Theses of the CC on Socialism

8/2/2019 Theses of the CC on Socialism

1/48

Theses of the CC on Socialism

http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialis

Table of contents

A. The contribution of the Socialist SystemB. Theoretical positions on Socialism as the first, lower stage of CommunismC. Socialism in the USSR - Causes of the victory of counter-revolution

Assessment of the Economy during the course of Socialist construction in the USSRConclusions concerning the role of the Communist Party in the process of Socialist constructionThe development of Soviet Power

Developments in the international Communist Movement and its strategyAssessment of the Stance of KKE

D. The necessity and relevance of Socialism. Enrichment of our programmaticconception of Socialism

The necessity and relevance of SocialismEnrichment of our programmatic conception concerning Socialism

Epilogue

A. The contribution of the Socialist System

1. The development of capitalism and the class struggle inevitably brought communism to thehistorical limelight during the middle of the 19th century. The first scientific communist programme isthe Communist Manifesto written by K. Marx and Fr. Engels 160 years ago in 1848. The firstproletarian revolution was the Paris Commune in 1871. With the 20th century came the success ofthe October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917, which was a starting point for one of the greatestachievements of civilization in the History of humankind, the abolition of exploitation of man by man.Following this, after World War II, state power was seized, in order for socialist construction to take

place, in a series of countries in Europe, Asia, as well as the American continent, in Cuba.

Despite the various problems of socialist countries, the socialist system of the 20th century provedits superiority over capitalism and the huge advantages that it provides for peoples lives andworking conditions.

The Soviet Union and the world socialist system constituted the only real counterweight toimperialist aggression.
http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_B._Theoretical_positions_on%20Socialihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_B._Theoretical_positions_on%20Socialihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_C._Socialism_in_the%20USSR%20-%20Causes%20ohttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_C._Socialism_in_the%20USSR%20-%20Causes%20ohttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_economy%20during%20thhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_economy%20during%20thhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Conclusions_concerning_the_role%20ofhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Conclusions_concerning_the_role%20ofhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_The_development_of_Soviet%20Powerhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Developments_in_the_International%20Chttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_stance%20of%20Kkehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_stance%20of%20Kkehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_D._The_necessity_and%20relevance%20of%20Shttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_D._The_necessity_and%20relevance%20of%20Shttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_D._The_necessity_and%20relevance%20of%20Shttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_The_Necessity_and_Relevance%20of%20Socihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_The_Necessity_and_Relevance%20of%20Socihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Enrichment_of_our_programmatic%20conchttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Enrichment_of_our_programmatic%20conchttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Epiloguehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Epiloguehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Epiloguehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Enrichment_of_our_programmatic%20conchttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_The_Necessity_and_Relevance%20of%20Socihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_D._The_necessity_and%20relevance%20of%20Shttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_D._The_necessity_and%20relevance%20of%20Shttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_stance%20of%20Kkehttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Developments_in_the_International%20Chttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_The_development_of_Soviet%20Powerhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Conclusions_concerning_the_role%20ofhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_Assessment_of_the_economy%20during%20thhttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_C._Socialism_in_the%20USSR%20-%20Causes%20ohttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_B._Theoretical_positions_on%20Socialihttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialishttp://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism#_A._The_contribution_of%20the%20Socialis


2/48

The role of the Soviet Union in the Anti-fascist Peoples victory, during World War II, was decisive.The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) crushed the German and allied forces militarymachine who had invaded Soviet territory. It liberated a series of countries in Europe from theGerman occupation forces. More than 20 million Soviet citizens gave their life for the socialist

homeland while 10 million were disabled or wounded. The extent of material devastation to Sovietterritory was enormous.

The victories of the Red Army significantly propelled the development of national liberation and anti-fascist movements, which were led by Communist Parties. In many countries of Central and EasternEurope, the anti-fascist struggle, with the decisive contribution of the Red Army, led to the overthrowof bourgeois rule.

The socialist system provided historic examples of internationalist solidarity to peoples who werefighting against exploitation, foreign occupation and imperialist intervention; it decisively contributedto the dissolution of the colonial system and to the limitation of military confrontations and conflicts.

The achievements of workers in the socialist states were a point of reference for many decades andcontributed to the gains won by the working class and the popular movement in capitalist societies.The international balance of forces that was formed after World War II forced capitalist states, to acertain degree, to back down and to manoeuvre in order to restrain the revolutionary line of struggleand to create conditions in which they could assimilate the working class movement.

The abolition of capitalist relations of production freed mankind from the bonds of wage slavery andopened the road for the production and development of the sciences with the goal of satisfyingpeoples needs. In this way, everyone had guaranteed work, public free health care and educat ion,the provision of cheap services from the state, housing, and access to intellectual and culturalpursuits.

In 1913, the farmers, workers and employees of the Russian Empire held 53% of the nationalincome, while the exploiting classes held 47%; that is almost one half. After the Great OctoberSocialist Revolution, the share of the income not coming from labour fell sharply; however in 1927-28, the exploitative elements still expropriated 8.1% of the national income. By the mid-1930s, thetotal state income belonged entirely to the workers.i[1]

The complete eradication of the terrible legacy of illiteracy in combination with the increase in thegeneral level of education and specialization and the abolition of unemployment, constitute uniqueachievements of socialism. In the Soviet Union, according to a 1970 census survey, more than 3/4of the working population of the cities and 50% of workers in the rural areas had completed mid-

level or higher educationii[2].

The USSR, during its 24 year course before the Nazi assault, realized important steps in itsindustrial and economic development, trying to overcome the backwardness that it had inheritedfrom capitalism.

The cultural revolution, as an inseparable element of socialist construction, gave working people thepossibility of knowing and experiencing the achievements of human culture.


3/48

In the Soviet Union in 1975 it was guaranteed by law that the hours of work could not surpass 41hours per weekiii[3], one of the least in the world. All workers were guaranteed days for rest andrelaxation and annual paid holidays.

Free time was extended and its content was changed. Free time was no longer time for thereproduction of the labour power commodity, in order to keep it fit for capitalist exploitation. Workerswere given the opportunity to utilize their free time in order to raise their cultural and educationallevel, and to participate in workers power and the administration of production.

Social Security for working people was of outmost priority for the socialist state. A comprehensivesystem of retirement benefits with the important achievement of low age limits for retirement (55years for women, 60 for men) was created. Funding for the state retirement fund was guaranteedthrough the state budget fiscal appropriations) and insurance contributions from enterprises andfoundations. Similar conditions prevailed in the rest of the European socialist states.

Socialist power laid the foundation for the abolition of inequality for women, overcoming the greatdifficulties that objectively existed. Socialism ensured in practice the social character of motherhoodand socialized childcare. It instituted equal rights for women and men in the economic, political andcultural realm, without of course meaning that all forms of unequal relations between the twogenders that had developed over such a long period of time could be removed immediately.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolutionary workers power, as a state that expressed theinterests of the social majority of exploited people, and not of the minority of exploiters, proved itselfa superior form of democracy. For the first time in History the unit of production could become thenucleus of democracy, with the representative participation of working people in power andadministration, the possibility to elect and recall representatives amongst themselves to participatein the higher levels of power. Workers power de-marginalized the masses and a vast number ofmass organizations were developed: trade union, cultural and educational where the majority of thepopulation was organized.

Bourgeois and opportunist propaganda, speaking of lack of freedom and anti-democratic regimes,projects the concepts of democracy and freedom in their bourgeois content, identifyingdemocracy with bourgeois parliamentarism and freedom with bourgeois individualism and privatecapitalist ownership. The real essence of freedom and democracy under capitalism is the economiccoercion of wage slavery and the dictatorship of capital generally in society and especially insidecapitalist enterprises. Our critical approach regarding workers and peoples control and participationhas no relation whatsoever to the bourgeois and opportunist approaches of democracy in theUSSR.

The October Revolution launched a process of equality between nations and nationalities within theframework of a giant multinational state and provided the direction for the resolution of the nationalproblem by abolishing national oppression in all its forms and manifestations. This process wasundermined however, during the course of the erosion of communist relations and was completelystopped with the counter-revolutionary developments in the 1980s.


4/48

The socialist states made serious efforts to develop forms of cooperation and economic relationsbased on the principle of proletarian internationalism. With the founding in 1949 of the Council ofMutual Assistance (CMA) an effort was made to form a new, unprecedented type of internationalrelations that was based on principles of equality, of mutual benefit and mutual aid between statesthat were building socialism. One subject requiring further research is that of the relations between

the member states of the CMA, as well as, the economic relations between the member states ofthe CMA with capitalist states, especially during the period when socialist construction began toretreat.

The gains that were undoubtedly achieved in the socialist states, in comparison to their startingpoint as well as in comparison to the living standard of working people in the capitalist world, provethat socialism holds intrinsic potential for dramatic and continual improvement in the lives ofhumankind and the development of the human personality.

The level of development of socialism in each revolutionary workers state was not the same and toa large extent was dependent on the level of capitalist development that existed when power wasseized - an issue that must be taken under consideration when assessments and comparisons aremade.

The most significant fact, however, is that the historic leap that was attempted and accomplishedwith the October Revolution in Russia as the starting point, gave an important momentum to thedevelopment of man, as the main productive force, in his scientific and technological achievements,in the advancement of his living standards, educational and cultural level.

What was historically new, was that this development concerned the masses as a whole, in contrastto capitalist development which is intertwined with exploitation and social injustice, with greatdevastation such as that, which occurred with the native populations in the American continent, in Australia, with the massive slavery system in the USA in the previous centuries, with colonialexploitation, with the anarchy of production and the ensuing destruction of the great economiccrises, with imperialist wars, child labour and so much more.

The contribution and the superiority of socialist construction in the USSR should be judged incorrelation with the imperialist strategy of encirclement that caused great destruction, continuousobstacles and threats. The imperialist strategy took various forms during different periods ofrevolutionary workers power (direct imperialist attack in 1918 and 1941, declaration of the Cold Warin 1946, differentiated political diplomatic relations in relation to other states of Central and EasternEurope).

This fact does not annul the need to focus our attention to internal conditions, to the economic-

political relations, with the decisive role of the subjective factor in the dominance, development andsupremacy of the new social relations.

B. Theoretical positions on Socialism as the first, lower stageof Communism


5/48

2. Socialism is the first stage of the communist socio-economic formation; it is not an independentsocio-economic formation. It is an immature, undevelopedcommunism.

The complete establishment of communist relations requires the overcoming of the elements ofimmaturity that characterize its lower stage, socialism.

Immature communism signifies that communist relations in production and distribution have not yetfully prevailed.

The basic law of the communist mode of production is valid: Production for the extendedsatisfaction of social needs.

The concentrated means of production are socialized, but in the beginning there still remain forms ofindividual and group ownership that constitute the base for the existence of commodity-moneyrelations.

A large part of the social product for individual consumption is distributed based on labour, and noton needs, according to the principle, to each according to his labour, while each one worksaccording to his abilities. Under conditions of developed communism the principle thatpredominates is: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs for the totalityof the social product.

Under socialism, there still continue to exist social inequalities, social stratification, significantdifferences or even contradictions, such as those between city and country, intellectual workers andmanual labourers, specialized and unspecialized workers. All of these inequalities must becompletely eradicated, gradually and in a planned way.

The more immature socialist development is, the more the educational and technological level of themass of workers does not yet permit their substantive role in the organization of labour, in theirperception of the different segments of the production process, in the administrative work. Underthese conditions, workers in management positions tend to isolate the individual interest and theinterest of the production unit from the social interest, while workers performing intellectual laborand having a high scientific specialization tend to lay claim to a larger share of the total socialproduct, since the communist stance towards labour has not yet prevailed.

In order for the communist mode of production to be extended, develop and entirely prevail, theclass struggle of the working class must continue under new conditions, with other forms andmeans in relation to the struggle that was carried out under capitalism and during the first period of

revolutionary power where capitalist relations are being abolished. It is an ongoing battle for theabolition of every form of group and individual ownership, as well as, of the petit bourgeoisconsciousness that has deep historical roots; it is a struggle for the formation of the analogoussocial consciousness and stance corresponding to the social character of work. For this reason, theexistence of a state that is the revolutionary power of the working class, the dictatorship of theproletariat, is necessary.


6/48

The leap that takes place during the revolutionary period of the transition from capitalism todeveloped communism is qualitatively superior from any previous one, since communist relations,which are not of an exploitative nature, are not shaped within the framework of capitalism.

It is a struggle of the seeds of the new against the vestiges of the old system in all spheres of

social life. The struggle for the change of all the economic relations and by extension, all the socialrelations, into communist relations, means that the social revolution cannot be restricted only to theseizure of power or the formation of an initial economic base, but must be extended throughout theentire period of socialism.

3. Socialist construction is an uninterrupted process, which starts with the seizure of power by theworking class. In the beginning, the new mode of production is formed which essentially prevailswith the complete abolition of capitalist relations, the relation of capital to wage labour.Subsequently, communist relations and the new type of man develop further to a level thatguarantees their irreversible domination.

Socialist construction contains the possibility of a reversal of its course and a retreat backwards tocapitalism, as a defeat of the struggle for the full development of the new communist relationsagainst the remnants of the old capitalist relations. Such a retreat is not a new phenomenon insocial development and in every case it constitutes a temporary phenomenon in its History. It is anirrefutable fact that no socio-economic system has ever been immediately consolidated in thehistory of humankind. The passage from a lower phase of development to a higher one is not astraight forward ascending process. This is shown by the very history of the prevalence ofcapitalism.iv[4]

4. We consider as flawed the approach that, speaking of transitional societies, assignsautonomous characteristics and a long-term existence to the period of transition from capitalism to

socialism (construction of the base of the new socio-economic formation). Starting from thisviewpoint the current systems in China and Vietnam are interpreted as transitional multi-sectoralsocieties, in which communist relations co-exist with exploitative relations of production fordecades.

We do not overlook the special characteristics of the period which in Marxist bibliography is knownas the transitional period, during which the socialist revolution seeks victory, a possible civil wardevelops, the sharp struggle of communist relations that are just beginning to develop againstcapitalist exploitative relations, which have still not been abolished, is waged. The duration of thisperiod depends on the backwardness that socialism has inherited from capitalism. Historicalexperience has shown that this period cannot last for a long time. In the USSR this period was

completed by the middle of the 1930s. The struggle with capitalist relations, the difficulties in theconstruction of a socialist base were sharpened due to the feudal and patriarchal inheritance in theformer colonies of Tsarist Russia. Lenin, in his time, stressed that in countries where industry ismore developed, the transitional measures towards socialism are restricted or in some casesbecome completely unnecessary.


7/48

The so-called transitional period is not independentfrom the process of socialist construction, sinceit is during its course that the basis is established for the development of a communist society in itsfirst phase.

5. The formation of a communist mode of production begins with the socialization of the

concentrated means of production, with central planning, with the allocation of the labour force inthe different branches of the economy, with the planned distribution of the social product.

On the basis of these new economic relations, the productive forces develop with rapid rates: manand the means of production, the organization of production and all of the economy. Socialistaccumulation is achieved, a new level of social prosperity. This new level makes possible thegradual extension of new relations in the area of productive forces that previously were not matureenough to be included in the directly social production.

Even more, the material prerequisites are formed for the abolition of the differentiation in theallocation of the social product among the workers of the state (social) sector.

The complete dominance of communist relations, the passage to the higher phase of the newsocio-economic formation requires the abolition, not only of capitalist ownership but also of everyform of private and group ownership over the means of production and the social product. Thecomplete eradication of the difference between town and country, that is the complete abolition ofclasses, the eradication of the difference between manual and intellectual labour, one of the mostprofound roots of social inequalityv[5] which must be abolished, the complete extinction of nationalconflicts.

In accordance with the all-encompassing social law of the correspondence between relations ofproduction with the level of the development of the productive forces, each historically new level of

development of productive forces that is initially achieved by socialist construction, demands afurther revolutionisation of relations of production and all economic relations, in the direction oftheir complete transformation to communist relations, by means of revolutionary policies. As wasshown in practice, whatever delay or even more importantly, a retreat in the development ofcommunist relations leads to a sharpening of the contradiction between productive forces andrelations of productions. On this basis, the aforementioned social contradictions and differentiations

may develop into social antagonisms and lead to a sharpening of the class struggle . In socialismthere exists an objective base that under certain conditions allows for social forces to act aspotential bearers of exploitative relations, as was witnessed in the USSR in the 1980s.

6. The development of the communist mode of production in its first stage, socialism, is a processby which the allocation of the social product in a monetary form is abolished. Communist production even in its immature stage is directly social production: the division of labour does not take placefor exchange, it is not effected through the market, and the products of labour that are individuallyconsumed are not commodities.

The division of labour in the socialized means of production is based on a plan that organizesproduction and determines its proportions with the aim of satisfying social needs, and thedistribution of goods (use values). In other words, it is a centrally planned division of social labour


8/48

and directly integrates - not via the market - individual labour, as part of the total social labour.Central planning distributes the total societal working time, so that the different functions of labourare in correct proportions in order to satisfy different social needs.

The concept of planning should not be understood as a techno-economic tool, but as a communist

relation of production and allocation that links workers to the means of production, to socialistbodies. It includes a consciously planned choice of motives and goals for production, not with thegoal of commodity exchange, but with the goal of the planned extended satisfaction of social needs(basic economic law of the communist mode of production).

One essential problem of central planning is the complex issue of the determin ation of socialneeds, especially under international conditions, where capitalism shapes a rather warpedconception of what social needs really are.

Social needs are determined based on the level of development of the productive forces that havebeen achieved in the given historical period. These needs must be understood in their historicalcontext, changing in relationship with the development of the productive forces. Likewise, the way inwhich the basic law of communism is realized must develop, with the immediate goal of overcomingthe inadequacies and the inequalities that exist in the covering of social needs.

7. A basic characteristic of the first stage of communist relations is the distribution of one part ofproduced goods according to labour. The measure of work has created a theoretical and politicaldebate. The distribution of a section of socialist production according to labour (which in terms ofform resembles commodity exchange) is a vestige of capitalism. The new mode of production hasnot managed to discard it yet, because it has not developed all of the human productive powernecessary and all the means of production in their proper dimensions, with the broad use of newtechnology. Labour productivity does not yet allow a decisively great reduction of labour time, the

abolition of heavy labour and of one-sided labour, so that the social need for compulsory labour isabolished.

The planned distribution of labour power and the means of production entails the planneddistribution of the social product. The distribution of the social product cannot happen through themarket, based on the laws and categories of commodity exchange.

According to Marx, the mode of distribution will change when the particular mode of the socialproductive organism and the corresponding historical level of development of the productive forceschangesvi[6] (e.g. these were at a certain level in the USSR in the 1930s, yet at a different level inthe USSR in the 1950s and 1960s).

Marxism clearly defines labour time as the measure of individual participation of the producer tocommon labour. Consequently, the labour time of the producer is also defined as a measure of theshare he deserves from the product that is destined for individual consumption and is distributedbased on labour.vii[7] Another part (education, healthcare, etc.) is already distributed based onneeds.


9/48

Time as a measure of work in socialist production must be viewed merely for the shake of aparallel with the production of commodities.viii[8]

Labour time under socialism is not the socially necessary labour time that constitutes ameasureme of value for the exchange of commodities in commodity production. Labour time is the

measure of individual contribution to social labour for the production of the total product. It is notedcharacteristically in Capital: In socialized production money capital gets out of the picture. Societydistributes labour power and the means of production to different branches of production. Theproducers would, if you so wish, receive paper vouchers with which they can take from the stock ofconsumption products of the society an amount analogous to the time they worked. These vouchersare not money. They do not circulate. ix[9]

Access to that part of the social product that is distributed according to labour is determined by theindividual work contribution of each person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishingbetween complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise. The measure of individual contribution islabour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social production, the materialconditions of the production process in which individual labour is included; the special needs ofsocial production for the concentration of labour force in certain areas, branches, etc.; the specialsocial needs, such as motherhood, individuals with special needs, etc.; the personal stance of eachindividual regarding the organization and the execution of the productive process. In other words,labour time must be linked to goals, such as the conservation of materials, the implementation ofmore productive technologies, a more rational organization of labour, workers control ofadministration-management.

The planned development of the productive forces in the communist mode of production shouldincreasingly free up more time from work, which should then be used to raise the educational-cultural level of working people; to allow for worker participation in the carrying out of their dutiesregarding workers power and management of production, etc. The comprehensive development ofman as the productive force in the building of a new type of society and of communist relations(including the communist stance towards directly social labour) is a two-way relationship. Dependingon the historical phase, either one or the other side will have priority.

The development of central planning and the extension of social ownership in all areas makesmoney gradually superfluous, removing its content as a form of value.

8. The product of individual and cooperative production, the greater part of which is derived fromagriculture, is exchanged with the socialist product by means of commodity-money relations.Cooperative production is subordinated to some extent to central planning, which determines the

plan for one part of the production and sets the state price.

The direction by which to resolve the differences between city and country, between industrial andagricultural production, is the merging of farmers-producers in the joint use of large tracts of land, forthe production of social product with the use of modern mechanization and other means ofscientific-technological progress for the enhancement of labour productivity, the creation of stronginfrastructure for the preservation of the product from unforeseen weather hazards, the subjection ofsocial labour for the production of agricultural raw materials and their industrial processing to unified


10/48

socialist organizations. This direction serves to transform the whole of agricultural production into apart of socialized production.

C. Socialism in the USSR - Causes of the victory of counter-

revolution

9. We studied the experience of the USSR because it constituted the vanguard of socialistconstruction. The further study of the course of socialism in the rest of the European states, as wellas of the course of socialist power in the Asian countries (China, Vietnam, DPR Korea) and in Cubais necessary.

The socialist character of the USSR is grounded on the following: the abolition of capitalist relationsof production, the existence of socialist ownership to which (despite various contradictions)cooperative ownership is subjugated, central planning, workers power and the unprecedentedachievements benefiting the whole working people.

These cannot be negated by the fact that, following a certain period, the Party gradually lost itsrevolutionary characteristics and as a result, counter-revolutionary forces were able to dominate theParty and the government in the 1980s.

We characterize the developments of 1989-1991 as a victory of counter-revolution, as an overthrowof socialist construction, as a social retreat. It is not accidental that these developments weresupported by international reaction, that socialist construction, especially during the period of theabolition of capitalist relations and the founding of socialism, up until the Second World War, drawsideological and political fire from international imperialism.

We reject the term collapse because it underestimates the extent of counter-revolutionary activity,the social base on which it can develop and predominate due to the weaknesses and deviations ofthe subjective factor during socialist construction.

The victory of counter-revolution in 1989-1991 does not reveal a lack of the minimal level ofdevelopment of the material pre-requisites necessary to begin socialist construction in Russia.

Marx noted that mankind does not set itself but the problems that it can solve, because the problemitself arises only when the material conditions for its solution have been born. From the moment thatthe working class, the main productive force, struggles to carry out its historic mission, even morewith the onset of the revolution, the productive forces have developed to the level of conflict with the

relations of production, with the capitalist mode of production, in other words, the materialprerequisites for socialism, upon which revolutionary conditions were shaped, exist.

Based on the statistical evidence from that period, capitalist relations of production at the monopolystage of their development predominated in Russia. It was on this material basis that revolutionarypower depended for the socialization of the concentrated means of production. x[10]


11/48

The working class of Russia, especially its industrial segment, founded the Soviets as organizationalnuclei for revolutionary action in the struggle to seize state power, under the guidance of the CP(Bolshevik). The Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of Lenin, was theoretically prepared for thesocialist revolution: analysis of the Russian society, the theory of the weak link in the imperialistchain, evaluation of the revolutionary situation, the theory for the dictatorship of the proletariat. It

showed a characteristic ability in serving its strategy with the corresponding at each stage of thedevelopment of the class struggle - tactics: alliances, slogans, manoeuvring, etc.

However, socialism faced additional specific difficulties, due to the fact that socialist constructionbegan in a country with a lower level of development of the productive forces (medium-weak, as V.I. Lenin characterized it) compared to the advanced capitalist countriesxi[11] and a large degree ofuneven distribution of development due to the extensive existence of pre-capitalist relationships.

Socialist construction began following the enormous war destruction of WW I and in the midst of thecivil war. Subsequently it faced the immense destruction of WW II, while capitalist powers, like theUSA, never experienced war within their borders. In contrast, they used war to overcome the bigeconomic crisis of the 1930s.

The gigantic economic and social development that was accomplished under these conditionsproves the superiority of the communist relations of production.

The developments do not confirm the assessments of several opportunist and petit bourgeoiscurrents. Social democratic viewpoints regarding the immaturity of the socialist revolution in Russiahave not been confirmed. Trotskyite positions claiming that it was impossible to construct socialismin the USSR were disproved. The viewpoint that the society that emerged after the OctoberRevolution was not socialist in character or that it quickly degenerated after the first years of itsexistence, and therefore that the interruption of the 70-year course of the history of the USSR wasinevitable, is subjective and cannot be backed up by the facts.

We oppose theories that claim that these societies were some sort of a new exploitative system ora form of state capitalism, as various opportunist currents claim.

Furthermore, the developments do not validate the overall stance of Maoist trends regardingsocialist construction in the USSR, the characterization of the USSR as social-imperialist, therapprochement with the USA, as well as the inconsistencies in matters of socialist construction inChina (e.g. the recognition of the national bourgeoisie as an ally of socialist construction, etc.).

Our own critical assessment considers as given the defence of the construction of socialism in theUSSR and other countries.

10. In studying counter-revolution in the USSR we prioritize the internal factors (without ignoringthe influence of external factors), because the counter-revolutionary overthrow did not result from animperialist military intervention, but rather from within and from the top, through the policies of theCP.

Based on the theory of scientific communism we formulated a study along the following lines:


12/48

The economy, that is, the developments in the relations of production and distribution insocialism as the basis for the emergence and the resolution of social contradictions anddifferentiations.

The operation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of the CP in socialistconstruction.

The strategy and developments in the international communist movement

11. The course of building a new society in the Soviet Union was determined by the ability of theBolshevik CP to fulfill its revolutionary, guiding role. First and foremost, to process and formulate therequisite revolutionary strategy at each step; to confront opportunism and to provide a decisiveresponse to the new, emergent demands and challenges of developing socialism-communism.

Up until World War II, the base of the new society was created: socialist production based on centralplanning prevailed and capitalist relations were abolished. The class struggle to abolish theexploiters was being carried out with success; impressive results were achieved concerning thegrowth of social prosperity.

After World War II, socialist construction entered a new phase. The Party was faced with newdemands and challenges regarding the development of socialism-communism. The 20 th Congressof the CPSU (1956) stands out as a turning point, since at that congress a series of opportunistpositions were adopted on economic issues, on the strategy of the communist movement and oninternational relations. The struggle that was taking place before the congress continued and wasthen consolidated by a turn in favor of the revisionist-opportunist positions,xii[12] with the result thatthe Party gradually began to lose its revolutionary characteristics. In the decade of the 1980s, withperestroika, opportunism fully developed into a traitorous, counter-revolutionary force. Theconsistent communist forces that reacted in the final phase of the betrayal, at the 28 th CPSUCongress, did not manage in a timely manner to expose it and to organize the revolutionary reaction

of the working class.

Assessment of the economy during the course of Socialist construction in the USSR

12. With the formulation of the first Plan of Central Planning, the following issues already came atthe center of the theoretical conflict and political struggle regarding the economy: Is socialistproduction commodity production? what is the role of the law of value, of commodity-moneyrelations under socialist construction? The discussion and polemics were interrupted by WW II;however they continued and sharpened after the war ended.

We consider as incorrect the theoretical approach that the law of value is a law of motion of the

communist mode of production in its first stage. This approach became dominant since the decadeof the 1950s in the USSR and in the majority of CPs. This position was strengthened due to theexpansion of non-capitalist commodity production, which objectively emerged through the plannedpassage from pre-capitalist relations in agricultural production to cooperative commodity-moneyones.

This material base exacerbated the theoretical shortcomings and weaknesses of the subjectivefactor in the formulation and implementation of central planning. A theoretical base was created for


13/48

opportunist policies which weakened central planning, eroded social ownership and strengthenedcounter-revolutionary forces.

13. The first period of socialist construction up until World War II faced the basic, primary problemof abolishing capitalist ownership and of handling in a planned fashion the social and economic

problems that were inherited from capitalism and were exacerbated by the imperialist encirclementand intervention.

From 1917-1940, Soviet power noted achievements for the most part. It carried out theelectrification and industrialization of production, the expansion of transport means, and themechanization of a large part of agricultural production. Planned production was initiated andachieved impressive rates in the development of socialist industrial production. It successfullydeveloped domestic productive capacities in all the industrial branches. Production cooperatives(kolkhoz) and state farms (sovkhoz) were created, and in this way the base for the expansion andthe predominance of communist relations in agricultural production was established. The culturalrevolution was realized. The shaping of a new generation of communist specialists and scientists

commenced. The most important achievement is the complete abolition of capitalist relations ofproduction, with the abolition of hired labor power, thus laying the foundation for the development ofcommunism.

14.The implementation of certain transitional measures, within the perspective of the completeabolition of capitalist relations, was inevitable in a country like Russia of the years 1917-1921.

The factors that forced the Bolshevik CP to implement a temporary policy to preserve to a certainextent capitalist production relations were: the class composition, where the petit bourgeois agrarianelement was in the majority, the lack of a distribution, supply and monitoring mechanism, backwardsmall-sized production and mainly, the dramatic worsening of sustenance and living conditions due

to the destruction caused by the civil war and the imperialist intervention. All these factors made thedevelopment of medium-term central planning difficult at that point.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) that was implemented following the civil war had the basic goal ofrestoring industry following the ravages of war and on this base to build in the field of agriculturalproduction relations that would attract farmers into the cooperatives. It consituted a policy oftemporary concessions to capitalism. A number of companies were given over to capitalists for use(without them having ownership rights over these companies), trade was developed, the exchangebetween agricultural production and the socialized industry was regulated based on the concept ofthe tax in kind. The possibility was granted to peasants to put on the market the remaining portionof agricultural production.

These maneuverings and temporary concessions to capitalist relations that are demanded undercertain circumstances and special conditions are not in any way an inevitable characteristic of theprocess of socialist construction. The NEP was used in the decade of the 1980s as a cover-up tojustify the historic reversal from socialism to capitalism carried out by the policies of Perestroika .

15. The new phase of development of the productive forces at the end of the decade of 1920sallowed the replacement of NEP by the policy of socialist attack against capitalism that had as its


14/48

main goal the complete abolition of capitalist relations. Concessions towards capitalists werewithdrawn and the policy of collectivization was developed, that is the complete cooperativeorganization of the agricultural economy, mainly in its developed form, the kolkhozxiii[13]. At thesame time, the sovkhozes, the state-socialist units in agricultural production that were based on themechanization of production and whose entire product was social property, were developed (albeit

in a limited way)xiv[14]

.

The first five-year plan began in 1928, 7 years after the victory of revolution (the civil The first five-year plan began in 1928, 7 years after the victory of revolution (the civil war ended in 1921). Sovietpower experienced difficulty in formulating a central plan for the socialist economy from the verybeginning, mainly due to the continuing existence of capitalist relations (NEP) and an exceptionallylarge number of individual commodity producers, mainly farmers. Weaknesses were also evident inthe subjective factor, the Party, which did not have cadre specialists to guide the organization ofproduction and was thus obliged for a certain time period to depend almost exclusively on bourgeoisspecialists.

The specific conditions (imperialist encirclement, the threat of war in combination with greatbackwardness) forced the promotion of collectivization at accelerated rates, which sharpened theclass struggle, especially in the rural areas.

Despite the mistakes and certain bureaucratic exaggerations in the development of thecollectivization movement in agricultural production, that were in any case noted in Party decisionsxv[15], the orientation of Soviet power for the reinforcement and the generalization of this movementwas in the correct direction. It aimed to develop a transitional form of ownership (cooperative) thatwould contribute to the transformation of small individual commodity production into socializedproduction.

16. The policy of socialisms attack against capitalism was carried out under conditions of intenseclass struggle. The kulaks (the bourgeois class in the village), social strata that benefited from theNEP (NEPmen), sections of the intelligentsia who originated from the old exploiting classes; allthese reacted in many ways, with actions of sabotage against industry (e.g. the Shakhtyaffairxvi[16]) and counter-revolutionary actions in the villages. These class-based, anti-socialistinterests were reflected in the CP, where opportunist currents developed.

The two basic opposition tendencies (Trotsky Bukharin), that operated during that period, had acommon base in absolutiizing the element of backwardness in Soviet society and during the decadeof the 1930s their views converged as to how the problems of the Soviet economy should beconfronted. Their positions were rejected by the AUCP (Bolshevik) and were not confirmed by

reality.xvii[17]

Along the way, several opportunist forces united with openly counter-revolutionary forces that wereorganizing plans to overthrow Soviet power in cooperation with secret services from imperialistcountriesxviii[18].

The fact that some leading cadre of the Party and of Soviet power spearheaded opportunist currentsindicates that it is possible even for vanguard cadre to deviate, to weaken when faced with the


15/48

sharpness of the class struggle and to finally severe their ties with the communist movement and goon to align themselves with the counter-revolution.

17. Two basic currents developed in the theory and the policies among party cadre andeconomists. The consistent current of Marxist thought and politics, under the leadership of Stalin,

recognized that the law of value was inconsistent with the fundamental laws governing socialistproduction, which is not commodity production. It argued that: the operation of the law of value (ofcommodity-money relations) in the USSR had its roots in cooperative and individual agriculturalproduction. The law of value does not regulate socialist production distribution. The consumerproducts are produced and consumed as commodities.xix[19] The means of production are notcommodities, despite the fact that they appear as commodities in form but not in content. Theybecome commodities only in external trade.xx[20]

Polemics were waged against market economists and political leaders who believed that theproducts of socialist production are commodities whether they are destined for individualconsumption or for the productive process, and maintained that the law of value is generally a law of

the socialist economy as well. In this regard characteristic is the rejection of the positions ofVoznesensky (head of GOSPLAN)xxi[21]that the law of value operates not only in the distribution of products, but also in the distribution of labour itself among the different branches of the nationaleconomy of the USSR. In this sphere, the state plan utilizes the law of value to guarantee thecorrect distribution of social labour among the different branches of the economy in the interest ofsocialism. xxii[22]

At the same time, due criticism was placed on the economists who supported the complete abolitionof allocation in monetary form, without taking into account the objective restrictions imposed by theproductive base of society at that time.

In his work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSRxxiii[23], I.V. Stalin refers, quite correctly,to the fact that under socialism the contradiction between the productive forces that are developingand the relations of production that are lagging behind also manifests itself. He considered that inthe USSR cooperative ownership (kolkhoz) and the circulation of products of individual consumptionin the form of commodities had begun to act as a brake on the powerful development of theproductive forces, because they blocked the complete development of central planning in the fullextent of productionallocation. He outlined the differences between the two cooperating classes,the working class and the kolkhoz agrarian class, but also the need to abolish them through theplanned abolition of commodification in agricultural production.xxiv[24]

The consistent current supported the acceleration of the socialization of agricultural production by

the merging of the small kolkhozes into bigger ones xxv[25] and the gradual transformation of thekolkhozes into sovkhozes, with the first step being the allotment of all agricultural production to thestate.

Concerning the issue of the conflict relative to the proportions between Subdivision I of socialproduction (production of the means of production) and Subdivision II (production of consumerproducts), this current supported, correctly, that the main criterion for the planned proportionaldistribution of labour and of production among the different branches of socialist industry should be


16/48

the precedence of Subdivision I. Expanded reproduction, socialist accumulation (social wealth)necessary for the future expansion of social prosperity, are are dependent on this category ofproduction (Subdivision I).

A weak point of the revolutionary current was the incomplete interpretation of the relations of

distribution, regarding that part of the social product that is distributed in proportion to labour.

18. Following World War II, the discussion on the economy continued and sharpened. A conflictdeveloped around the interpretation of certain problems xxvi[26]. We consider as correct the positionof the soviet leadership taken at the beginning of the decade of the 1950s, that the problems at theeconomic level were an expression of the sharpening of the contradiction between the productiveforces that were developing and the relations of production that were lagging behind. Thedevelopment of the productive forces had reached a new level after the post-war reconstruction ofthe economy. A new dynamic stimulus to the further development of the productive forcesdemanded a deepening and extension of communist relations.The delay of the later concerned:central planning, the deepening of the communist character of the relations of distribution, a more

energetic and conscious workers participation in the organization of work and in the control of itsadministration from the bottom up, the transformation of cooperative relations of ownership (next towhich private commodity ownership survived) into social ownership.

The need had matured for communist relations to be expanded, consciously,in a well-plannedmanner, that is theoretically and politically prepared, and to predominate in those fields of socialproduction where, in the previous period, their full dominance was still not possible (from the point ofview of their material maturity, the productivity of labour).

Social resistance (kolkhoz farmers, executives in industry) to this perspective was expressed on anideological and political level in an internal party struggle. The sharpened debate, which resulted in

the theoretical acceptance of the law of value as a law of socialism, signified political choices withmore immediate and more powerful consequences on the course of the development ofcommunism, in comparison with the pre-war period, when the material backwardness made theeffect of these theoretical positions less painful.

After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, political choices were gradually adopted that widenedcommodity-money (potentially capitalist) relations, in the name of correcting weaknesses in centralplanning and the administration of socialist bodies (enterprises).

In order to solve the problems that arose in the economy, ways and means were used that belongedto the past. With the promotion of market policies, instead of reinforcing social ownership and

central planning, the homogenization of the working class (with the widening of the abilities andpossibilities for multi-specialization, for alternation in the technical division of labour), workerscontrol and participation in the organization of labour, so that it would begin to develop intocommunist self-administration, the reverse trend began to develop, with the corresponding effect ofcourse at the level of social consciousness. The previous experience and the effectiveness of thefactory soviet, the Stakhanovite movement in quality control, the more effective organization andadministration, clever inventions for the conservation of material and work time, were not utilized.


17/48

The market economists (Lieberman, Nemtsinov, Trapeznikov, etc.) mistakenly interpreted theexisting problems of the economy, not as subjective weaknesses in planning xxvii[27], but asconsequences stemming from the objective weakness of central planning to respond to thedevelopment of the volume of production and its new capabilities, to the development of multi-faceted needs.

They claimed that the theoretical cause was the voluntarist denial of the commodity character ofproduction under socialism, the undervaluation of the development of agriculture, the overestimationof the possibility of subjective intervention in economic administration.

They maintained that it was not possible for the central organs to determine quality, technology, theprices of all commodities, and salaries, but that the use of market mechanisms was also necessaryin order to facilitate the goals of a planned economy. They argued that the problems of adaptation ofthe volume and structure of production to the needs of consumption and the problems of inter-branch proportions could be dealt with through the influence of demand and of the prices that aredetermined based on the law of value.

Gradually, at a theoretical level, theories of socialist commodity production or socialism with amarket, the acceptance of the law of value as a law of the communist mode of production, whichoperates even in the phase of developed socialist construction, prevailed. These theoriesconstituted the base for the formulation of economic policies.xxviii[28]

19.The political weakening of central planning and social ownership came to a climax after the 20thcongress. Instead of planning the transformation of the kolkhozes into sovkhozes, in 1958 thetractors and other machineryxxix[29] passed into the ownership of the kolkhozxxx[30] at a time whentheir production had developed adequately and when approximetely 10 tractors corresponded toeach kolkhoz. The directive that had been promulgated in the early 1950s for the development, on

the initiative of the communists, of a broad movement of kolkhoz members for the unification ofsmall kolkhozes into bigger ones, was revised in practice.

In 1957, the branch ministries that directed industrial production in the USSR and at each republicwere dissolved and the Organs of Regional Administration Sovnarkhoz (Regional EconomicCouncils) were formed. In this way the central direction of planning was weakened.xxxi[31].

These changes not only did not solve the problems, but, on the contrary, they brought newproblems to the surface or created additional ones, such as a shortage in animal feed, the

abandonment of technological renewal in the kolkhoz.In the mid 1960s, mistakes of a subjective nature in the administration of the agricultural sector of

the economy were pinpointed as the cause of the problemsxxxii[32].

Subsequent reforms included: The reduction in the quantities given to the state by thekolkhozxxxiii[33], the possibility of selling the excess quantities at higher prices, the lifting of therestrictions on the transactions of the kolkhoz households and of the tax on private animalownership. Debts of the kolkhozes to the State Bank were erased, the deadlines to pay off debtfrom monetary advancements were extended, the sale of animal feed directly to private animalowners was permitted. Thus, the portion of agricultural production which came from individual


18/48

households and the kolkhozes and which was sold freely on the market was preserved andincreasedxxxiv[34] while the lagging behind of livestock production deepened, the unevenness in thesatisfaction of the needs in agricultural products between the various regions and Republics of theUSSR increased.

A similar policy of reinforcing the commodity (at the expense of the directly social) character ofproduction was implemented in industry, known as the Kosygin Reformsxxxv[35], (The system ofself-management ofenterprises - with a substantive and not formal character). It was argued thatthis would combat the reduction in the annual rate of increase of labour productivity and of annualproduction, that were observed during the first years of the 1960s, as a result of the measures whichundermined central planning in the direction of the industrial sectors (Sovnarkhoz-1957).

The first wave of reforms was launched during the interval between the 23 rd (1966) and 24th (1971)Congresses.

According to the New System, the additional remunerations (bonuses) for directors would becalculated not on the basis of the overfulfillement of the production plan in terms of volume ofproductionxxxvi [36], but rather on the basis of the overfulfillement of the sales plan and would bedependent on the rate of profit of the enterprise.

A part of the additional remuneration of the workers would also come from profit, as would thefurther satisfaction of housing needs etc. In this way, profit was adopted as a motive for production.The wage differentiations increased.

The possibility was provided for horizontal commodity-money transactions between enterprises, fordirect agreements with consumer units and commercial organizations, for price-fixing, for theformation of profits on the basis of these transactions, etc.

The Central Plan would determine the total level of production and investments only for newenterprises. Modernisation of old enterprises would be financed out of the profits of the enterprises.

This theoretical sliding and the corresponding political retreat in the USSR came during a newphase of a further development of the productive forces, which demanded more effective incentivesand indices of central planning and in its sectoral, cross-sectoral and enterprise levelimplementation. That is, it necessitated a corresponding development of central planning in thedirection of strengthening the communist mode of production.

Through the market reforms, through the detachment of the socialist production unit from centralplanning, the socialist character of ownership over the means of production was weakened. The

possibility was created for the violation of the principle of distribution according to work.

At the same time, proposals and plans for the use of computers and information technologyxxxvii[37]which could have contributed to the improvement in the technical processing of data, in order toimprove the observation and control of production through physical indicators, were rejected.

The 24th CPSU Congress (1971), with its directives on the formulation of the 9th 5-Year plan (1971-1975), reversed the proportional priority of Subdivision I over Subdivision II. The reversal of


19/48

proportion had been proposed at the 20 th Congress, but had not been accepted. The modificationwas rationalized as a choice reinforcing the level of popular consumption. In reality, it was a choicethat violated socialist law and had negative consequences on the growth of labour productivity. Thedevelopment of labour productivity a fundamental element for the increase of social wealth, thesatisfaction of needs and the all-round development of man presupposes the development of the

means of production. Planning should have dealt with greater efficacy with the following need: theintroduction of contemporary technology in industry, in transport services, storage and distribution ofproducts.

This choice to overturn the proportions not only did not help to deal with contradictions that hadbeen expressed (e.g. the excess income in money form and the lack of an adequate amount ofconsumer goods, such as electronic household appliances, colour TVs ), but distanced centralplanning from its basic goal (the rise of social prosperity). It further aggravated the contradictionbetween the level of development of the productive forces and the level of the communist relationsof production-distribution.

The period when Andropov was the GS of the CC of the CPSU (November 1982-February 1984),which preceded the period of perestroika, is too brief to be definitively judged. Nevertheless, inarticles and documents of the CPSU of this period, references are being made to the need tointensify the struggle against bourgeois and reformist views concerning socialist construction, aswell as to the need for vigilance vis--vis the sabotage of imperialism.

In the 1980s, at the political level, the decisions of the 27th Congress (1986) constituted a furtheropportunist choice. Subsequently, the counterrevolution was also promoted through the passing ofthe law (1987), which institutionally legitimised capitalist economic relations, under the guise of theacceptance of various forms of ownership.In the beginning of the 1990s the social democratic approach of the planned market economy (theplatform of the CC of the CPSU at the 28th Congress) was speedily abandoned in favour of theposition of the regulated market economy and this was further replaced by the free marketeconomy.

20. The direction which held sway can be judged today not only theoretically, but also by theresults. After two decades of the application of these reforms, the problems had clearly sharpened.Stagnation reared its head for the first time in the history of socialist construction. Technologicalbackwardness continued to be a reality for the majority of industries. Shortages appeared in manyconsumer products, as well as additional problems within the market, because enterprises werecausing an artificial rise in prices, by hoarding commodities in warehouses or by supplying them incontrolled quantities.

The ever increasing involvement of market elements in the directly social production of socialismwas weakening it. It led to a fall in the dynamics of socialist development, strengthened the short-term individual and group interests (with significant income differentials among the workers in eachenterprise, between the workers and the managerial mechanism, between different enterprises),against the overall interests of society. In the course of time, the social conditions were created forthe counterrevolution to flourish and finally prevail using perestroika as its vehicle.


20/48

Through these reforms the possibility was created for monetary amounts which had beenaccumulated primarily through illegal means (smuggling, etc), to be invested in the black (illegal)market. These opportunities concerned primarily officials in the management layers of enterprisesand sectors, the cadre of foreign trade. Data regarding the so-called Para-economy were alsoprovided by the Procurator General of the USSR. According to these statistics, a significant

proportion of the cooperative or state agricultural production was also channelled to the consumersby illegal means.

The income differentiation among the individual agricultural producers, the kolkhozniks, widened, aswell as the opposition to the tendency to strengthen the social character of agricultural production.Those agricultural producers who were getting rich were strengthened as a layer of society whichwas an obstacle to socialist construction.

The social differentiations in industry was even more intense through the concentration ofenterprise profits. The so-called shadow capital, the result not only of enterprise profits, but alsoof the black market, of criminal acts of embezzlement of the social product, sought a legalfunctioning as capital in production, i.e. the privatisation of the means of production, the re-establishment of capitalism. The owners of this capital formed the driving social force of the

counterrevolution. They utilised their position in the state and party mechanisms , the support ofsectors of the population which were vulnerable to the influence of bourgeois ideology and towavering e.g. a significant part of the intelligentsia, sections of the youth, especially students, whofor different reasons were dissatisfied xxxviii[38]. These forces directly or indirectly influenced theParty, strengthening its opportunist erosion and its counterrevolutionary degeneration, which wasexpressed through the policies of perestroika and sought the institutional consolidation of capitalistrelations. This was achieved after the perestroika, with the overthrow of socialism.

Conclusions concerning the role of the Communist Party in the process of Socialist

construction

21.The indispensable role of the Party in the process of the socialist construction is expressed inits leadership of working class state-power, in the mobilisation of masses to participate in thisprocess.

The working class is formed as the leading force of this new state power, first and foremost throughits Party.

The struggle for the development of the new society is carried out by the revolutionary workerspower with the communist party, which utilises the laws of motion of socialist-communist society, as

its guiding nucleus. The human being, becoming the master of the social processes, passesgradually from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. From this flows the higher roleof the subjective factor in relation to all the preceding socio-economic formations, where humanactivity was dominated by the spontaneous enforcement of social laws based on the spontaneousdevelopment of the relations of production.


21/48

Consequently, the scientific class nature of the policies of the CP is a crucial precondition forsocialist construction. To the extent that these features are lost, opportunism sets in which if it is notdealt with will in time develop into a counterrevolutionary force.

The duty to develop the communist relations of production requires the development of the theory of

scientific communism through the utilisation of scientific study by the CP for class orientedpurposes, the study of the laws of motion of the communist socio-economic formation. Experiencehas shown that the governing parties, in the USSR and other socialist states, did not fulfil this tasksuccessfully.

Class consciousness in the whole working class does not develop spontaneously or in a unifiedmanner. The rise of the communist consciousness of the masses of the working class is determinedabove all by the strengthening of the communist relations of production and by the level of workingclass participation with the leadership of the CP which is the main vehicle for the spread ofrevolutionary consciousness amongst the masses. Along with this material base, ideological workmust become rooted, the impact of the revolutionary party which consolidates its leading role to theextent to which it mobilises the working class to construct socialism.

The consciousness of the vanguard must always be ahead of the consciousness shaped on a massscale within the working class by the economic relations. From this arises the necessity for the Partyto have a high theoretical-ideological level and toughness, to be unwavering in the struggle againstopportunism, not only under the conditions of capitalism, but even more so under the conditions ofsocialist construction.

22.The opportunist turn which held sway since the 1950s after the 2nd world war, the gradual lossof the revolutionary role of the Party, confirm that the danger of the development of deviations insocialist society never disappears. Beyond the imperialist encirclement and its undoubtedly negative

impact, the social basis of opportunism remains as long as forms of private and group ownershipremain, as long as commodity-money relations remain, as well as social differentiations. Thematerial basis for opportunism will continue to exist for the entire duration of socialist constructionand as long as capitalism, particularly the powerful capitalist states, remain on the Earth.

The new phase after the 2nd world war found the Party weakened ideologically and in class terms,with massive losses of cadre experienced and hardened in the class struggle, with theoreticalweaknesses in response to new problems which were sharpening. It was vulnerable to the inner-party struggle which reflected existing social differentiations. Under these conditions the scalestipped in favour of the adoption of opportunist and revisionist positions which had been defeated inprevious phases of the inner-party struggle.

The adoption of revisionist and opportunist views by the leadership of the CPSU and other CPs inthe end transformed these parties into vehicles which led the counterrevolution in the 1980s.

The opportunist turn which was carried out at the 20 th congress (1956) of the CPSU and thesubsequent gradual loss of the revolutionary characteristics of the Party, a governing party whichwas at the same time the target of imperialist aggression, made the awakening and rallying ofconsistent communists more difficult. Thus consistent communist forces were not able to reveal the


22/48

treacherous counterrevolutionary nature of the line which prevailed at the Plenum of the C.C of April1985 and at the 27th congress of the CPSU (1986) in time. They were not able to rally a visible polefor the defence of socialism, in order to differentiate their positionxxxix[39] and to clash successfullywith the counterrevolutionary forces. A revolutionary communist vanguard, capable of leading theworking class, ideologically, politically and organisationally against the developing counterrevolution,

was not formed in time.

Even if this development could not have been stopped, especially by the 1980s, it is certain thatresistance, in both the governing parties and within the international communist movement, wouldhave ensured that todays struggle for the reconstruction of the international movement would betaking place under better conditions, and that there would exist the preconditions for it to overcomeits deep crisis.

We do not consider inevitable the speedy development and prevalence of revisionist ideologicalpositions and opportunist policies, the gradual opportunist erosion of the CPSU, and of the othergoverning C.P.s, the degeneration of the revolutionary character of state-power. We areinvestigating all the factors which contributed to this development. We could include the following ina list of contributing factors:

A)The decline in the level of political Marxist education in the leadership of the C.Ps and overall inthe Party, because of the specific conditions of the war, the large losses in cadre and the suddenincrease in the number of party members, which had among its results the delayed development ofthe political economy of Socialism.

The changes in the class composition of the Party, in its structure and functioning and theirimpact on the ideological level and the revolutionary characteristics of the Party, itsmembers and cadre need further investigation.

The relative dependence which communist state-power in the USSR had from its outset onadministrative and scientific cadre of bourgeois origin.

The historical inheritance of the USSR from the point of view of the breadth of pre-capitalistbackwardness and its uneven capitalist development.

The massive losses during the 2nd world war and the sacrifices at the level of socialprosperity required by the post-war reconstruction, under the conditions of competition withcapitalist reconstruction in Western Europe which was supported to a significant extent bythe capacity and the need of the USA to export capital.

Problems and contradictions in the assimilation of the countries of eastern and centralEurope into the socialist system.

The fear of a new war, due to the imperialist interventions in Korea etc, the Cold war, theHellsteim dogma of West Germany (the non- recognition of the GDR, and itscharacterization as a zone of soviet occupation).

B) The differentiated political intervention of international imperialism, with the support of socialdemocracy, through more flexible trade transactions with certain states of central and easternEurope among the countries of socialist construction and more direct ideological and politicalpressure on the USSR.


23/48

C) Problems of strategyand the split in the international communist movement

The development of Soviet Power

23.The theoretical foundation for the analysis of the course of Soviet power is that socialist state-power is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the state-power of the working class which is notshared with anyone, which is what occurs in all forms of state-power. The dictatorship of theproletariat is the organ of the working class in the class struggle which continues through othermeans and forms.

The working class, as the bearer of communist relations which are being formed, as the collectiveowner of the socialised means of production, is the only class which can lead the struggle for thetotal predominance of communist relations, for the disappearance of classes and the withering awayof the state.

Through its revolutionary state-power, the working class as the ruling class will carry out an alliancewith other popular strata which are not yet workers in socialised (socialist) production (e.g. thecooperative small owners in the town and countryside, the self-employed in the servicesector, scientists-intellectuals and technicians in the administration of production whose backgroundis bourgeois or from the upper-middle strata). Through this alliance, the working class will seek tolead these strata in socialist construction, towards the total predominance of communist relations.

The necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat is also a result of the continuination of classstruggle internationally. It will be retained until all social relations become communist, i.e. as long asthere is a need for a state to exist as a mechanism of political domination.

24.The political choices concerning the superstructure, the institutions of the dictatorship of theproletariat, workers control, etc are closely connected with the political choices at the level of theeconomy.

An important issue for elucidation is the development of the Soviets as a form of the dictatorship ofthe proletariat. In the first Constitution of the RSFSRxl[40] and in the first Constitution of the USSR in1924 (as well as in the constitutions of the Republics in 1925), the communist relationship betweenthe masses and the state machine was ensured through the indirect electoralrepresentation of theworkers which was carried out with the production unit as the electoral unit. The right to vote wasensured only for working people (not generally for the citizens). The bourgeois class, thelandowners, anyone who exploited anothers labour, priests and monks, counterrevolutionary

elements were denied the right to vote. The concessions to the capitalists in the NEP period did notinclude political rights.

In the constitution of 1936 direct electoral representation was established through geographicalelectoral wards (the region became the electoral unit and representation was proportional to thenumber of inhabitants). The carrying out of elections in general assemblies was abolished, replacedby these electoral wards. The right to vote was granted to all via the generalized secret ballot.


24/48

The changes in the constitution of 1936 aimed at solving certain problemsxli[41], such as the lack ofdirect communication of party and soviet officials with the base, the functioning of the Soviets,bureaucratic phenomena etc, and also at stabilising soviet power in the face of the coming war.

The downgrading of the production unit as the pillar of the organisation of working class state-power

(due to the abolition of the indirect election of delegates through congresses and generalassemblies) must be studied further. Its negative impact on the class composition of the higher stateorgans and on the application of the right of recall of delegates (which according to Lenin constitutesa basic element of democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat) must also be studied.

25.After the 20th Congress (1956) the powers of the local soviets were strengthened on questionswhich concerned the self-management and self-sufficiency of socialist enterprises. In this way,democratic centralism on the political level retreated to bring it to par with the retreat of centralplanning on the economic level. Measures were taken which strengthened the permanence ofofficials in the soviets, through the gradual increase of the terms of office of their organs and anincrease of the possibility for the exemption of delegates from their duties in production.

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) non-objective assessments concerning developedsocialism and the end of class struggle were adopted. In the name of non-antagonisticcontradictions between social classes and groups, the position that the USSR was an all-peoplesstate (consolidated in the constitutional revision of 1977) and the CPSU an all-peoples party wasadopted.

This development contributed to the altering of the characteristics of the revolutionary workersstate, the degeneration of the class composition of the Party and its cadre, the loss of revolutionaryvigilance, which was theorised with the thesis for the irreversibility of socialist construction.

Through perestroika and the reform of the political system in 1988, the Soviet system degeneratedinto a bourgeois organ.

26. Practical experience reveals the gradual distancing of the masses from participation in thesoviet system, which by the 1980s had a purely formal character. This distancing cannot beattributed exclusively or primarily to the changes in the functioning of the soviets, but to the socialdifferentiations which were strengthened by the economic policies, to the sharpening ofcontradictions between individual and group interests on the one hand, and on the other thecollective social interest.

As long as the leadership of the CPSU adopted policies which weakened the social character of

ownership and strengthened narrow individual and group interests, a feeling of alienation fromsocial ownership was created and consciousness was eroded. The road to passivity, indifferenceand individualism was opened, as reality was becoming more and more removed from the officialpronouncements, as the levels of industrial and agricultural production fell, and thus the ability tosatisfy the increasing social needs also fell. Thus, the criteria of workers control degenerated ortook on a purely formal character.


25/48

The working class, the popular masses in general, did not turn their backs on socialism. It is notablethat the slogans used during perestroika were revolution within the revolution, more democracy,more socialism, because a large section of the people, who saw the problems, wanted changeswithin the framework of socialism. For this reason the measures which initially weakened communistrelations and strengthened commodity-money relations, and those which later paved the way for the

return of private ownership over the means of production were promoted as measures to strengthensocialism.

An issue which needs specific future comparative study are the forms of organisation of workersparticipation, their rights and duties, in different periods of soviet power- the WorkersCommitteesxlii[42], in Lenins time, the Stakhanovite movement, in opposition to the self-management councils under Gorbachev- in relation to central planning and the realisation of thesocial character of ownership of the means of production.

As part of the study of socialist construction in other countries of Europe and Asia, there should beincluded the following : How the form of working class state-power was expressed in the PeoplesDemocracies, the alliance of the working class with the petit bourgeois strata and the strugglebetween them. The bourgeois nationalist influences in certainpolicies of C.Ps in power e.g. CPC,the Union of Yugoslav Communists. How the unification after 1945 with sections of socialdemocracy affected the character of the C.Ps in power e.g. the Polish United Workers Party, theSocialist Unity Party in Germany, the CP of Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian Workers party.

Developments in the International Communist Movement and its strategy

27.In the class struggle worldwide and in the shaping of the balance of forces, the developmentsin the international communist movement, and questions of its strategy played a serious role xliii[43].Problems of ideological and strategic unity were expressed during the entire course of the

Communist International (CI), which related to the nature of the revolution, the character of thecoming warxliv[44]. The opportunist groups in the CP of the Bolsheviks (Trotskyists - Bukharinites)were connected to the struggle which developed within the CI concerning the strategy of theinternational communist movement.

At the end of the 1920s, Bukharin, as President of the CI, supported forces in the C.Ps and the CIwhich overemphasised the stabilisation of capitalism and the unlikelihood of a new revolutionaryupsurge, and expressed a spirit of compromise with social democracy, especially its left wing, etc.

The weakening of the functioning of the CI as a united centre had appeared many years before itsdissolution (May 1943)xlv[45]. A negative development for the international movement was the lack

of a centre for the coordinated elaboration of a revolutionary strategy for the transformation of thestruggle against imperialist war or foreign occupation into a struggle for state-power, as a commonduty which concerned each CP in the conditions of its own countryxlvi[46].

Notwithstanding the factors which led to the dissolution of the CI, there is an objective need for theinternational communist movement to form a unified revolutionary strategy, to plan and coordinateits activity.


26/48

A deeper study concerning the dissolution of the CI must take into consideration a series ofdevelopments xlvii[47], such as : the cessation of the activity of the Red Trade union International, in1937, because the majority of its sections merged with the mass reformist unions, or joined theseunions. The decision of the 6 th Congress of the Communist International of Youth (1935), accordingto which the struggle against fascism and war demanded a change in the character of the

communist youth unions, which led in some cases to the unification of communist youthorganisations with socialist youths (e.g. in Spain, in Lithuania etc).

While the war led to a further sharpening of the class contradictions inside many countries, theantifascist struggle led to the overthrow of bourgeois power, with the critical support of the peoplesmovements by the Red Army, only in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

In the capitalist West, the C.Ps did not elaborate a strategy for the transformation of the i mperialistwar or the national liberation struggle into a struggle for the capture of state-power. The strategy ofthe communist movement did not utilise the fact that the contradiction between capital and labourwas an integral feature of the antifascist-national liberation struggle in many countries, in order toraise the question of state-power, since socialism and the prospect of communism are the onlyalternative solution to capitalist barbarity. There was a retreat from the thesis that betweencapitalism and socialism there is no intermediate social system, and thus no intermediate politicalpower between bourgeois and working class state-power.

This thesis holds true, irrespective of the

Documents

Theses of the CC on Socialism