repression? The explanation of this lies in the particular form of state that the dictatorship of the proletariat is.
The form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not invented by Marx and Engels— it was not possible to do so. The form emerged in reality by the revolutionary struggle of the working class through the establishment of the Commune in Paris, the capital of France, in the March of 1871. According to Marx, “The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which expressed themselves in it show that it was a thoroughly flexible political form, while all previous forms of government had been essentially repressive. Its true secret was this: it was essentially a working– class government, the result of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which the economic emancipation of labour could be accomplished...... Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion......”[38]
Elaborate discussion of commune is not done here— perhaps it is not required also.* A very brief outline of the commune can be given as follows.
Commune was a completely new kind of state where the hired army detached from the people had been done away with and had been replaced by armed people; abolishing the old system of policing, the people were taking turns to do the necessary policing jobs; the permanent bureaucracy, detached from the people but placed from above were done away with and was replaced by officials who were to be elected by the people, who would do their jobs at the wage of a worker and who could be recalled back whenever the people feel it necessary. Of course, false independence of persons appointed in the judicial system (i.e. the judges, magistrates) were removed and were appointed at the wage of workers, and subject to recall on specific to the appraisal of the cases,. Beside this, commune was not just a legislative body; it was an executive body too. The political form encompassing all human habitats, right down to the smallest village was to be this commune. The elected representatives at any level would elect the representatives to form the next higher level— in this way would be elected the national representatives also. The important tasks of central governance, that still remained to be done, would be performed by the representatives of central level of the commune.
Taken on the whole, in a commune– like– state (i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat), just as there remains on one hand means to repress the bourgeois, the exploiters and crush violently any resistance mounted by them; similarly on the other hand there takes place, for the first ever time, unprecedented tremendous ramification of democracy among the mass of people who have been exploited, repressed, deceived and condemned to poverty till then.
The reason behind the two– fold character of the dictatorship of the proletariat can be briefly stated as follows. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not just undisputed, undeterred power in the hands of the proletariat for repressing the exploiters and crushing violently their resistance; at the same time, it is also the unity of the proletariat with the vast mass of exploited, repressed and poor working people, under the leadership of the proletariat, against capitalism, for advancing towards socialism. Hence, it is being possible such vast extension of democracy for them under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, without such extension of democracy, the people who until then have been forced down to crawl under the weight of repression, exploitation, deception; who have led a chained, degenerate existence under abject poverty; cannot straighten their back, hold high their head and participate actively in every sphere of political life— including the governance of the state. Without being empowered by such extension of democracy, they will not be able to act energetically in the programme of building up socialism. And if that is not possible, socialism cannot also be established. It will not be possible because socialism cannot be established just by the effort of the communist party— or even just by the effort of the working class only, without attracting the vast mass of exploited working people and incorporating their active efforts in the struggle for building socialism. Thus it is said that socialism cannot be established without full– fledged democracy— of course, the democracy is full– fledged in context of the working people. For this reason, it is absolutely necessary to bring to affect the vast extension of democracy for all the exploited and repressed working people under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Full– fledged democracy for the mass of people does not imply that full– fledged democracy exists in the entire society. Still remains repression, still remains coercion— they remain enforced upon the bourgeois, the exploiters. As long as repression and coercion exist in society, liberty in true sense can not be said to have arrived. Keeping this in mind, Engels has said: the proletariat needs its state “not for liberty, bit to repress its adversaries. And whenever will it be possible to proclaim liberty, then the object called state will become non– existent. ”[39] *
“Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the ‘state’, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage– labourers, and it will cost mankind far less. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple ‘machine’, almost without a ‘machine’, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people ....”[40]
Commune was such a state, a concrete manifestation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this way, the dictatorship of the proletariat, while being a state, simultaneously contains the characteristics of being a non– state; and with time, with the progress of the socialist transformation, non– state characteristics flourishes— until, finally, after socialism is established, the state begins to wither away.
Part– III
To understand the significance of the quotation[41] from Marx regarding transition to socialism, we have discussed in Part– II four lessons that can be derived from it. But continuation of that discussion, it is required to discuss about two more points, which are also important. The first point is present directly in Marx’s referred quotation. But the second point, though not directly present there, can be found in various other analysis, thread of logic or discussions of Marx and Engels, and Lenin’s explanations, analysis or discussions.
(1) A close scrutiny of the passage quoted from Marx will show us that Marx has referred to the dictatorship of the proletariat as the revolutionarydictatorship of the proletariat. [In the period of political transition, “the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”. (stress has been added by the present author.)] The question is, why has Marx added the prefix ‘revolutionary’ before dictatorship? Has it any implication? If yes, what is it?
On first observation, it may seem that Marx has used the adjective ‘revolutionary’ as the state (dictatorship of the proletariat) has been formed through a revolution. But that the question does not get resolved in this way which can be seen as follow. Let us take the examples of the bourgeois states in those nations which have gone through bourgeois revolutions. These bourgeois states have also been established through revolution. So in history, it is not the unique characteristic feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat that it is born out of a revolution. Dictatorship of other classes can have, and indeed have actually had, this characteristic.
By qualifying ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ as ‘revolutionary’ what Marx has implied is that in the total period of its existence (i.e. in the entire period of transition to socialism) it will go on performing it’s task as a revolutionary state. To be more elaborate, at any particular stage of the revolutionary transformation of the old society, it (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will use its undisputed power to dominate over its enemies, crush forcefully their resistance, not from any conservative intent of defending or trying to preserve the existing state of conditions, but from the intent of serving the overall interest of the ongoing social revolution.
For further clarification, let us make an analogy with the bourgeois state emerge out of the bourgeois revolution. We have discussed previously the views of Lenin, the main points of which, we are recounting below in brief. Capitalist economic institutions come into being and slowly develop in the womb of feudal society itself and they go on transforming every aspect of the old feudal society. The burgeoning bourgeois democratic revolution has only one task in front of it— the task of destroying, crushing to finish and sweeping away all the obstacles standing in the path of the development of capitalism. By doing this, bourgeois democratic revolution performs the role delegated to it by history and thus come to an end, quickening the pace of capitalist development.
In these views of Lenin, we can see that those bourgeois states, emerge out of bourgeois democratic revolution, have performed the role of revolutionary state, though for a short period of time, in the initial phase of crushing the pre– capitalist obstacles to capitalist development and destroying the old relations of production (property relations). But having achieved the highest possible victory, they soon lost the revolutionary fervour when the task of opening up wide the path of capitalist development by sweeping away the old obstacles has become more or less complete. From that instant, the bourgeois state’s principal role is no more to further the revolution, but to quickly adapt itself to the function of sentinel of the flourishing bourgeois society. In doing so, it uses its power to dominate over and repress those who at that stage have become its enemies— the mass of exploited and repressed people including the proletariat, who are propelled by their material conditions to try to further the revolution. In this way, the bourgeois state, born out of the bourgeois democratic revolution, very soon loses its revolutionary role and gain a conservative character. From then on, it does not act in favour of furthering the revolution, but rather goes on taking the role of an anti– revolutionary force.
The case has to be different for the dictatorship of the proletariat. As working class can’t win his freedom until the ongoing social revolution achieve its completion through the establishment of the classless society, the duty of the dictatorship of the proletariat can be nothing but to maintain the political conditions which favour the overall interest of the ongoing social revolution. Thus this state is bound to perform its revolutionary function till the last days of its existence, i.e. till it begins to wither away through the establishment of classless society. At no point of time in the entire period of its existence, can it adopt a conservative role against the interest of the ongoing social revolution; neither can it perform the anti– revolutionary role of trying to preserve or retain any particular stage of affairs during the transition period. This is because no such particular stage of affairs can be completely satisfactory to the working class or can satisfy his overall requirements. So, the working class is also forced to push continuously the ongoing social revolution forward until a stage has been reached where all forms of individual ownership has been abolished, social ownership has been established on all means of production and abolition of all classes (including the working class) has been achieved through the establishment of classless society. Until that stage is reached, i.e. throughout the entire transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a result, has to perform its revolutionary role.
(2) Previously, we have carried on some discussion about the revolutionary transformation of the old society. There we have discussed about the ongoing social revolution, i.e. the revolutionary process of transforming the capitalist society into a socialist society in totality. Here, we will discuss from another angle, how the process of revolutionary transformation advances.
The tasks of transforming a capitalist society into socialist society can not be done at one go i.e. by adopting a set of programmes at a time. It requires adopting various programmes at various stages in steps.
A picture of the above process has been given by Marx and Engels in ‘The Communist Manifesto’. We quote from there:
“We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, these [tasks] can’t be affected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”
[The word in third bracket has been added by the author of the present article. English translation from the original German text is done by Samuel Moore.]
The last paragraph of the above quotation is of special importance in any discussion on the phase of transition. Moreover, here, the presentation of the view is somewhat complicated. So for a more clear understanding, let us take the help of another writing of Engels.* The content of the 3rd paragraph of the above quote from ‘The Communist Manifesto’ can be elaborated as follows.
In whatever way the words are chosen— whether ‘abolition of private property’ or ‘abolition of property rights and bourgeois conditions of production’ or ‘revolutionary transformation of the old social system’ or ‘complete revolutionisation of the production process’— they mean the same thing, i.e. social revolution or the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society into socialist society. This process is initiated by and progresses through striking forcefully against the property rights and the bourgeois conditions of production; by taking various steps to curb them, repress them. Obviously, these steps are not complete– in– themselves, neither are they complete, final, or conclusive. This is because they, by themselves, are not sufficient to complete the transformation of the old social system. And by remaining confined within their boundary; they can not be sustained in the path of social evolution. Their utility is as transitional steps connected with the process of the social revolution. They transcend their limitation of just being some steps of reform by becoming connected with the social revolution in motion, thus helping to drive the movement of the social revolution forward and necessitating adoption of further steps of higher stage. In this way, progress has to be made until the final goal is reached by adopting the steps as means of completely revolutionizing the process of production.
We have said before that the above view has important significance. Before elaborating on that, let us concentrate our attention on the overall importance of the above view.
We should note that it has been unambiguously stated that after seizure of power, the task of centralizing gradually all the means of production under the control of the dictatorship of the proletariat and developing them as fast as possible, depends upon the process of revolutionary transformation of the old society. Hence, it has not just been said that this process should be continued from the very beginning, but it has also been asserted that till the abolition of private property, this process has to be carried forward in stages in resonance with the condition of the overall movement. Thus it has been simultaneously noted that the social revolution progresses in steps, adopting various programmes stage wise.
Now, let us focus on the important subject which has not been spelt out explicitly, but which remains as an implied understanding behind the discussion in the last paragraph of the above quote. We have already discussed what has been said there about the programmes or steps in the transition process. The programmes which initiate direct attacks against private ownership and which ensure the means of livelihood of the proletariat usher in some progress relative to the past (we have said ‘some progress’ to set them in perspective of the long and difficult path towards the establishment of the classless socialist society), but it can not affect complete transformation of the capitalist society— in consequence of which the rights to property persists on, the bourgeois conditions of production are also not abolished. We have discussed all these before. Actually, these are the factors which make it necessary to adopt step by step programmes of transition which are progressively of higher stages and thus continue the long expedition of the ongoing revolution. Thus, throughout the entire period of the phase of transition, various remnants— even though may be of decreasing proportion— of capitalist production process and capitalist social system remains as persistently as a lick in the body of the society in transition; the society in transition can never completely get rid of them.
Apart from this, a characteristicof this phase, particularly in its initial period, is that in the whole economy the old and the new system of production (bourgeois and socialist respectively)* exist simultaneously, side by side. For how long can these two types of production systems exist side by side— for a short period or for a relatively long period— depend upon the degree of capitalist development of the society before the revolution.
Actually, it can not be otherwise in the phase of transition. This is because a certain phase can be correctly said to be a phase of transition only when the process of qualitative change of the old into new is ongoing,yet to be completed. Thus the past has not been abolished completely, it has not ceased to exist, it has not been erased away; and on the other hand, the new has not yet taken its complete shape, it has not emerged fully, its birth– process from the womb of the past has not been completed. We have already got acquainted with the teachings of Marx that the first stage of socialist society which has just emerged from the womb of capitalism bears the birth– marks of the old society in all aspects— economic, ethical and intellectual. If the condition of the classless socialist society (the first phase of the socialist society) established after the completion of the phase of revolutionary transformation is like this, then it is in no ways possible for the society in transition during the phase of the revolutionary transformation at any stage to be free of its obligation to bear various remnants, facets or components of the past (i.e. the capitalist mode of production or capitalist social system). Hence, it is not only in its initial stage that more than one modes of production coexist side by side, but also in the later stage when the socialist characteristics of the mode of production has emerged much more prominently than before— even then various facets, components or remnants of the bourgeois commodity relations of production persist in an entwined, intermingled fashion. As they persist like this, the necessity remains to change them, transform them. If not so, then it would not be necessary to mark the period till the establishment of the classless socialist society as the phase of revolutionary transformation or the phase of transition.
Some conclusions (based on previous discussions)
We have noted that throughout the entire phase of transition, various remnants of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist social system exist, even if in ever decreasing quantity; the society in transition can never fully get rid of them. But what is the significance of this? This recognition has far– reaching significance. This implies that various remnants of bourgeois labour– organization and bourgeois production– management still remains— they remain even within the new production relations which is emerging and taking form gradually. Along with this, still remnants of bourgeois rights persist, and centred on them residues of various privileged bourgeois sections. It is because of the existence of all these remnants, and on these bases different classes can still retain their existence.
We are acquainted with the teaching of Lenin that throughout the entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the period of transition to socialism, classes exist, so there class struggle exists.* If classes have ceased to exist, if the classes to be repressed have taken their exit from the socio– political stage of the society in transition, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would also have ceased to exist as an instrument of repression and state would have begun to wither away. In the phase of revolutionary transformation of the old society, the different classes of the old society are also in midst of the process of transformation and the class struggle between them also continue, in a more or less transformed condition, synchronized with the progress of the transition process.
Previously, while discussing about the characteristics of the socialist society, we have got acquainted with the analysis of Lenin where he had shown that: “Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.”[42] Taking lessons from this analysis, if we carry on in an unbiased analytical study of the phase of transition to socialism, certain aspects will become clear to us. We have seen that in the stage of social revolution, there remain bourgeois rights, even though in ever decreasing quantity; there also remain special bourgeois privilege, and existence of bourgeoisie in the process of transformation. All these still remain because the role played by them are yet to be exhausted as the working class has yet not been able to acquire the capability of carrying on the affairs without them or by discarding them. Hence, to the extent that these remain necessary in the process of transformation, they are being safeguarded also. To the extent that the dictatorship of the proletariat safeguard these; function as an authority to enforce bourgeois rights, to retain special bourgeois privilege and conditions of existence of the bourgeoisie in the process of transformation; to that extent it continues the execution of roles as per a bourgeois state. Though these roles of the dictatorship of the proletariat as per a bourgeois state go on diminishing along with the development of the social revolution, it will never completely come to an end during the phase of transition.
In fact, it is difficult to accept the partially bourgeois character of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to accept that it partially acts as a bourgeois state. But if we follow the teachings of Lenin, we should keep in mind that in the communist society (= classless socialist society) which is appearing through the completion of the phase of revolutionary transformation, the state, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has ceased to exist, even after the state has started to wither away, it still continue to execute one function as per the bourgeois state. This enduring existence of the old within the new— no doubt will be of much greater degree during the phase of transition.
Already we have discussed that the remnants of the old capitalist social system persists throughout the entire phase of transition, of course in ever decreasing magnitude; and the struggle to change them goes on through the adoption of successive measures of transition. A quote from The Communist Manifesto and another separate discussion by Engels regarding the measures of transition have also been referred before. We have seen there that the measures of transition, after playing out their own role, bring forward the necessity to adopt further advanced measures. Naturally, this necessity is expressed through the further development of the proletariat’s struggle for economic emancipation and the corresponding demands put forward by the proletariat for the adoption of further advanced measures of transition. Adopting newer measures means making further inroads into those property rights and other bourgeois conditions of production which still persistt; reducing them, crushing them, and thus advancing further the process of revolutionary transformation of the old society. Occurrence of these implies further erosion or eradication of those remnants of bourgeois rights or bourgeois special rights, and further pushing the bourgeoisie towards abolition as a class. Naturally, there remains resistance of the bourgeoisie against the adoption of these newer measures of transition; which is expressed through opposition to any proposed newer measures, advocating for adoption of backward measures, and organizing efforts to foil any advanced measures adopted. In this way continues the struggle between two classes regarding the problems of transition throughout the period of transition; and hence the tendencies to solve the problems of transition in two ways are repeatedly manifested (the bourgeois way and the proletarian way).
Generally, influences of old ideologies persist for a long time. Additionally, as the remnants of the capitalist social system persists, though in ever decreasing magnitude, to that extent remains the basis of production and reproduction of the old ideologies. As a result, the tendency to deal the problems arising in the society in transition in bourgeois way spontaneously gains more strength than the limit warranted by its material base. The proletariat and the exploited labouring mass under its leadership are affected by this tendency to the extent as there remains lack of consciousness within them.
Also, this ongoing class struggle is reflected in the inner– party struggle within the communist party. Hence, as a reflection of the aforesaid class struggle in the society in transition, there appear repeatedly the followers of the bourgeois way within the Communist Party leading the proletariat; and the ceaseless struggle continues between the two ways.
Hence, it is evident that the continuous progress of the society in transition towards the establishment of the first phase of socialist society or classless society depends in main on the consciousness and organization of the working class, the level of preparation of the working class. The extent to which the working class can assemble all the exploited labouring mass of the society under its leadership and perform its historical role as the unflinching power to drive forward the social revolution depends on that.
The important role of preparing the proletariat to be fit to play this part is done by their advanced guards, their leader, the real Communist Party. Whether the party can execute the required role depends upon its consciousness, its organization, its intimate and organic relationship with the entire mass of exploited labouring mass including the proletariat.*
Hence, the centre of gravity of the work of the party is not the governmental or administrative field; instead, it should be among the vast arena of toiling masses, including the proletariat, in the field of making them conscious and organized. This is because, in the last analysis, it is neither any party, nor any authority, but the struggle of the toiling masses under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, which can keep the revolution in motion, can drive the revolutionary transformation process of the old capitalist society to completion, and thus establish socialism.
Hence, this struggle can not cease, can not get stuck at any obstacle, can not adopt any self– satisfied attitude till private ownership is completely abolished, till the existence of all classes is abolished, and the classless society, the co– operative society of the producers based on the common ownership of all means of production is thus established.
* In saying ‘International Communist Movement’ is not used here to imply a communist movement united under an international organization. We are implying those struggles of the communist revolutionaries going on in several countries, which have drawn separating lines from revisionism and adventurism, which are national in form but international in content— taken as a whole, which constitutes a communist movement which is ongoing, lively and vibrant.
[1] Lenin, The State And Revolution (Ch V, end of Section1), L.C.W. Vol.– 25, Pg.– 464.
[2] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.95. [Progress Publishers’ Moscow Edition of 1989]
[3] Ibid. , Pg.– 87.
[4] Ibid. , Pg.– 85.
[5] Ibid. , Pg.– 85.
* However, if we analyse in light of Marx’s discussions’ it is not so that we cannot get an idea about how that society bears its birth marks in various aspects. But that demands a separate discussion.
[6] Lenin, The State And Revolution, L.C.W. Vol.– 25Pg.– 471
[7] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 87.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto. (Translation by Samuel Moore)
[10] Ibid.
[11] Engels, Anti Duhring (Part III, Section III), Progress Publishers, 1977 , Pg.– 357
[12] Marx, Capital, Vol I, Ch XV, Section 9, Pg.– 458 of 1974 Progress Publishers, Moscow edition
* The entire quotation is as follows: “Modern Industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognizing, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. Modern Industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail– worker of today, crippled by life– long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.” [Marx, Capital, Vol.– I, Chapter– XV, Section– 9, Pg.458 of the 1974 edition of Progress Publishers, Moscow.] We have used a part of the above quotation keeping in mind that under penalty of death, modern industry has compelled to the recognise the fundamental law of production, synchronising the process of production with the natural application of that law it has been made unavoidable — and it have taken for granted that this demand will be satisfied unquestionably in the communist society.
[13] Engels, Anti Duhring (Progress Publishers, 1977., Pg.– 357– 358
[14] Marx, Capital, Vol I, Ch I, Section– 2, 1974 Progress Publishers Moscow edition, Pg.– 50.
[15] Engels, Anti Duhring (Part III, Section III,),Progress Publishers, 1977, Pg.– 357.
[16] Ibid., Pg.– 360– 361.
* For example, observations, such as preconditions required for the unrestrained development of each one, of all, is the complete withering away of the state, a harmonious relation between individual and the collective— and other similar observations.
§ It has been said at the beginning of the present essay that the aim of the present discussion is to prepare the initial ground required for making an analysis of the experience of Soviet Union led by C.P.S.U. and People’s Democratic China led by C.P.C. In that context, it is not necessary now to discuss the various other aspects of the advanced phase of communism.
[17] Lenin, The State And Revolution ,L.C.W. Vol.– 25, Pg.– 475– 476.
* In this context, it may be mentioned, that, with respect to the small peasants, Engel’s recommendations are: “..... when we [ ‘we’ means, of course, the working class ] are in possession of state power we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first phase, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to co– operating ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose. And then of course we shall have ample means of showing to the small peasant prospective advantages that must be obvious to him even today.” [Quoted by Lenin in the article ‘Karl Marx’, L.C.W., Vol.– 21, Pg.43– 79]
* * Accurately speaking, the words used by Marx are a little different. Commenting about the right of getting same amount of means of consumption for same amount of labour, Marx has said: “There is no recognition of class– discrepancy in this right, as every one is only a worker like everyone else.” We have noted before that in the final analysis, right is determined by the economic structure. (“Right can never be at a higher stage of development than the economic structure of the society.”) Hence, non– recognition of class– discrepancy in right actually reflects an economic structure without class– discrepancy. Hence we have commented like this.
[18] Marx, “Critique Of The Gotha Programme,” Pg.85
[19] Marx, Capital (Vol I), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974 edition, Pg.– 82– 83.
* In the first chapter of ‘Capital’, in the section dealing with fetishism of commodities, Marx has thus described, not avowedly a socialist society, but a society in which there will be no commodity production. But while giving this description, he has, in effect, described nothing but a socialist society.
[20] Marx, Capital (Vol I), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974 edition, Pg.– 84.
§ Here also, as before, a socialist society has been described without naming it.
[21] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 85.
[22] Marx, Capital (Vol I), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974 edition, Pg.– 85.
[23] Ibid. Pg.– 96
[24] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 86.
[25] Ibid. Pg.– 86.
[26] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 86, 87.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid. Pg.– 87.
[30] Lenin, The State And Revolution (Ch V, end of Section1), L.C.W. Vol.– 25, (Ch V, Section3), L.C.W. Vol.– 25, Pg.– 471
[31] Ibid.
[32] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 87.
* In the passages quoted here contextually from Lenin, it will be noted that in many cases Lenin has written “bourgeois rights” (i.e. bourgeois rights within quotation marks). Why? This is because he has called these rights “bourgeois rights” to imply that this right is “in principle a bourgeois right”, “constantly afflicted by bourgeois limitations”, is located within “the narrow confines of bourgeois right” etc. Again, as this right is not completely of bourgeois character, as it encompasses within itself the aspect of the termination of the bourgeois character— hence he has used the quotation marks to signify this character of it not merely remaining a bourgeois right.
§ One, who has given greater amount of labour, should of course get greater return. But if the individual getting more return has greater number of offspring, then it may be that, in effect he is getting same return even after giving greater amount of labour. On the contrary, if there is no one or a lesser number of persons to share the obtained means of consumption, then one can in effect get same return as compared to someone else even after giving lesser amount of labour. In both cases, we can see that equal amount of objects are being given to unequal individuals, for unequal amounts of labour.
[33] Lenin, The State And Revolution, Pg.– 472.
[34] Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.– 95.[Progress Publishers, Moscow Edition of 1989]
[35] Lenin, The State & Revolution, Lenin Collected Works, Vol.– 25, Pg.– 464.
[36] Marx, The Class Struggles In France: 1848– 1850, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 10, Pg.– 127.
[37] Marx, Critical Marginal Notes On The Article ‘The King Of Prussia And Social Reform — by a Prussian’, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 3, Pg.– 204– 206.
[38] Lenin, The State& Revolution, Lenin Collected Works, Vol.– 25, Pg.– 436.
* Interested readers can go through Marx’s ‘Civil War In France’, Engel’s foreword to it, and the 3rd & 4th chapters of Lenin’s ‘State And Revolution’ regarding this.
[39] Lenin, The State & Revolution, Lenin Collected Works, Vol.– 25, Pg.– 464
* Ridiculing the propaganda of ‘Liberated State’ (or ‘Free State’), Engels has said that state and liberty contradicts each other “....whenever will it be possible to proclaim liberty, state will not exist as a state”.
[40] Lenin, The State & Revolution, Lenin Collected Works, Vol.– 25, Pg.– 468.
[41] Quotation is given here for ready reference “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one [i.e. the former, the capitalist society] into the other [i.e. the latter, the communist society] . Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx, Critique Of The Gotha Programme, Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 24, Pg.95. [Progress Publishers’ Moscow Edition of 1989]
* An explanation of why the measures of transition period have been called ‘economically insufficient and untenable’ can be obtained from an article of Engels titled ‘The Communists and Karl Heinzen’. For the sake of deeper understanding of all, we are quoting here the relevant part in full.
“But Herr Heinzen also promises social reforms. Of course, the indifference of the people towards his appeals has gradually forced him to do it. And what kind of reforms are these? They are such as the Communists themselves suggest in preparation for the abolition of private property. The only point Herr Heinzen makes that deserves recognition he has borrowed from the Communists, the Communists whom he attacks so violently, and even that is reduced in his hands to utter nonsense and mere daydreaming. All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organization of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.
Herr Heinzen however wants all these measures as permanent, final measures. They are not to be a preparation for anything, they are to be definitive. They are for him not a means but an end. They are not designed for a revolutionary but for a peaceful, bourgeois condition. But this makes them impossible and at the same time reactionary. The economists of the bourgeoisie are quite right in respect of Herr Heinzen when they present these measures as reactionary compared with free competition. Free competition is the ultimate, highest and most developed form of existence of private property. All measures, therefore, which start from the basis of private property and which are nevertheless directed against free competition, are reactionary and tend to restore more primitive stages in the development of property, and for that reason they must finally be defeated once more by competition and result in the restoration of the present situation. These objections the bourgeoisie raises, which lose all their force as soon as one regards the above social reforms as pure mesures de salut public, as revolutionary and transitory measures, these objections are devastating as far as Herr Heinzen’s peasant– socialist black, red and gold republic is concerned.”
[Marx & Engels Collected Works, Vol.– 6, Progress Publishers (Moscow) 1976 edition, Pg.– 295,296.]
* Here, the socialist production system referred to as the new system of production does not mean a completely developed socialist production system. It means a system of production which is distinctly different from bourgeois system of production and which has socialist character, but which is still in the process of being built up.
* Lenin has brought this lesson forward a number of times on various occasions in different ways. As for example, Lenin Collected Works: Vol.– 30, Pg.– 114– 115; Vol.– 31, Pg.– 44; Vol.– 31, Pg.– 24; Vol.– 460; Vol.– 26, Pg.– 401.
[42] Lenin Collected Works, Vol.25, Pg.476
* If the ongoing revolution can not be sustained till completion due to the failure of the Communist Party and the working class, if the necessary steps of transition to move forward are not adopted, i.e. if the followers of the bourgeois way become successful to arrest the socialist revolution within a limit; then the way in which the gradual retrogression will initiate corresponding changes in every field and the counter– revolution will completely win over finally — that is a separate discussion. We are not doing that here. We have discussed here only what is to be done by the proletariat in the phase of transition, what problems are to be faced by them, in the light of the principal lessons of Marxism– Leninism.
Comments:
No Comments for View