Leninism and Revisionism. In the Fundamental Questions of Theory and Practice of Socialism
(The dictatorship of the proletariat, its organizational form and economic entity)
V.A. Tyulkin,
first secretary of the Russian Communist Workers' Party - Revolutionary Party of Communists,
M.V.Popov, doctor of philosophy, professor, president of the Fund of Working Academy
Representatives of the journal of RCRP-RPC "Soviet Union"
In 2009, the Fund of Workers' Academy that promotes learning course for workers in Russia, published a collection of "The main idea of Leninism", which has incorporated major Lenin's views on the class approach to the analysis of social phenomena and the dictatorship of the proletariat.[1]
Acquaintance with this collection helps to understand the defection,
apostasy those of CPSU leaders, who took the revisionist stance on
major issues of Marxism-Leninism at the XXII CPSU Congress. This stance
was fixed in the CPSU program which, at most, predetermined the
subsequent dissipation of the party and the destruction of the country.
The above is proved in this article. The authors have tried to draw the
particular attention to the fact that most inventions, excuses and
"modern" arguments presented by current opportunists and renegades were
retorted by Lenin long ago, at the time of the Lenin’s fight against
opportunists and those perverting Marxism during the Second
International and the establishment of the Soviet power in Russia.
The class character of the state
The fact that every state has the class character is
the ABC of Marxism, and Lenin was constantly stressing it. In his
article "The Petty-Bourgeois Stand on the Question of Economic
Disorganisation" Lenin wrote: "to distinguish which class the state
serves, whose class interests it stands for".[2] And in the book "The State and Revolution" Lenin emphasizes, that "according to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule".[3]
In the article "The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It" Lenin
asks: "And what is the state?" and gives the following answer: "It is
an organisation of the ruling class".[4]
The same idea Lenin explains in his article "Can the Bolsheviks Retain
State Power?": "The state, dear people, is a class concept. The state
is an organ or instrument of violence exercised by one class against
another".[5]
In the Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress, January
20, 1919, Lenin stresses more categorically: "There is and can be only
one alternative: either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, disguised
by constituent assemblies, all kinds of voting systems, democracy and
similar bourgeois frauds that are used to blind fools, and that only
people who have become utter renegades from Marxism and socialism all
along the line can make play of today—or the dictatorship of the
proletariat".[6]
It is therefore logical that the Program of the RCP(b) developed by
Lenin states clearly: "As opposed to the bourgeois democracy, which has
been hiding the class character of the state, the Soviet government
openly acknowledges the inevitability of the class character of any
state. This class character will exist until the division of society
into classes will disappear completely together with any respective
state authority".[7] In
the brochure "Letter to the Workers and Peasants Apropos of the Victory
Over Kolchak", Lenin stresses the class character of the state in the
strongest terms: "Either the dictatorship (i.e., the iron rule) of the
landowners and capitalists, or the dictatorship of the working class.
There is no middle course. The scions
of the aristocracy, intellectualists and petty gentry, badly educated
on bad books, dream of a middle course. There is no middle course
anywhere in the world, nor can there be. Either the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie (masked by ornate Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik
phraseology about a people’s government, a constituent assembly,
liberties, and the like), or the dictatorship of the proletariat. He
who has not learned this from the whole history of the nineteenth
century is a hopeless idiot".[8]
The essence of the socialist state
In his Concluding Speech On The Report Of The Council Of People’s Commissars, January 12 (25) January, 1918 at the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies
Lenin said: "Democracy is a form of bourgeois state championed by all
traitors to genuine socialism, who now find themselves at the head of
official socialism and who assert that democracy is contrary to the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Until the revolution transcended the
limits of the bourgeois system, we were for democracy; but as soon as
we saw the first signs of socialism in the progress of the revolution,
we took a firm and resolute stand for the dictatorship of the
proletariat".[9]In the brochure "The successes and the difficulties of the Soviet power",
Lenin simply made fun of the unfortunate communists who rejected the
dictatorship of the proletariat. He wrote: "We, of course, are not
opposed to violence. We laugh at those who are opposed to the
dictatorship of the proletariat, we laugh and say that they are fools
who do not understand that there must be either the dictatorship of the
proletariat or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Those who think
otherwise are either idiots, or are so politically ignorant that it
would be a disgrace to allow them to come anywhere near a meeting, let
alone on the platform".[10]Lenin defended the same idea in the Report On The Domestic And Foreign Situation Of The Soviet Republic at the Extraordinary Plenary Meeting Of The Moscow Soviet Of Workers’ And Red Army Deputies on April 3 1919: "either
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or the power and complete
dictatorship of the working class; no middle course was ever of any
use, nothing came of it ".[11]
In "The dictatorship of the proletariat" Lenin wrote the following:
"1. The chief reason
why the “socialists” do not understand the dictatorship of the
proletariat is that they do not carry the idea of the class struggle to
its logical conclusion (Cf. Marx, 1852)
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the continuation of the class struggle of the proletariat in new forms. That is the crux of the matter, and that is what they do not understand.
The proletariat, as a special class, alone continues to wage its class struggle.
2. The state is only a weapon of the proletariat in its class struggle. A special kind of cudgel, rien de plus! Nothing more.—Editor.]".[12]
2. The state is only a weapon of the proletariat in its class struggle. A special kind of cudgel, rien de plus! Nothing more.—Editor.]".[12]
In his Speech Delivered at The All-Russia Congress of
Transport Workers, March 27, 1921 Lenin once again explained that the
question is put "either-or": "The class that took political power did
so in the knowledge that it was doing so alone. That is intrinsic to
the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has meaning only
when one class knows that it is taking political power alone, and does
not deceive others or itself with talk about “popular government by
popular consent through universal suffrage”. You all know that there
are very many-far too many-people who love to hold forth on that
subject, but, at any rate, you will not find them among proletarians,
because they have realised that theirs is a dictatorship of the
proletariat, and they say as much in their Constitution, the
fundamental law of the Republic".[13] In
his brochure "The Tax in Kind" Lenin stressed quite simply and briefly:
"At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is
the ruler of the state. This also is ABC ".[14]
The concept, the objectives, and the historical boundaries of the dictatorship of the proletariat
In his article "Fear Of The Collapse Of Tile Old And The Fight For Tile New" Lenin notes: "What
dictatorship implies and means is a state of simmering war, a state of
military measures of struggle against the enemies of the proletarian
power".[15] With that, in his article "Greetings to the Hungarian workers" he
emphasizes: "But the essence of proletarian dictatorship is not in
force alone, or even mainly in force. Its chief feature is the
organisation and discipline of the advanced contingent of the working
people, of their vanguard; of their sole leader, the proletariat, whose
object is to build socialism, abolish the division of society into
classes, make all members of society working people, and remove the
basis for all exploitation of man by man".[16] Lenin explains that "the abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and stubborn class struggle, which, after the overthrow of capitalist rule, after the destruction of the bourgeois state, after
the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not
disappear (as the vulgar representatives of the old socialism and the
old Social-Democracy imagine), but merely changes its forms and in many
respects becomes".[17] In his brochure "The Great Beginning" Lenin gives the following definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat: "If
we translate the Latin, scientific, historico-philosophical term
“dictatorship of the proletariat” into simpler language, it means just
the following:
Only a definite class, namely, the
urban workers and the factory, industrial workers in general, is able
to lead the whole mass of the working and exploited people in the
struggle to throw off the yoke of capital, in actually carrying it out,
in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of
creating the new, socialist social system and in the entire struggle
for the complete abolition of classes. (Let us observe in parenthesis
that the only scientific distinction between socialism and communism is
that the first term implies the first stage of the new society arising
out of capitalism, while the second implies the next and higher stage.)
The mistake the “Berne” yellow
International makes is that its leaders accept the class struggle and
the leading role of the proletariat only in word and are afraid to
think it out to its logical conclusion. They are afraid of- that
inevitable conclusion which particularly terrifies the bourgeoisie, and
which is absolutely unacceptable to them. They are afraid to admit that
the dictatorship of the proletariat is also a period of class struggle,
which is inevitable as long as classes have not been abolished, and
which changes in form, being particularly fierce and particularly
peculiar in the period immediately following the overthrow of capital.
The proletariat does not cease the class struggle after it has captured
political power, but continues it until classes are abolished—of
course, under different circumstances, in different form and by
different means.
And what does the “abolition of
classes” mean? All those who call themselves socialists recognise this
as the ultimate goal of socialism, but by no means all give thought to
its significance. Classes are large groups of people differing from
each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system
of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and
formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the
social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of
the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of
acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate
the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a
definite system of social economy.
Clearly, in order to abolish classes
completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the
landowners and capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary also to abolish all
private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to
abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the
distinction between manual workers and brain workers. This requires a
very long period of time"[18] Lenin in his article "Economics and politics in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat"
continues to define the boundaries of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and highlights the impact of the dictatorship of the
proletariat throughout the whole phase of the socialism: "Socialism
means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has
done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished
at one stroke.
And classes still remain and will remain
in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship
will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the
dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.
Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every
class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes
have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the
dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms".[19]
It should be stressed that Lenin specifically lists these forms for the
communists of all countries and of the times to come, in his book
"Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder": "The dictatorship of the
proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent
and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative –
against the forces and traditions of the old society".[20]
Under the socialism there is a sharp class struggle against the powers
and traditions of the capitalist society. At the first place this
struggle is aimed against the “petty-bourgeoisness” and against the
petty-bourgeois manifestations on the part of representatives of
classes and the layers of the social society. In particular this
struggle is aimed against the petty-bourgeois aspirations to give to
the society as little as possible and to give to the society not the
best things while attempting to take from the society the best things
and as much as possible. This struggle takes part in the working class,
in the party itself and the mind of almost any man.
How long is the dictatorship of the proletariat indispensable? In the Theses on Tactics of the RCP report at the III Congress of the Communist International
Lenin answers this question as follows: "The dictatorship of the
proletariat does not signify a cessation of the class struggle, but its
continuation in a new form and with new weapons. This dictatorship is
essential as long as classes exist, as long as the bourgeoisie,
overthrown in one country, intensifies tenfold its attacks on socialism
on an international scale The dictatorship of the proletariat does not
mean the cease of the class struggle ".[21] And since, as highlighted in the Report on the tactics of the RCP at the III Congress of the Communist International of July 5, 1921, "The aim of socialism is to abolish classes "[22],
the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat shall include the
entire first phase of the communism, i.e. the entire period of the
socialism.
The organizational form of the dictatorship of the proletariat
The essence of any state – the
dictatorship of the ruling class. At the same time, this dictatorship
rarely openly acts on the surface of the political life. Each type of
dictatorship (with all its deviations and temporary retreats) has a
definite stable form of display. This form of display, as the
organizational form, shall be adequate for the dictatorship of the
particular class. This form corresponds to the dictatorship of the
given class and provides for the preservation of the dictatorship of
such class in the best possible way. The immanent, i.e. the inherent
organizational form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the
parliamentary democracy founded on the elections based on the
territorial districts’ principal. The organizational form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat is the Soviet power, elected in
accordance with the factories’ and plants’ principle. In his "Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" at the I Congress of the Communist International of March 4, 1919,
Lenin wrote: "The old, i.e., bourgeois, democracy and the parliamentary
system were so organized that it was the mass of working people who
were kept farthest away from a machinery of government. Soviet power,
i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the other hand, is so
organized as to bring the working people close to the machinery of
government. That, too, is the purpose of combining the legislative and
executive authority under the Soviet organization of the state and of
replacing territorial constituencies by production units—the factory".[23]
As mentioned in the Lenin’s brochure "Letter to the Workers and Peasants apropos of the Victory Over Kolchak", "Soviet power—that is what the “dictatorship of the working class” means in practice." [24] Lenin in his article "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" emphasizes explicitly: "Soviet power is nothing but an organisational form of the dictatorship of the proletariat".[25]
Analysis of organizational forms of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (in its most stable modification – the
bourgeois democracy) and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the
form of councils (i.e. soviets) demonstrates that the stability and
functioning of the mentioned dictatorships is provided for by the
objective grounds. The formation of the power is based on such
objective grounds. The formation of the parliamentary democracy as a
form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is based on the monetary
resources of the capitalists, on the institution of private capitalist
property. The formation of the parliamentary democracy uses the
bourgeois ideology which is dominant in society (as the being of the
society determines its conscience). The proletarian democracy is based
on the objective self-discipline of the working class in the course of
the working class’ labour at the factories and plants. Such factories
and plants become the electoral units (districts) of the Soviets. This
is not about the title, but about the form of organization of the power
which is characteristic for the Soviet power (the power ensuring the
dictatorship of the working class).
Vaiver of the organizational form of the dictatorship of the proletariat a threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat
Soviets emerged in Ivanovo-Voznesensk
in 1905 as organs of strike and organs of self government of the
working class formed at the factories and the plants in accordance with
the labour collectives’ principle. The Soviets were at that time
elected at factories and plants. In 1917 the Soviets recurred
throughout whole of Russia. The constitutive principle of the Soviets
is the election of deputies at factories and plants, as the election of
deputies at factories and plants provides for the possibility to
control the activities of Soviet deputies and the feasibility of their
calling off and replacement at the discretion of the labour
collectives. This principle was formalized in Program of the RCP(b) adopted by the VIII Congress of the Party of Lenin:
"The Soviet state also brings the state apparatus together with the
masses by establishing that the electoral unit and the basic unit of
the state shall be the production unit (plant, factory), not the
territorial district".[26]
On the contrary to this program’s
provision, in 1936 (in connection with the adoption of the new,
supposedly more "democratic" constitution) the transition to the
election based on the territorial principle took place. Such
territorial principle of election is typical for bourgeois democratic
system. This principle makes it impossible to call off the deputies
which turned away from the people. The statements made by Stalin at
that time on the alleged broadening of the democracy due to the
adoption of the Constitution of 1936 shall be acknowledged as
incorrect. It would have been more correct to say that a step toward
the transition from the Soviet, proletarian democracy to the
parliamentary, bourgeois democracy was actually made. Such
parliamentary, bourgeois democracy implies formal equality and ignores
the actual inequality. A formal onetime’ extension of the voting rights
to former members of the exploiting classes could not actually broaden
the democracy. The Soviet democracy (the democracy of the working
people) gradually comes to all people’s voting on the basis of the
gradual withdrawal of the former members of the exploiting class at the
historical stage due to the elimination of any exploitation. The
renunciation of the principle of elections through labour collectives
at factories and plants (such principle is a characteristic principle
of the Soviets) and the shift to the election in accordance with the
territorial districts principle is equivalent to a throwback. It is the
throwback from the Soviets to the parliamentarism and, hence, to the
weakening of the real democratism.
It is interesting to recall
that Lenin, while preparing the second Program of RCP(b), considered
the possibility of waiver of the form of the Soviets only as the result
of the general retreat in the struggle under the pressure of the
circumstances and the forces of the enemy. He did not consider such waiver as the move to develop the democracy of workers (proletarians’ or workers' democracy). In the Resolution on Changing the Name of the Party and the Party Programme of the Seventh Congress RCP (b) Lenin wrote: "the
change in the political part of our Programme must consist in the most
accurate and comprehensive definition possible of the new type of
state, the Soviet Republic, as a form of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and as a continuation of those achievements of the world
working-class revolution which the Paris Commune began. The Programme
must show that our Party does not reject the use even of bourgeois
parliamentarism, should the course of the struggle push us back, for a
time, to this historical stage which our revolution has now passed. But
in any case and under all circumstances the Party will strive for a
Soviet Republic as the highest, from the standpoint of democracy, type
of state, as a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of
abolition of the exploiters’ yoke and of suppression of their resistance ».[27]
Everything seems to be explicit.
However, a move to the bourgeois democracy was made. Since Then, due to
the liquidation in practice of the possibility to call off the deputies
that betrayed the trust of the voters organized as labour collectives,
the process of more and more intensive contamination of the state
machine by the bureaucracy and careerism started. It is also within the
framework of this process the party-and-state machine bred khruschevs
and gorbachevs. The state machine became soiled with careerists and
bureaucrats for whom their own interests were the priority compared to
the common interests. The title “Soviets” remained but the essence of
the soviets started to blur. The dictatorship of the proletariat,
having been deprived of its inherent organizational form, was put at
risk. After the principal of election on the basis of the labour
collectives was eliminated, the proletarian character of the bodies of
the power (it still bore the name “soviet”) was only provided for by
the still preserved elements of their connection with labour
collectives. This connection took place through labour collectives
recommending the candidates, through occasional reporting of the
deputies to the labour collectives, through the regulation of the
social contingent of the soviets by the party. This connection also
took place on inertion due to the proletarian character of the party
contingent. But even at the time of Stalin (who has vowed to strengthen
the dictatorship of the proletariat by the coffin of V.I. Lenin and who
was fighting for the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship
throughout his life) the anti-workers’ majority began gradually
accumulating in the Central Committee of the party. This anti-workers’
majority opportunism, evolving into revisionism, was going to alter the
class nature of the state after Stalin's death.
The waiver of the dictatorship of the proletariat – the waiver of Marxism
A kind of artillery preparation for the
direct attack at the main idea of Marxism was held at the Twentieth
Party Congress. By the efforts of Khrushchev’s revisionist group
everything positive done under Stalin’s leadership was libelously
questioned. This Khrushchev’s revisionist group also applied for the
revision of the key provisions of Marxism on the class struggle and on
the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, Lenin’s program of the
RCP(b) was still in effect and, therefore, Khrushchev’s supporters
began the preparation of this program’s replacement by a different one
that would eliminate the very essence of Marxism-Leninism. A thesis of
the final victory of socialism in the USSR (an unwinding and
demobilizing thesis for communists, working class and all working
people) was put forward by the CPSU’s First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev
in his report at the XXII Congress "On the Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union".[28] It was stated in the report that the class struggle is confined only to the transitional period towards the socialism.[29]
Throughout the whole report socialism was understood not as a phase of
the communism, but as a separate formation. Accordingly, instead of the
typical socialist goal of complete elimination of classes at the first phase of the classless society the goal of building the classless society
was put forward. At the same time a purely anti-Marxist, revisionist
goal was declared: "From the state of the dictatorship of the
proletariat to the "people’s state".[30]
It was stated that, allegedly "the working class of the Soviet Union on
its own initiative, based on the tasks of building communism,
transformed the state of its dictatorship into the people’s state… It
is for the first time that we have formed a state which is not based on
the dictatorship of any class ... the dictatorship of the proletariat
is no longer indispensable".[31]
The party, in the contradiction to Lenin’s concept of a political party
as the vanguard of the class, was also declared to be not the party of
the working class but the party of all people.
These revisionist ideas were not
resisted at the Congress. The Congress unanimously adopted the
revisionist, essentially anti-Leninist and essentially anti-Marxist
program. According to this program, allegedly "the dictatorship of the
proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission and, in terms of the
goals of the internal development, has ceased to be indispensable in
the USSR. The state which has emerged as the dictatorship of the
proletariat, at this new, modern stage, has become a people’s state...
As the party understands, the dictatorship of the working class ceases
to be indispensable before the state withers away".[32] To appraise this position in more detail lets once again turn to Lenin.
In his book "The State and the Revolution" Lenin
stressed the class character of every state (until such state continues
to exist), the necessity to destroy the old state machine and the
necessity to create the new state apparatus which would be able to
solve the problems of the proletarian dictatorship for the purpose of
the victory of the proletarian revolution; he also developed a number
of provisions that have to be observed so that the state (which is the
weapon of the working class, the means of ensuring its political
domination) would not become the power dominating the working class. In
this book and also in the notebook "Marxism on the State" Lenin clearly
pursues the idea that the state withers away only with the complete
elimination of classes (i.e. while the classes still remain, the state,
as the body of the politically dominating class, remains as well). He
cites and develops the idea of Engels about State: "When at last it
becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders
itself unnecessary".[33]
Lenin, as if responding to all the doubters, to all those who are
hesitant and indecisive, emphasizes: "Only he is a Marxist who extends
the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most
profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as
well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real
understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested".[34]
In his work "The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University
of June 11, 1919) Lenin points out that it is the capitalist state
which "proclaims liberty for the whole people as its slogan, which
declares that it expresses the will of the whole people and denies that
it is a class state ". [35]
The Khrushchev’s revisionist group,
having disoriented, having actually deceived the party and the people
with respect to the issue of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the
dictatorship which absence makes the development of the socialism into
communism impossible), eventually altered the goals of the development
of the production and the society. The above is worth considering in
more detail.
The goal of the of socialist production
The essence of history, the progress of
the society shall be the movement to the full welfare and the free
all-round development of all members of the society.
At the time of primitive-communal communism
this essence only appeared in the strictly limited way due to the lack
of the development of productive forces. It appeared in satisfying the
urgent needs of society members, satisfying their demands based on the
available resources and based on the tribal hierarchy.
At the time of slavery, slaves were not
considered to be human beings. During the period of slavery the
production was being developed for the benefit of the prosperity and
all-round development of the members of the ruling class – slave owners.
At the time of the feudalism it was
mostly the welfare and all-round development of the feudals that was
increasing. The peasants and the craftsmen had to be content with
rather poor satisfaction of their needs.
Under capitalism, the goal of the
production is the production of the surplus value and profits. Such
production leads to the increase of the welfare and all-round
development of the capitalists. It limits the satisfaction of the
workers’ need to the extent ensuring the reproduction of the work force
required to continue the capital’s self-expansion. Under capitalism, as
Lenin wrote in "Materials for the elaboration of RSDWP program",
"the gigantic development of the productive forces of social labour,
which is constantly becoming more socialised labour, is attended by
monopolisation of all the principal advantages of this development by a
negligible minority of the population. The growth of social wealth
proceeds side by side with the growth of social inequality; the gulf
between the class of property-owners (the bourgeoisie) and the class of
the proletariat is growing".[36]
At the same time under capitalism the
struggle of the working class begins. It is the struggle against
limitation of the progress to the development of the members of the
society belonging to the ruling class, the struggle for creation of the
communist society in which the essence of the history would be revealed
and in which the real purpose of production would be complete
well-being and all-round free development of all members of the society.
In the commission’s draft party program
prepared for the II Congress of the RSDWP the goal of the socialist
production was formulated as a planned organization of social
production process " to satisfy the needs of both society as a whole and its individual members" Lenin objects to this: "Not accurate. Such “satisfaction” is “given” by capitalism as well, but not to all members of society and not in equal degree".[37] In "Notes on the second draft of the Program of Plekhanov"
he wrote: "Nor is the end of the paragraph properly expressed: “the
planned organisation of the social process of production so as to
satisfy the needs of society as a whole, as well as its individual
members”. That is not enough. Organisation of that kind will, perhaps,
be provided even by the trusts. It would be mere definite to say “by
society as a whole” (for this covers planning and indicates
who is responsible for that planning), and not merely to satisfy the
needs of its members, but with the object of ensuring full well-being and free, all-round development for all the members of society ".[38]
Finally Lenin secured that the Program approved by the Second Congress
of the RSDWP Party states as follows: "Having replaced the private
ownership of means of production and means of circulation by the
respective society’s ownership and having introduced the planned
organization of socio-productive process for the welfare and all-round
development of all members of society, the social revolution of the
proletariat will eliminate the division of society into classes and
will set the suppressed mankind free".[39]
In view of this program’s objective,
the Bolshevik Party raised the Russian working class to the victorious
socialist revolution. It is natural that while compiling the second
program of the party, Lenin considered it absolutely necessary to keep
in the new program the same goal which was recorded in the first
program and which, if implemented, leads to the complete elimination of
classes, i.e. to the full communism. The Program adopted by the VIII
Congress of the RCP(b) reproduces the goal of the socialist production
precisely in the wording of the first program, namely: "Having replaced
the private ownership of means of production and means of circulation
by the respective society’s ownership and having introduced a planned
organization of socio-productive process for the welfare and all-round
development of all members of society, the social revolution of the
proletariat will eliminate the division of society into classes".[40]
This scientifically discovered, true
goal of the communist production which was set for the working class
(the founder of communist society) in the party program stayed in the
party program as long as the party remained the party of the
working-class ensuring the working class’ dictatorship. This goal was
not, however, mentioned in the third, the revisionist party program
adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU. It was substituted by satisfying of the constantly growing needs whereas neither well-being, nor development of the people, especially all-round development, may not be reduced to such satisfying of the constantly growing needs.
Satisfying the needs alone leads neither to elimination of social
inequality, nor to the elimination of classes. To be more specific, the
third party program stated that under communism "the highest stage of
the planned organization of the whole social economy is reached, the
most efficient and rational use of material resources and manpower to
meet the growing needs of the members of society is ensured".[41]
Working members of society, whose development shall be the ultimate
goal, turned into the manpower, effectively used to meet the needs of
selected members of the society (such selected members of the society
later became the oligarchs). It is removal of the development of all
members of society from the goal of production, that turned the
program’s definition of the goal of production into the camouflaged
breaking away from the true goal of the socialism. The revisionists’
third program states: "The goal of the socialism – more and more
complete satisfaction of the growing material and cultural needs of the
people".[42]
At the first glance, this definition of goal of socialism seems to be
beautiful. At the same time this definition is deeply wrong. The goal
of socialism, as defined by the founders of the scientific communism,
is the elimination of classes. Such elimination of classes includes the
satisfaction of the needs but may not be reduced to such satisfaction;
also the elimination of classes does not imply that any and all needs
shall be satisfied. At the first place it implies the ensuring of the
complete welfare and free all-round development of all members of
society, the elimination of any social inequality.
The waiver of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the waiver of the goal of socialism changed the class
nature of the state. The state became unable to carry out the interests
of the working class. In the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat
the interests of the working class shall be deemed the interests of the
society as a whole. That is why the state property was gradually
ceasing to be a form of the social property. This property was
gradually being transformed into a peculiar form of private property of
those who actually controlled the public property – top party and state
bureaucracy. Thus, the party-state nomenklatura elite succeeded in
appropriating the property of the whole society. This elite also
succeeded in creating the conditions allowing to divide such property
and appropriate and privatize the resulting shares, formalizing the
privatization in accordance with the laws of "all people’s" state. The
above was happening at the instigation of Gorbachev during the
Yeltsin’s era – first under the slogan of the revisionists’ "movement
to the market", and then, openly, under the anti-communist slogan:
“come on, privatize!” This process was ideologically supported by the
revisionist concept of "the developed socialism", which included and
strengthened the notorious revisionist "all people’s state".
The CPSU’s waiver of the main ideas of
Marxism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat, the goal of the
socialist production and the goal of the socialism at the XXII Congress
could not help resulting and, in the end, has resulted (despite of the
active resistance on the part of the communist minority) in the
destruction of the party, the state and the country. The above waiver
was not only the fault of the renegade CPSU elite, but also the fault
of those party members who, instead of studying and understanding
Leninism, learnt by heart quotes and slogans, and took on faith the
words of the revisionist party elite. And, therefore, consistent
communist forces could not overcome the opportunists, revisionists and
renegade traitors to socialism. The above is a lesson not only for the
communists of the former Soviet Union and contemporary Russia. It is a
lesson for the whole international movement of workers and communists.
Non-commodity, direct society’s nature of the socialist production
This matter is timely as this is, in the end, the question of the reason
of the communists’ struggle for the power of their class. This is a
question of what they would do if the working class seizes the power.
To what extent have the conclusions from the mistakes of the CPSU and
from the practice of building socialism in the USSR been made? What
should be built in the economy and how should this be built?
Nowadays this issue both continues to
be of the interest for the communists’ movement in Russia and abroad,
and this issue also divides the communists movement. Herein we will not
consider outright apologists of "swedish socialism" and other improvers
of capitalism. We will speak only of those who continue to call
themselves marxists and communists. Among such marxists and communists
there are, on one side, a lot of supporters of the so-called “market
socialism” (it has been lately more and more often called "China-style
market socialism”). On the other side there are people calling
themselves pragmatists and realists who are also constantly can be
heard. The latter consider it ridiculous when the orthodox communists
talk of the non-commodity character of the socialist production. Look
around! – they say – The market is everywhere and, hence, starting from
the market economy is the only way to go.
The market is, in fact, under
capitalism everywhere. Therefore, we believe that it is just time to
decide what is happening with the commodity character under capitalism,
and what should be done with such character in the process of socialist
revolution and building of socialism.
As early as in the First and the Second
Bolsheviks’ Programs (as well as in the Program of Russian Communist
Workers' Party (RCWP)) the nature of the capitalism and the bourgeois
society was described in the following wording: "The main feature of
this society is the commodity character of production which is based on
the capitalist production relations. These relations imply that the
most important and significant part of the means of production and the
circulation of goods is owned by a small (in terms of the head count)
class of individuals, whereas the vast majority of the population
consists of proletarians and semi- proletarians that are forced, due to
their economic status, to continuously or periodically sell their
labour power, i.e. hire themselves to the capitalists and create the
income for the upper classes of society by their labour".[43]
That is, capitalism – is primarily the
commodity production. With that Lenin in his observations on the second
draft of the Program of Plekhanov wrote on the mentioned program
provision the following: "That is rather incongruous. Of course, fully
developed commodity production is possible only in capitalist society,
but “commodity production” in general is both logically and
historically prius to capitalism".[44]
That is, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
specified that capitalism is the result of the development of commodity
production. In many of his works Lenin kept pointing out that the
commodity production in its development constantly and inevitably gives
rise to capitalism.
The commodity is a thing produced for
the purpose of exchange. Commodity production is the production of
commodities, production of value. Capitalist commodity production is
focused on selling goods in order to obtain surplus value, profit to
the benefit of the capitalists (owners of the means of production,
retail store networks, financial capital and capitalists in other forms
of existence). The regulatory role in the production of commodities
(this includes the capitalist commodity production) is played by its
basic law – the law of value. This law directs the capital and,
consequently, the commodity production to the most profitable areas.
And the goal of the socialist
production is not generating profit on the capital. This goal is the
satisfaction of the society’s interests. The above-mentioned programs
of RCP(b) and RCWP state: "Having replaced the private ownership of
means of production and circulation by the respective society’s
ownership and having introduced a planned organization of
socio-productive process for the welfare and all-round development of
all members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will
eliminate the division of society into classes and will set the
suppressed mankind free, as thus it will put an end to all kinds of
exploitation of one part of society by its other part".[45]
The core, the essence of the socialist
production is not the law of value, but the law of the use value. This
law is aimed at the provision of the complete welfare and all-round
development of all members of society. It is clear that ensuring the
complete welfare and all-round development of all members of society
may be possible only through socializing of the means of production and
centralization of planning and management, which shall be politically
ensured by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The above is not possible to achieve through the self-regulation of the
market of separate private producers.
Notwithstanding the above, it seems
that the money, and a number of so-called commodity-money relations
formally exist under the socialism, although neither Marx, nor Engels
nor Lenin did not mention the term “commodity-money relations”. Does
this usage of external commodity forms and titles mean that the
socialist production is the commodity production according to its
nature? Of course it does not. And the treasury notes, which are used
by the socialist society, are not the money in the sense of the
political economy. These notes are an additional indirect measurer of
the productions volume and the quantity of the required effort that was
spent, they play the role of the accounting and planning units. The
money under socialism carry out the function of the inventory count and
control of the direct society’s production and distribution. Socialism
would not be possible if this function is not carried out. It is no
coincidence that the Program of the Comintern, adopted in 1928 states:
"capitalist forms and methods of economic activity (evaluative account,
cash payments, sale and purchase, credits, banks, etc.) which seem to
be connected to the market relations, play the role of the balance
levers of the socialist overthrow. These balance levers serve at the
greater and greater extent the enterprises of consistently socialist
type, i.e. the socialist sector of the economy".[46]
Supporters of the market socialism
usually remind of the NEP (New Economic Policy). They say that it was
Lenin who stated that NEP is the radical revision of our views on socialism. It is here to stay.
During the early period of the transition from the capitalism to the
communism the New Economic Policy (NEP) implied (as a temporary
retreat) the increased freedom for commodity production and
circulation. Especially, this increased freedom was meant for
circulation of commodity between the peasants and the socialist state
sector. With that, Lenin was well aware that this increased freedom
implies the struggle between the socialist tendency and the capitalist
tendency. Bukharin's book "Economics in Transition" contains the
following thesis: the "dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitably
followed by the latent or more or less open struggle between the
organizing tendency of the proletariat and the commodity-anarchic
tendency of the peasantry". Lenin noted to that: "It should have been
said: between the socialist tendency of the proletariat and the
commodity-capitalist tendency of the peasantry".[47]
Here Lenin also supports the following Bukharin's analysis: "In the
city the main fight for the type of economy [after the seizure of the
power – editor’s comment] ends with the victory of the proletariat. It
also ends in the villages due to the defeat of the major capitalists.
But at the same time it is being reborn in other forms. It is being
reborn in a struggle between the state plan of the proletariat (that
embodies the socialized labour) and the commodity anarchy, the
speculative licentiousness of the peasantry that embodies the scattered
property objects and the market welter." Lenin appraised the above idea
with the brief "That is it!" And then Lenin supported the following
Bukharin's statement "But as a simple commodity economy is exactly an
embryo of the capitalist economy, the struggle of the described above
tendencies shall be, basically, the continuation of the struggle
between the communism and the capitalism" by writing "True. And it is
better than the "anarchy".[48]
We note that Lenin had never raised the
question of the immediate abolishment of the commodity production. He
always emphasized that the issue is overcoming the commodity character
of the production, escape from the commodity character of the
production, denying the mentioned commodity character in the socialist
society’s production. Based on the Marx’s position "Only the products
being the results of the different, independent works confront each
other as commodities», Lenin expressed his understanding of the goal of
the socialist revolution as follows. "the abolition of private
ownership of the means of production, their conversion into public
property, and the replacement of capitalist production of commodities
by the socialist organisation of the production of articles by society
as a whole, with the object of ensuring full well-being and free,
all-round development for all its members".[49]
And in the Instructions of the Council
of Labour and Defence To Local Soviet Bodies, which was compiled in
1921, during the transitional period, Lenin noted, that "the
manufactured goods made by socialist factories and exchanged for the
foodstuffs produced by the peasants are not commodities in the
politico-economic sense of the word; at any rate, they are not only
commodities, they are no longer commodities, they are ceasing to be
commodities ".[50]
This idea of overcoming the commodity
production even during the construction of the socialist economy Lenin
once again confirms in his comments on Bukharin’s book by writing down
to his workbook the following thought of Bukharin: "The product may be
a universal category only so far as there is a constant, not random
social connection to the anarchic basis of the production. Therefore,
to the extent the irrationality of the production process disappears
(i.e., to the extent a conscious society’s regulator takes the place of
the welter), a commodity becomes a product and loses its commodity
character". Lenin notes: "Correct!", however about the ending he
writes: "not quite correct: becomes not a “product” but somewhat
differently. ETWA (roughly - Editor): becomes the product which goes to
the society’s consumption not through the market".[51]
The adepts of the market usually cite
the example of the NEP as an alleged Lenin's turn towards the
understanding of the socialism as the commodity economy. They try to
depict it as if Lenin did not consider NEP as the necessary temporary
drawback to the market but thought it to be the goal and the
perspective. The smartest of them even invented some, allegedly
Leninist, methodology of the NEP and the socialist market. However,
firstly, it should be noted that the NEP is not the methodology but the
policy. Lenin and the Bolsheviks introducing the NEP acknowledged their
retreat in the admission of the elements of capitalism – they did not
call it the development of characteristics inherent to the socialist
production. Secondly, the strongest leverages to overcome the market
elements inherent to the period of transition towards the socialist
economy were being developed at the time of NEP. In particular, that
were the State Planning Commission (Gosplan), State procurement
authority (Gossnab) and large manufacturing industry. Also the
electrification plan was being developed, etc. That is, while the
physical volume of the commodity (according to the title, but not, any
longer, according to the nature) was increasing, the directly social
nature of the socialist production was being enhanced and the
pre-conditions for the further overcoming of the commodity character of
the production were being prepared.
Stalin, consistently pursued the
Lenin’s policy of overcoming the commodity character of the production
in practice – the policy of overcoming the commodity character of the
production during the transitional period of the production towards the
socialism, the policy of giving to the socialist production the
characteristics of the direct society’s production. Stalin outlined
basic thoughts on this matter in his work "Economic Problems of
Socialism in the USSR". In particular, Stalin formulates the goal of
the socialist economy as follows: "Is there a basic economic law of
socialism? Yes there is. What are the essential features and
requirements of this law? The essential features and requirements of
the basic economic law of socialism could be formulated roughly as
follows: ensuring of the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing
material and cultural needs of the whole society through the continuous
growth and improvement of socialist production on the basis of the most
modern technique".[52]
Thus, Stalin clearly emphasized that the interests of the entire
society shall be the definite priority in the system of the socialism.
With that, Stalin based his analysis
not only on his "Marxist’s" views, but on the objective assessment of
the available facts. Stalin examined guarantees of the proletarian
state that are aimed to prevent the restoration of the capitalist
elements in the economy. However, as we believe, Stalin somewhat
underestimated, that the commodity production surely creates the
tendencies and the desire to move towards the full-fledged capitalist
commodity production and the market (this was eventually implemented in
the USSR).
Stalin stated that under socialism the
law of value, although with no regulatory significance, is still
partially in effect, especially in the sphere of production of the
consumer goods. The latter statement is disputable. After all, the law
of value is the basic law of capitalism and, therefore, it can not be a
law of the socialism. Engels pointed out in Anti-Duhring, that "the law
of value is the basic law of the commodity production. Therefore, it is
the basic law of the highest form of the commodity production – the
capitalist production".[53]
In the socialist economy the commodity feature of the production is
only the denial of such character’s direct society’s nature. This
feature belongs to the residuals of the capitalism that should be
overcome in the course of the development of the socialism (as
underdeveloped communism) into the ultimate communism. Therefore, we
can assert that the development of the socialist economy shall be aimed
at the strengthening of its direct society’s nature and at the
overcoming of the commodity feature of the production. No matter, what
would be the circumstances of the revolution for the communists, no
matter what retreats and compromises would the communists have to
accept, there should be the clear aspiration to achieve the ultimate
goal – to overcome the commodity character of the production and the
transition to the socialist, directly society’s character of the
production. The socialist economy was moving forward as long as the
state power considered the organization of such economy as direct
society’s production.
The waiver of the fundamentals of
socialism – the dictatorship of the proletariat – by Khruschev’s
leadership in 1961 and the economic reform of 1965 gave rise to the
process of gradual accumulation of negative tendencies in the socialist
economy and in the socialist relations. Figuratively speaking, the
above began the preparation to the Gorbachev's perestroika which changed the social order.
Whatever the current advocates of the
capitalism would say, the economics in the Soviet Union was based on
the direct society’s production. The above is particularly clear
nowadays, when there is a possibility to compare the life in the Soviet
Union to the current circumstances. A Soviet citizen was receiving more
than half of the consumed goods (as calculated based on the current
prices) through funds of public consumption. And that was almost “in
accordance to the demand” that some of the crucial needs were being
satisfied. The above included: free housing (although with long
queues), cold and hot water, electricity, bread, healthcare and
education, public transportation and much more.
It is a pity that the waiver of the
socialist course, both in terms of the economics and in terms of the
politics, was made by the leadership of the party itself, the party
that still was called the communist party. The XXII Congress of the
CPSU adopted a new party program, which excluded from its main
provisions the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And
the XXVIII Congress of the CPSU approved the transition to the market
economy. It was at this Congress that the party and the people were
being warned that the transition to the market economy will result in
the capitalism and in the collapse of the CPSU and will bring misery
for the people. The report of the representative of the Movement of the
Communist Initiative, professor A.A. Sergeyev stated: "In addition to
the commodity market there are two more markets. That are: the market
of the private capital, represented by stock exchanges, and the labour
market. So, these two markets, as taken together, will inevitably give
the classic capitalist market (even if such capitalist market will be
formally called the regulated market). And there is no escape from
this... And neither our people, nor the party will survive this
perestroika. The party, as the communist party, will disappear".[54]
As we can see now, the predictions made
by the science have come true. So we have to start anew. Figuratively
speaking, we have to address again the question "What should we do?"
which Lenin considered in his book with the same title.
The concepts of building the socialism
through the development of the market, commodity character of the
production and the commodity-money relations (i.e. capitalist
relations) and, similarly, through the plans of building different
kinds of socially-oriented market economy, even with the best
intentions and even under the leadership of the most patriotic and the
most trusted government – this is the way of gorbachevs which will
bring to the capitalism. The opportunism and the revisionism have
learnt to compose a lot of patterns of capitalism. They have also
learnt to invent many justifications for such patterns. However, the
practice has shown to us the following. To separate the economics from
its political basis, to consider the politicized economy, economy
deprived of the class content in the coherent theory of socialism is an
error and a stupidity. Moreover, it is a crime committed by communists
with respect to the working class. In the USSR, in the last years of
the CPSU’ ruling, the market socialism was being built. But as the
result, the capitalism has been built.
To paraphrase Lenin, we may say that
without fighting this infectious disease of the market, speaking of the
commitment to the socialist or the communist choice is simply uttering
pompous but deceitful phrases.
Let us then reconcile our course with Lenin, with the science of the communism!
[1] The main idea of Leninism. Lenin on class approach to the analysis of social
phenomena / Comp. Dr. Ph. Sc. M.V. Popov. - St.: Polytechnic Univ. Press,
2009. – 311 p. http://rpw.ru/
[3] Lenin Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 381-492.
[5] Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136.
[6] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 28, pages 412-428.
[7] Lenin. Complete Collected Works, Volume 38, p. 424.
[8] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 552-560.
[9] Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 453-482.
[10] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 55-88.
[11] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 255-274.
[12] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 30, pages 93-104.
[13] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 272-284.
[14] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 329-365.
[15] Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 400-403
[16] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 387-391
[17] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 387-391.
[18] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 409-434.
[19] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 30, pages 107-117.
[20] Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 31, Progress Publishers, USSR, 1964 p. 17—118.
[21] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 451-498.
[21] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 451-498.
[22] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 451-498.
[23] Lenin Collected Works, Volume 28 (p. 455-477).
[24] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 552-560.
[25] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, pages 235-77.
[26] Lenin. Complete Collected Works, Volume 38, pp. 425 – 426.
[27] Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 27, 1972, pages 85-158
[28] XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 17 – 31 October
1961. Verbatim record. M. Gospolitizdat, 1962. Vol. I, p.151.
[29] Ibid. p. 166.
[30] Ibid. p. 209.
[31] Ibid. pp. 210 – 211, 212.
[32] XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 17 – 31 October
1961. Verbatim record. M. Gospolitizdat, 1962. Vol. III. p. 303.
[33] Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 381-492.
[34] Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 381-492.
[35] Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 470-488.
[39]
Program of the Russian Social Democratic Worker’s Party, adopted at the
II Party Congress. Second Party Congress. July–August 1903, Protocols,
Moscow, 1959, p. 419.
[40] Lenin. Complete Collected Works, Volume 38, p. 419.
[41] XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 17 – 31 October
1961. Transcript. Vol. III. M. Gospolitizdat, 1962, p. 274.
[42] Ibid. p. 238.
[43] Lenin. Complete Collected Works, Volume 38, pp. 417 – 418.
[45] Lenin. Complete Collected Works, Volume 38, p. 419.
[46] The Communist International in the documents. 1919 – 1932. M. 1933 p. 24.
[47] Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XI 1931. 2-nd ed., p. 368.
[48] Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XI 1931. 2-nd ed., p. 370.
[50] Lenin’s Collected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 32, pages 375-398.
[51] Lenin Miscellany, Vol. XI 1985, p.388.
[52] I.V. Stalin. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. 2010, St. Petersburg. pp.31–32.
[53] K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 20. p.324.
[54] XXVIII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2 – 13 July
1990. Verbatim record. Vol. I. M., Politizdat, 1991, pp. 504.
No comments:
Post a Comment