Theses on Socialism
Theses of the CC on Socialism
Table of
contents
A. The contribution of the
Socialist System
B. Theoretical positions on
Socialism as the first, lower stage of Communism
C. Socialism in the USSR - Causes
of the victory of counter-revolution
Assessment of the Economy during
the course of Socialist construction in the USSR
Conclusions concerning the role of
the Communist Party in the process of Socialist construction
The development of Soviet Power
Developments in the international
Communist Movement and its strategy
Assessment of the Stance of KKE
D. The necessity and relevance
of Socialism. Enrichment of our programmatic conception of Socialism
The necessity and relevance of
Socialism
Enrichment of our programmatic
conception concerning Socialism
A. The contribution of the Socialist System
1. The
development of capitalism and the class struggle inevitably brought communism
to the historical limelight during the middle of the 19th century. The first
scientific communist programme is the “Communist Manifesto” written
by K. Marx and Fr. Engels 160 years ago in 1848. The first proletarian
revolution was the Paris Commune in 1871. With the 20th century came the
success of the October Socialist Revolution in
Despite
the various problems of socialist countries, the socialist system of the 20th
century proved its superiority over capitalism and the huge advantages that it
provides for peoples’ lives and working conditions.
The
The role
of the
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
The
socialist system provided historic examples of internationalist solidarity to
peoples who were fighting against exploitation, foreign occupation and
imperialist intervention; it decisively contributed to 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 and contributed 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 a certain
degree, to back down and to manoeuvre in order to restrain the revolutionary
line of struggle and 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 and opened the road for the production and development of the
sciences with the goal of satisfying people’s needs. In this way,
everyone had guaranteed work, public free health care and education, the
provision of cheap services from the state, housing, and access to intellectual
and cultural pursuits.
In 1913,
the farmers, workers and employees of the Russian Empire held 53% of the
national income, while the exploiting classes held 47%; that is almost one
half. After the
The
complete eradication of the terrible legacy of illiteracy in combination with
the increase in the general level of education and specialization and the
abolition of unemployment, constitute unique achievements of socialism. In the
The
The
cultural revolution, as an inseparable element of socialist construction, gave
working people the possibility of knowing and experiencing the achievements of
human culture.
In the
Free time
was extended and its content was changed. Free time was no longer time for the
reproduction of the labour power commodity, in order to keep it fit for
capitalist exploitation. Workers were given the opportunity to utilize their
free time in order to raise their cultural and educational level, 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
comprehensive system of retirement benefits with the important achievement of
low age limits for retirement (55 years for women, 60 for men) was created.
Funding for the state retirement fund was guaranteed through the state budget
fiscal appropriations) and insurance contributions from enterprises and foundations.
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 great difficulties that objectively existed. Socialism ensured in practice
the social character of motherhood and socialized childcare. It instituted
equal rights for women and men in the economic, political and cultural realm,
without of course meaning that all forms of unequal relations between the two
genders 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 the interests of the social majority of exploited people,
and not of the minority of exploiters, proved itself a superior form of
democracy. For the first time in History the unit of production could become
the nucleus of democracy, with the representative participation of working
people in power and administration, the possibility to elect and recall
representatives amongst themselves to participate in the higher levels of
power. Workers’ power de-marginalized the masses and a vast number of
mass organizations were developed: trade union, cultural and educational where
the majority of the population 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, identifying democracy with
bourgeois parliamentarism and freedom with bourgeois individualism and private
capitalist ownership. The real essence of freedom and democracy under
capitalism is the economic coercion of wage slavery and the dictatorship of
capital generally in society and especially inside capitalist enterprises. Our
critical approach regarding workers’ and people’s control and
participation has no relation whatsoever to the bourgeois and opportunist
approaches of democracy in the
The
October Revolution launched a process of equality between nations and
nationalities within the framework of a giant multinational state and provided
the direction for the resolution of the national problem by abolishing national
oppression in all its forms and manifestations. This process was undermined
however, during the course of the erosion of communist relations and was
completely stopped with the counter-revolutionary developments in the 1980s.
The
socialist states made serious efforts to develop forms of cooperation and
economic relations based on the principle of proletarian internationalism. With
the founding in 1949 of the Council of Mutual Assistance (CMA) an effort was
made to form a new, unprecedented type of international relations that was
based on principles of equality, of mutual benefit and mutual aid between
states that 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 of the CMA with capitalist states,
especially during the period when socialist construction began to retreat.
The gains
that were undoubtedly achieved in the socialist states, in comparison to their
starting point as well as in comparison to the living standard of working
people in the capitalist world, prove that socialism holds intrinsic potential
for dramatic and continual improvement in the lives of humankind and the
development of the human personality.
The level
of development of socialism in each revolutionary worker’s state was not
the same and to a large extent was dependent on the level of capitalist
development that existed when power was seized - an issue that must be taken
under consideration when assessments and comparisons are made.
The most
significant fact, however, is that the historic leap that was attempted and
accomplished with the October Revolution in Russia as the starting point, gave
an important momentum to the development 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
contrast to capitalist development which is intertwined with exploitation and
social injustice, with great devastation 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 colonial
exploitation, with the anarchy of production and the ensuing destruction of the
great economic crises, with imperialist wars, child labour and so much more.
The
contribution and the superiority of socialist construction in the
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 and supremacy of the new social relations.
B.
Theoretical positions on Socialism as the first, lower stage of Communism
2. Socialism is the first stage of the communist
socio-economic formation; it is not an independent socio-economic formation. It
is an immature, undeveloped communism.
The
complete establishment of communist relations requires the overcoming of the
elements of immaturity that characterize its lower stage, socialism.
Immature
communism signifies that communist relations in production and distribution
have not yet fully prevailed.
The basic
law of the communist mode of production is valid: “Production for the
extended satisfaction of social needs.”
The
concentrated means of production are socialized, but in the beginning there
still remain forms of individual and group ownership that constitute the base
for the existence of commodity-money relations.
A large
part of the social product for individual consumption is distributed based on
labour, and not on needs, according to the principle, “to each
according to his labour, while each one works according to his abilities.”
Under conditions of developed communism the principle that predominates is:
“from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”
for the totality of the social product.
Under
socialism, there still continue to exist social inequalities, social
stratification, significant differences or even contradictions, such as those
between city and country, intellectual workers and manual labourers,
specialized and unspecialized workers. All of these inequalities must be
completely eradicated, gradually and in a planned way.
The more
immature socialist development is, the more the educational and technological
level of the mass of workers does not yet permit their substantive role in the
organization of labour, in their perception of the different segments of the
production process, in the administrative work. Under these conditions, workers
in management positions tend to isolate the individual interest and the
interest of the production unit from the social interest, while workers
performing intellectual labor and having a high scientific specialization tend
to lay claim to a larger share of the total social product, 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, the class struggle of the working class must continue – under
new conditions, with other forms and means 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 the
abolition of every form of group and individual ownership, as well as, of the
petit bourgeois consciousness that has deep historical roots; it is a struggle
for the formation of the analogous social consciousness and stance
corresponding to the social character of work. For this reason, the existence
of a state that is the revolutionary power of the working class, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, is necessary.
The leap
that takes place during the revolutionary period of the transition from
capitalism to developed 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
social relations, into communist relations, means that the social revolution
cannot be restricted only to the seizure of power or the formation of an
initial economic base, but must be extended throughout the entire period of
socialism.
3. Socialist construction is an uninterrupted process,
which starts with the seizure of power by the working class. In the beginning,
the new mode of production is formed which essentially prevails with 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 that guarantees their irreversible domination.
Socialist
construction contains the possibility of a reversal of its course and a retreat
backwards to capitalism, as a defeat of the struggle for the full development
of the new communist relations against the remnants of the old capitalist
relations. Such a retreat is not a new phenomenon in social development and in
every case it constitutes a temporary phenomenon in its History. It is an
irrefutable fact that no socio-economic system has ever been immediately
consolidated in the history of humankind. The passage from a lower phase of
development to a higher one is not a straight forward ascending process. This
is shown by the very history of the prevalence of capitalism.[4]
4. We consider as flawed the approach that, speaking of
“transitional societies”, assigns autonomous 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 this viewpoint the current systems in
We do not
overlook the special characteristics of the period which in Marxist
bibliography is known as the
“transitional period”, during which the socialist revolution
seeks victory, a possible civil war develops, the sharp struggle of communist
relations that are just beginning to develop against capitalist exploitative
relations, which have still not been abolished, is waged. The duration of this
period depends on the backwardness that socialism has inherited from
capitalism. Historical experience has shown that this period cannot last for a
long time. In the
The
so-called transitional period is not independent from the process of
socialist construction, since it is during its course that the basis is
established for the development of a communist society in its first 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 in the 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: man and the means of production, the organization of production and all
of the economy. Socialist accumulation is achieved, a new level of social
prosperity. This new level makes possible the gradual extension of new
relations in the area of productive forces that previously were not mature
enough to be included in the directly social production.
Even
more, the material prerequisites are formed for the abolition of the
differentiation in the allocation 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 new socio-economic formation
requires the abolition, not only of capitalist ownership but also of every form
of private and group ownership over the means of production and the social
product. The complete eradication of the difference between town and country,
that is the complete abolition of classes, the eradication of the difference
between manual and intellectual labour, one of the most profound roots of
social inequality[5] which
must be abolished, the complete extinction of national conflicts.
In
accordance with the all-encompassing social law of the correspondence between
relations of production 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 a further
“revolutionisation” of relations of production and all economic
relations, in the direction of their complete transformation to communist
relations, by means of revolutionary policies. As was shown in practice,
whatever delay or even more importantly, a retreat in the development of
communist relations leads to a sharpening of the contradiction between
productive forces and relations 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 socialism there exists an objective base that under
certain conditions allows for social forces to act as potential bearers of
exploitative relations, as was witnessed in the
6. The development of the communist mode of production
in its first stage, socialism, is a process by 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 place for exchange, it is not effected through the
market, and the products of labour that are individually consumed are not
commodities.
The
division of labour in the socialized means of production is based on a plan
that organizes production and determines its proportions with the aim of
satisfying social needs, and the distribution of goods (use values). In other
words, it is a centrally planned division of social labour 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 labour are 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 socialist bodies. It includes a consciously planned
choice of motives and goals for production, not with the goal 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 determination
of ‘social needs’, especially under international conditions, where
capitalism shapes a rather warped conception of what social needs really are.
Social
needs are determined based on the level of development of the productive forces
that have been achieved in the given historical period. These needs must be
understood in their historical context, changing in relationship with the
development of the productive forces. Likewise, the way in which the basic law
of communism is realized must develop, with the immediate goal of overcoming
the 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 of produced goods
“according to labour”. The “measure” of work has
created a theoretical and political debate. The distribution of a section of
socialist production “according to labour” (which in terms of form
resembles commodity exchange) is a vestige of capitalism. The new mode of
production has not managed to discard it yet, because it has not developed all
of the human productive power necessary and all the means of production in
their proper dimensions, with the broad use of new technology. 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 is abolished.
The
planned distribution of labour power and the means of production entails the
planned distribution of the social product. The distribution of the social
product cannot happen through the market, based on the laws and categories of
commodity exchange.
According
to Marx, the mode of distribution will change when the particular mode of the
social productive organism and the corresponding historical level of
development of the productive forces changes[6] (e.g.
these were at a certain level in the
Marxism
clearly defines labour time as the measure of individual participation
of the producer to common labour. Consequently, the labour time of the producer
is also defined as a measure of the share he deserves from the product that is
destined for individual consumption and is distributed based on labour.[7] Another
part (education, healthcare, etc.) is already distributed based on needs.
“Time” as a measure of
work in socialist production must be viewed “merely for the shake of a
parallel with the production of commodities.”[8]
““Labour
time” under socialism is not the “socially necessary labour
time” that constitutes a measureme 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 noted characteristically in “Capital”: “In
socialized production money capital gets out of the picture. Society
distributes labour power and the means of production to different branches of
production. The producers would, if you so wish, receive paper vouchers with
which they can take from the stock of consumption products of the society an
amount analogous to the time they worked. These vouchers are not money. They do
not circulate.” [9]
Access to
that part of the social product that is distributed “according to
labour” is determined by the individual work contribution of each
person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishing between complex
and simple, manual labour or otherwise. The measure of individual contribution
is labour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social
production, the material conditions of the production process in which
“individual” labour is included; the special needs of social
production for the concentration of labour force in certain areas, branches,
etc.; the special social needs, such as motherhood, individuals with special
needs, etc.; the personal stance of each individual 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
of more productive technologies, a more rational organization of labour,
workers’ control of administration-management.
The
planned development of the productive forces in the communist mode of
production should increasingly 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 duties regarding
workers’ power and management of production, etc. The comprehensive
development of man 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. Depending on 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 makes money 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 from agriculture, 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 and agricultural production, is the merging of farmers-producers in
the joint use of large tracts of land, for the production of social product
with the use of modern mechanization and other means of
scientific-technological progress for the enhancement of labour productivity,
the creation of strong infrastructure for the preservation of the product from
unforeseen weather hazards, the subjection of social labour for the production
of agricultural raw materials and their industrial processing to unified
socialist organizations. This direction serves to transform the whole of
agricultural production into a part of socialized production.
C.
Socialism in the USSR
9. We studied the experience of the
The
socialist character of the
These
cannot be negated by the fact that, following a certain period, the Party
gradually lost its revolutionary characteristics and as a result,
counter-revolutionary forces were able to dominate the Party and the government
in the 1980s.
We
characterize the developments of 1989-1991 as a victory of counter-revolution,
as an overthrow of socialist construction, as a social retreat. It is not
accidental that these developments were supported by international reaction,
that socialist construction, especially during the period of the abolition of
capitalist relations and the founding of socialism, up until the Second World
War, draws ideological 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 of the subjective factor
during socialist construction.
The
victory of counter-revolution in 1989-1991 does not reveal a lack of the
minimal level of development of the material pre-requisites necessary to begin
socialist construction in
Marx
noted that mankind does not set itself but the problems that it can solve,
because the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its
solution have been born. From the moment that the working class, the main
productive force, struggles to carry out its historic mission, even more with
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 material prerequisites for socialism, upon
which revolutionary conditions were shaped, exist.
Based on
the statistical evidence from that period, capitalist relations of production
at the monopoly stage of their development predominated in
The
working class of
However,
socialism faced additional specific difficulties, due to the fact that
socialist construction began 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 countries[11] and a
large degree of uneven 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 the civil war. Subsequently it faced the immense destruction of WW II,
while capitalist powers, like the
The
gigantic economic and social development that was accomplished under these
conditions proves the superiority of the communist relations of production.
The
developments do not confirm the assessments of several opportunist and petit
bourgeois currents. Social democratic viewpoints regarding the immaturity of
the socialist revolution in
We oppose
theories that claim that these societies were some sort of “a new
exploitative system” or a form of “state capitalism”,
as various opportunist currents claim.
Furthermore,
the developments do not validate the overall stance of “Maoist”
trends regarding socialist construction in the
Our own
critical assessment considers as given the defence of the construction of
socialism in the
10. In studying counter-revolution in the
Based on
the theory of scientific communism we formulated a study along the following
lines:
§
The economy, that is, the developments in the
relations of production and distribution in socialism as the basis for the emergence
and the resolution of social contradictions and differentiations.
§
The operation of the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the role of the CP in socialist construction.
§
The strategy and developments in the international
communist movement
11. The course of building a new society in the
Up until
World War II, the base of the new society was created: socialist production
based on central planning prevailed and capitalist relations were abolished.
The class struggle to abolish the exploiters was being carried out with
success; impressive results were achieved concerning the growth of social
prosperity.
After
World War II, socialist construction entered a new phase. The Party was faced
with new demands and challenges regarding the development of
socialism-communism. The 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956) stands out
as a turning point, since at that congress a series of opportunist positions
were adopted on economic issues, on the strategy of the communist movement and
on international relations. The struggle that was taking place before the
congress continued and was then consolidated by a turn in favor of the
revisionist-opportunist positions,[12] with the result that the Party gradually
began to lose its revolutionary characteristics. In the decade of the 1980s,
with perestroika, opportunism fully developed into a traitorous,
counter-revolutionary force. The consistent communist forces that reacted in
the final phase of the betrayal, at the 28th CPSU Congress, 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 at the center of the theoretical
conflict and political struggle regarding the economy: Is socialist production
commodity production? what is the role of the law of value, of commodity-money
relations 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 decade of the 1950s in the
This
material base exacerbated the theoretical shortcomings and weaknesses of the
subjective factor in the formulation and implementation of central planning. A
theoretical base was created for opportunist policies which weakened central
planning, eroded social ownership and strengthened counter-revolutionary
forces.
13. The first period of socialist construction up until
World War II faced the basic, primary problem of 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
encirclement and intervention.
From
1917-1940, Soviet power noted achievements for the most part. It carried out
the electrification and industrialization of production, the expansion of
transport means, and the mechanization of a large part of agricultural production.
Planned production was initiated and achieved impressive rates in the
development of socialist industrial production. It successfully developed
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 and the predominance of communist relations in
agricultural production was established. The “cultural
revolution” 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 of production, with the
abolition of hired labor power, thus laying the foundation for the development
of communism.
14. The implementation of certain “transitional
measures”, within the perspective of the complete abolition of capitalist
relations, was inevitable in a country like
The
factors that forced the Bolshevik CP to implement a temporary policy to
preserve to a certain extent capitalist production relations were: the class
composition, where the petit bourgeois agrarian element was in the majority,
the lack of a distribution, supply and monitoring mechanism, backward
small-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 the development 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 of restoring industry following the ravages of war and on this base
to build in the field of agricultural production relations that would
“attract” farmers into the cooperatives. It consituted a policy of
temporary 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 exchange between agricultural production
and the socialized industry was regulated based on the concept of the
“tax in kind”. The possibility was granted to peasants to put on
the market the remaining portion of agricultural production.
These
maneuverings and temporary concessions to capitalist relations that are
demanded under certain circumstances and special conditions are not in any way
an inevitable characteristic of the process of socialist construction. The NEP
was used in the decade of the 1980s as a cover-up to justify 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 1920s allowed the replacement of NEP by the policy
of “socialist attack against capitalism” that had as its
main goal the complete abolition of capitalist relations. Concessions towards
capitalists were withdrawn and the policy of collectivization was developed,
that is the complete cooperative organization of the agricultural economy,
mainly in its developed form, the kolkhoz[13]. At the
same time, the sovkhozes, the state-socialist units in agricultural production
that were based on the mechanization of production and whose entire product was
social property, were developed (albeit in a limited way)[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). Soviet power experienced difficulty
in formulating a central plan for the socialist economy from the very
beginning, mainly due to the continuing existence of capitalist relations (NEP)
and an exceptionally large number of individual commodity producers, mainly
farmers. Weaknesses were also evident in the subjective factor, the Party,
which did not have cadre specialists to guide the organization of production
and was thus obliged for a certain time period to depend almost exclusively on
bourgeois specialists.
The
specific conditions (imperialist encirclement, the threat of war in combination
with great backwardness) forced the promotion of collectivization at
accelerated rates, which sharpened the class struggle, especially in the rural
areas.
Despite
the mistakes and certain bureaucratic exaggerations in the development of the
collectivization movement in agricultural production, that were in any case
noted in Party decisions [15], the
orientation of Soviet power for the reinforcement and the generalization of
this movement was in the correct direction. It aimed to develop a transitional
form of ownership (cooperative) that would contribute to the transformation of
small individual commodity production into socialized production.
16. The policy of “socialism’s attack
against capitalism” was carried out under conditions of intense class
struggle. The kulaks (the bourgeois class in the village), social strata that
benefited from the NEP (NEPmen), sections of the intelligentsia who originated
from the old exploiting classes; all these reacted in many ways, with actions
of sabotage against industry (e.g. the “
The two
basic “opposition” tendencies (Trotsky – Bukharin), that
operated during that period, had a common base in absolutiizing the element of
backwardness in Soviet society and during the decade of the 1930s their views
converged as to how the problems of the Soviet economy should be confronted.
Their positions were rejected by the AUCP (Bolshevik) and were not confirmed by
reality.[17]
Along the
way, several opportunist forces united with openly counter-revolutionary forces
that were organizing plans to overthrow Soviet power in cooperation with secret
services from imperialist countries[18].
The fact
that some leading cadre of the Party and of Soviet power spearheaded
opportunist currents indicates that it is possible even for vanguard cadre to
deviate, to weaken when faced with the sharpness of the class struggle and to
finally severe their ties with the communist movement and go on to align
themselves with the counter-revolution.
17. Two basic currents developed in the theory and the
policies among party cadre and economists. 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 socialist
production, which is not commodity production. It argued that: the operation of
the law of value (of commodity-money relations) in the
Polemics
were waged against “market” economists and political leaders
who believed that the products of socialist production are commodities whether
they are destined for individual consumption 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 of
Voznesensky (head of
At the
same time, due criticism was placed on the economists who supported the
complete abolition of allocation in monetary form, without taking into account
the objective restrictions imposed by the productive base of society at that
time.
In his
work, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR””[23], I.V.
Stalin refers, quite correctly, to the fact that under socialism the
contradiction between the productive forces that are developing and the
relations of production that are lagging behind also manifests itself. He
considered that in the
The
consistent current supported the acceleration of the socialization of
agricultural production by the merging of the small kolkhozes into bigger ones [25] and the
gradual transformation of the kolkhozes into sovkhozes, with the first step
being the allotment of all agricultural production to the state.
Concerning
the issue of the conflict relative to the proportions between Subdivision I of
social production (production of the means of production) and Subdivision II
(production of consumer products), this current supported, correctly, that the
main criterion for the planned proportional distribution of labour and of
production among the different branches of socialist industry should be 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 of production (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 conflict developed around the interpretation of
certain problems [26]. We
consider as correct the position of the soviet leadership taken at the
beginning of the decade of the 1950s, that the problems at the economic level
were an expression of the sharpening of the contradiction between the
productive forces that were developing and the relations of production that
were lagging behind. The development of the productive forces had reached a new
level after the post-war reconstruction of the economy. A new dynamic
stimulus to the further development of the productive forces demanded 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 its
administration from the bottom up, the transformation of cooperative relations
of ownership (next to which private commodity ownership survived) into social
ownership.
The need
had matured for communist relations to be expanded, consciously,in a
well-planned manner, that is theoretically and politically prepared, and to
predominate in those fields of social production where, in the previous period,
their full dominance was still not possible (from the point of view of their
material maturity, the productivity of labour).
Social
resistance (kolkhoz farmers, executives in industry) to this perspective was
expressed on an ideological 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 with more immediate
and more powerful consequences on the course of the development of communism,
in comparison with the pre-war period, when the material backwardness made the
effect of these theoretical positions less painful.
After the
20th Congress of the CPSU, political choices were gradually adopted
that widened commodity-money (potentially capitalist) relations, in the name of
correcting weaknesses in central planning and the administration of socialist
bodies (enterprises).
In order
to solve the problems that arose in the economy, ways and means were used that
belonged to 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 and
possibilities for multi-specialization, for alternation in the technical
division of labour), workers’ control and participation in the
organization of labour, so that it would begin to develop into communist
self-administration, the reverse trend began to develop, with the corresponding
effect of course at the level of social consciousness. The previous experience
and the effectiveness of the factory soviet, the Stakhanovite movement in
quality control, the more effective organization and administration, clever
inventions for the conservation of material and work time, were not utilized.
The
“market” economists (Lieberman, Nemtsinov, Trapeznikov, etc.)
mistakenly interpreted the existing problems of the economy, not as subjective
weaknesses in planning[27], but as
consequences stemming from the objective weakness of central planning to
respond to the development 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 of production under socialism, the undervaluation of the development
of agriculture, the overestimation of the possibility of subjective
intervention in economic administration.
They
maintained that it was not possible for the central organs to determine
quality, technology, the prices of all commodities, and salaries, but that the
use of market mechanisms was also necessary in order to facilitate the goals of
a planned economy. They argued that the problems of adaptation of the 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 are determined based on the law of value.
19. The political weakening of central planning and social
ownership came to a climax after the 20th congress. Instead of
planning the transformation of the kolkhozes into sovkhozes, in 1958 the
tractors and other machinery[29] passed into the ownership of the kolkhoz[30] at a time when their production had developed adequately and when
approximetely 10 tractors corresponded to each 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 of
small kolkhozes into bigger ones, was revised in practice.
In 1957, the branch
ministries that directed industrial production in the
These
changes not only did not solve the problems, but, on the contrary, they brought
new problems 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 problems[32].
Subsequent
reforms included: The reduction in the quantities given to the state by the
kolkhoz[33], the possibility of selling the excess quantities at
higher prices, the lifting of the restrictions on the transactions of the
kolkhoz households and of the tax on private animal ownership. Debts of the
kolkhozes to the State Bank were erased, the deadlines to pay off debt from
monetary advancements were extended, the sale of animal feed directly to
private animal owners was permitted. Thus, the portion of agricultural
production which came from individual households and the kolkhozes and which
was sold freely on the market was preserved and
increased[34] while the lagging behind of livestock production
deepened, the unevenness in the satisfaction of the needs in agricultural
products between the various regions and Republics of the
A similar
policy of reinforcing the commodity (at the expense of the directly social)
character of production was implemented in industry, known as the “Kosygin
Reforms”[35], (“The system of self-management of
enterprises” - with a substantive and not formal character). It was
argued that this would combat the reduction in the annual rate of increase of
labour productivity and of annual production, that were observed during the
first years of the 1960s, as a result of the measures which undermined central
planning in the direction of the industrial sectors (Sovnarkhoz-1957).
The first
wave of reforms was launched during the interval between the 23rd
(1966) and 24th (1971) Congresses.
According
to the New System, the additional remunerations (bonuses) for directors would
be calculated not on the basis of the overfulfillement of the production plan
in terms of volume of production
[36], but rather on the basis of the overfulfillement of the
sales plan and would be dependent on the rate of profit of the enterprise.
A part of
the additional remuneration of the workers would also come from profit, as
would the further 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, for direct agreements with ‘consumer units and commercial
organizations’, for price-fixing, for the formation of profits on the
basis of these transactions, etc.
The
Central Plan would determine the total level of production and investments only
for new enterprises. 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 new phase of a further development of the productive forces, which
demanded more effective incentives and indices of central planning and in its
sectoral, cross-sectoral and enterprise level implementation. That is, it
necessitated a corresponding development of central planning in the direction
of strengthening the communist mode of production.
Through
the market reforms, through the detachment of the socialist production unit
from central planning, 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
technology[37] which could have
contributed to the improvement in the technical processing of data, in order to
improve 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 proportion had been proposed at the 20th
Congress, but had not been accepted. The modification was rationalized as a
choice reinforcing the level of popular consumption. In reality, it was a
choice that violated socialist law and had negative consequences on the growth
of labour productivity. The development of labour productivity – a
fundamental element for the increase of social wealth, the satisfaction 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: the introduction of contemporary technology in
industry, in transport services, storage and distribution of products.
This
choice to overturn the proportions not only did not help to deal with
contradictions that had been expressed (e.g. the excess income in money form
and the lack of an adequate amount of consumer goods, such as electronic
household appliances, colour TVs ), but distanced central planning from its
basic goal (the rise of social prosperity). It further aggravated the
contradiction between the level of development of the productive forces and the
level of the communist relations of production-distribution.
The
period when Andropov was the
In the
1980’s, at the political level, the decisions of the 27th Congress (1986)
constituted a further opportunist choice. Subsequently, the counterrevolution
was also promoted through the passing of the law (1987), which institutionally
legitimised capitalist economic relations, under the guise of the acceptance of
various forms of ownership.
In the
beginning of the 1990’s the social democratic approach of “the
planned market economy” (the platform of the CC of the CPSU at the 28th
Congress) was speedily abandoned in favour of the position of the
“regulated market economy” and this was further replaced by the
“free market economy”.
20. The direction which held sway can be judged today not
only theoretically, but also by the results. 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. Technological backwardness continued to be a reality for the majority
of industries. Shortages appeared in many consumer products, as well as additional
problems within the market, because enterprises were causing an artificial rise
in prices, by hoarding commodities in warehouses or by supplying them in
controlled quantities.
The ever
increasing involvement of market elements in the directly social production of
socialism was 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 each enterprise, 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 for the counterrevolution to flourish
and finally prevail using perestroika as its vehicle.
Through
these reforms the possibility was created for monetary amounts which had
been accumulated primarily through illegal means (smuggling, etc), to be
invested in the “black” (illegal) market. These opportunities
concerned primarily officials in the management layers of enterprises and
sectors, the cadre of foreign trade. Data regarding the so-called
“Para-economy” were also provided by the Procurator
The
income differentiation among the individual agricultural producers, the
kolkhozniks, widened, as well 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 which was an
obstacle to socialist construction.
The
social differentiations in industry was even more intense through the
concentration of “enterprise profits”. The so-called “shadow
capital”, the result not only of enterprise profits, but also of the
black market, of criminal acts of embezzlement of the social product, sought a
legal functioning 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 of sectors of the population which were vulnerable to the
influence of bourgeois ideology and to wavering e.g. a significant part of the
intelligentsia, sections of the youth, especially students, who for different
reasons were dissatisfied [38]. These forces directly or indirectly influenced the
Party, strengthening its opportunist erosion and its counterrevolutionary
degeneration, which was expressed through the policies of
“perestroika” and sought the institutional consolidation of
capitalist relations. 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 in its leadership of working class
state-power, in the mobilisation of masses to participate in this process.
The
working class is formed as the leading force of this new state power, first and
foremost through its Party.
The
struggle for the development of the new society is carried out by the
revolutionary workers’ power 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, passes gradually from
the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. From this flows the higher
role of the subjective factor in relation to all the preceding socio-economic
formations, where human activity was dominated by the spontaneous enforcement
of social laws based on the spontaneous development of the relations of
production.
Consequently,
the scientific class nature of the policies of the CP is a crucial
precondition for socialist construction. To the extent that these features are
lost, opportunism sets in which if it is not dealt 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 oriented purposes, the study of the laws of motion of the
communist socio-economic formation. Experience has shown that the governing
parties, in the
Class
consciousness in the whole working class does not develop spontaneously or in a
unified manner. The rise of the communist consciousness of the masses of the
working class is determined above all by the strengthening of the communist
relations of production and by the level of working class participation with
the leadership of the CP which is the main vehicle for the spread of
revolutionary consciousness amongst the masses. Along with this material base,
ideological work must become rooted, the impact of the revolutionary party
which consolidates its leading role to the extent 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 mass scale
within the working class by the economic relations. From this arises the
necessity for the Party to have a high theoretical-ideological level and
toughness, to be unwavering in the struggle against opportunism, not only under
the conditions of capitalism, but even more so under the conditions of
socialist construction.
22. The opportunist turn which held sway since the
1950’s after the 2nd world war, the gradual loss of the
revolutionary role of the Party, confirm that the danger of the development of
deviations in socialist 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 ownership remain, as
long as commodity-money relations remain, as well as social differentiations.
The material basis for opportunism will continue to exist for the entire
duration of socialist construction and 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 theoretical weaknesses 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 scales tipped
in favour of the adoption of opportunist and revisionist positions which had
been defeated in previous phases of the inner-party struggle.
The
adoption of revisionist and opportunist views by the leadership of the CPSU and
other CPs in the end transformed these parties into vehicles which led the
counterrevolution in the 1980’s.
The
opportunist turn which was carried out at the 20th congress (1956)
of the CPSU and the subsequent gradual loss of the revolutionary
characteristics of the Party, a governing party which was at the same
time the target of imperialist aggression, made the awakening and rallying of
consistent communists more difficult. Thus consistent communist forces were not
able to reveal the treacherous counterrevolutionary nature of the line which
prevailed at the Plenum of the C.C of April 1985 and at the 27th congress
of the CPSU (1986) in time. They were not able to rally a visible pole for the
defence of socialism, in order to differentiate their position[39] and to clash successfully with the
counterrevolutionary forces. A revolutionary communist vanguard, capable of
leading the working 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 1980’s,
it is certain that resistance, in both the governing parties and within the
international communist movement, would have ensured that today’s
struggle for the reconstruction of the international movement would be taking
place under better conditions, and that there would exist the preconditions for
it to overcome its deep crisis.
We do not
consider inevitable the speedy development and prevalence of revisionist
ideological positions and opportunist policies, the gradual opportunist erosion
of the CPSU, and of the other governing C.P.’s, the degeneration of
the revolutionary character of state-power. We are investigating all the
factors which contributed to this development. We could include the following
in a list of contributing factors:
A) The decline in the level of political Marxist
education in the leadership of the C.P’s and overall in the Party,
because of the specific conditions of the war, the large losses in cadre and
the sudden increase in the number of party members, which had among its results
the delayed development of the political economy of Socialism.
§
The changes in the class composition of the Party, in
its structure and functioning and their impact on the ideological level and the
revolutionary characteristics of the Party, its members and cadre need further
investigation.
§
The relative dependence which communist state-power in
the
§
The historical inheritance of the
§
The massive losses during the 2nd world war
and the sacrifices at the level of social prosperity required by the post-war
reconstruction, under the conditions of competition with capitalist
reconstruction in Western Europe which was supported to a significant extent by
the capacity and the need of the USA to export capital.
§
Problems and contradictions in the assimilation of the
countries of eastern and central
§
The fear of a new war, due to the imperialist
interventions in Korea etc, the Cold war, the Hellsteim dogma of West
B) The differentiated political intervention of international
imperialism, with the support of social democracy, through more flexible trade
transactions with certain states of central and eastern Europe among the
countries of socialist construction and more direct ideological and political
pressure on the USSR.
C) Problems
of strategy and 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 not shared with anyone, which is what
occurs in all forms of state-power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the
organ of the working class in the class struggle which continues through other
means and forms.
The
working class, as the bearer of communist relations which are being formed, as
the collective owner of the socialised means of production, is the only class
which can lead the struggle for the total predominance of communist relations,
for the disappearance of classes and the withering away of the state.
Through
its revolutionary state-power, the working class as the ruling class will carry
out an alliance with other popular strata which are not yet workers in
socialised (socialist) production (e.g. the cooperative small owners in the
town and countryside, the self-employed in the service sector, scientists-intellectuals
and technicians in the administration of production whose background is
bourgeois or from the upper-middle strata). Through this alliance, the working
class will seek to lead 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 class struggle internationally. It will be retained until all
social relations become communist, i.e. as long as there 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 the proletariat, workers’
control, etc are closely connected with the political choices at the level of
the economy.
An
important issue for elucidation is the development of the Soviets as a form of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the first Constitution of the RSFSR[40] and in the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924 (as
well as in the constitutions of the Republics in 1925), the communist
relationship between the masses and the state machine was ensured through the
indirect electoral representation of the workers which was carried out
with the production unit as the electoral unit. The right to vote was ensured
only for working people (not generally for the citizens). The bourgeois class,
the landowners, anyone who exploited another’s labour, priests and monks,
counterrevolutionary elements were denied the right to vote. The concessions to
the capitalists in the NEP period did not include political rights.
In the
constitution of 1936 direct electoral representation was established through
geographical electoral wards (the region became the electoral unit and
representation was proportional to the number of inhabitants). The carrying out
of elections in general assemblies was abolished, replaced by these electoral wards.
The right to vote was granted to all via the generalized secret ballot.
The
changes in the constitution of 1936 aimed at solving certain problems[41], such as the lack of direct 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 general assemblies) must be studied further. Its negative impact
on the class composition of the higher state organs and on the application of
the right of recall of delegates (which according to Lenin constitutes a 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 questions which 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 central planning on the
economic level. Measures were taken which strengthened the
“permanence” of officials in the soviets, through the gradual
increase of the terms of office of their organs and an increase 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 “developed
socialism” and the “end of class struggle” were
adopted. In the name of “non-antagonistic contradictions”
between social classes and groups, the position that the
This
development contributed to the altering of the characteristics of the
revolutionary workers’ state, the degeneration of the class composition
of the Party and its cadre, the loss of revolutionary vigilance, 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 degenerated
into a bourgeois organ.
26. Practical experience reveals the gradual distancing of
the masses from participation in the soviet system, which by the 1980s had a
purely formal character. This distancing cannot be attributed exclusively or
primarily to the changes in the functioning of the soviets, but to the social
differentiations which were strengthened by the economic policies, to the
sharpening of contradictions between individual and group interests on the one
hand, and on the other the collective 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 from social ownership was created and consciousness was
eroded. The road to passivity, indifference and individualism was opened, as
reality was becoming more and more removed from the official pronouncements, as
the levels of industrial and agricultural production fell, and thus the ability
to satisfy the increasing social needs also fell. Thus, the criteria of
workers’ control degenerated or took on a purely formal character.
The
working class, the popular masses in general, did not turn their backs on
socialism. It is notable that 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 changes within the framework of socialism. For this reason the
measures which initially weakened communist relations 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
strengthen socialism.
An issue
which needs specific future comparative study are the forms of organisation of
workers’ participation, their rights and duties, in different periods of
soviet power- the Workers’ Committees[42], in Lenin’s time, the Stakhanovite
movement, in opposition to the “self-management councils” under
As part of the study
of socialist construction in other countries of Europe and Asia, there should be
included the following : How the form of working class state-power was
expressed in the People’s Democracies, the alliance of the working class
with the petit bourgeois strata and the struggle between them. The bourgeois
nationalist influences in certain policies of C.P’s in power e.g. CPC, the Union
of Yugoslav Communists. How the unification after 1945 with sections of social
democracy affected the character of the C.P’s in power e.g. the Polish
United Workers’ Party, the Socialist Unity Party in
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 developments in the international communist
movement, and questions of its strategy played a serious role[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 the
coming war[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 the international communist
movement.
At the
end of the 1920s, Bukharin, as President of the CI, supported forces in the
C.P’s and the CI which overemphasised the “stabilisation of
capitalism” and the unlikelihood of a new revolutionary upsurge, 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 its
dissolution (May 1943)[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 the struggle against imperialist war or
foreign occupation into a struggle for state-power, as a common duty which concerned
each CP in the conditions of its own country[46].
Notwithstanding
the factors which led to the dissolution of the CI, there is an objective need
for the international communist movement to form a unified revolutionary
strategy, to plan and coordinate its activity.
A deeper
study concerning the dissolution of the CI must take into consideration a
series of developments [47], such as : the cessation of the activity of the Red
Trade union International, in 1937, because the majority of its sections merged
with the mass reformist unions, or joined these unions. The decision of the 6th
Congress of the Communist International of Youth (1935), according to 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
youth organisations 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, the antifascist struggle led to the overthrow of bourgeois power,
with the critical support of the people’s movements by the Red Army, only
in the countries of Central and
In the
capitalist West, the C.P’s did not elaborate a strategy for the
transformation of the imperialist war or the national liberation struggle into
a struggle for the capture of state-power. The strategy of the communist
movement did not utilise the fact that the contradiction between capital and
labour was an integral feature of the antifascist-national liberation struggle
in many countries, in order to raise the question of state-power, since
socialism and the prospect of communism are the only alternative solution to
capitalist barbarity. There was a retreat from the thesis that between capitalism
and socialism there is no intermediate social system, and thus no intermediate
political power between bourgeois and working class state-power.
This thesis holds
true, irrespective of the balance of forces, independently of the problems
which can act as a catalyst for the speeding up of the developments e.g. the
sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions, imperialist war, changes in the
form of bourgeois state power which can take place.
28. After the end of the 2nd World War the
alliances were realigned. The capitalist states and the bourgeois and
opportunist forces which participated in the national liberation struggle in
each country (e.g. social democratic forces) united against the communist
movement and the states undergoing socialist construction.
In these
conditions the negative results of the increased opportunist erosion of some
sections of the international communist movement became even more clear. The
lack of an organisational connection between the CPs, after the dissolution of the
CI, and the seriously damaged ideological unity did not allow the formulation
of a unified strategy of the international communist movement against the
strategy of international imperialism.
The COMINFORM,
which was established in 1947[48] and was dissolved in 1956, as well as the
international meetings of C.P’s which followed, could not adequately deal
with these problems.
The
international imperialist system remained strong after the war, despite the
undoubted strengthening of the forces of socialism. Immediately after the end
of the war, imperialism, under the hegemony of the
The “Cold
War” included the organization of psychological warfare, the intensification
of military spending to exhaust the USSR economically, networks of subversion
and erosion of the socialist system from within, open provocations and the
incitement of counterrevolutionary developments (e.g. in Yugoslavia 1947-48, in
the
29. The line of “peaceful co-existence”,
as was developed in the post 2nd world war period, to some extent at
the 19th Congress (October 1952)[49] and fully at the 20th Congress of the CPSU
(1956)[50], acknowledged the imperialist barbarity and aggression
of the USA and Britain, and of certain sections of the bourgeoisie and its
respective political forces in the western European capitalist states, but not
as an integral element of monopoly capitalism, of imperialism. In this way, it
allowed the development of utopian views, such as that it is possible for
imperialism to accept in the long term the co-existence with forces that have
broken its worldwide domination. Since the 20th Congress of the
CPSU, this notion was also linked to the possibility of a parliamentary
transition to socialism in
Both
sections of the communist movement (in power or not) overestimated the strength
of the socialist system and underestimated the dynamic of the post-war
reconstruction of capitalism. At the same time, the crisis in the international
communist movement, which was initially expressed with the rupture of relations
between the CPSU and the CPC and later with the creation of the current known
as “Euro-communism”, deepened.
In
The
stance of many CPs in relation to social democracy was part of the strategy of
the “anti-monopoly government”, a sort of stage between
socialism and capitalism, which also found expression in governments which
managed capitalism in alliance with social democracy. This strategy was
initially based on the assessment that there was a relationship of
“subordination and dependency” of every capitalist country from the
This
strategy held sway especially after the 20th congress of the CPSU
(1956) and its thesis concerning “a variety of forms of transition to
socialism, under certain conditions”. This thesis was essentiallly a
revision of the lessons of the soviet revolutionary experience. The united
strategy of capitalism against the socialist states and the labour movement in
the capitalist countries was underestimated. The contradictions between the
capitalist countries, which of course contained the element of dependency, as
is inevitable within the imperialist pyramid, were not correctly analysed.
Thus, C.Ps chose a policy of alliances that included bourgeois forces, those
defined as “nationally thinking” as opposed to those which
were servants of foreign imperialism. Such views held sway as well in that
section of the communist movement which after 1960 oriented itself towards the
CP of China.
The mutual
interaction of contemporary opportunism between the CPs of the capitalist
countries and the governing CPs was strengthened in the conditions of the
fear of a nuclear strike against the socialist countries, the sharpening of
class struggle inside the socialist states (central and eastern Europe) and new
imperialist wars (Vietnam, Korea). The flexible tactics of imperialism had an
impact on the development of opportunism in the CPs of the socialist states, on
the undermining of socialist construction, and of the revolutionary struggle in
capitalist
Assessment of the stance of Kke
30. The 14th
Congress of the KKE (1991) and the National Conference (1995) exercised
self-criticism concerning the following: we did not avoid as a party the
idealisation of socialism, as it was constructed in the 20th
century. We underestimated the problems which we observed, attributing them
mainly to objective factors. We justified them as problems in the development
of socialism, something which has proven not to correspond to reality.
Our
ability to arrive at the correct conclusions was restricted by the fact that
our Party did not pay the necessary attention to the need to acquire
theoretical sufficiency, to promote the creative study and assimilation of our
theory, to utilise the rich experience of the class and revolutionary struggle,
to contribute with its own forces to the creative development of ideological
and political theses based on the developing conditions. To a great extent, as
a party, we adopted mistaken theoretical assessments and political choices of
the CPSU.
We
adapted to and tolerated the formality of the relations which appeared between
the communist parties, the uncritical adoption of theses of the CPSU concerning
questions of theory and ideology. From our experience the conclusion emerges
that the respect for the experience of other parties must be combined with an
objective judgement of their policies and practices, with comradely criticism
concerning mistakes and with opposition to deviations.
The
conference of 1995 criticised the fact that our party accepted uncritically the
policy of Perestroika, assessing it as a reform policy which would benefit
socialism. This fact reflected the strengthening of opportunism within the
ranks of the Party in this period.
This
critical treatment of the stance of the KKE vis-à-vis socialist
construction does not denigrate the fact that our Party throughout its history,
true to its internationalist character, defended the process of socialist
construction in the 20th century, with the lives of thousands of its
members and cadre. It militantly propagandised the contribution of socialism.
The defence of the contribution of socialism in the 20th century was
and is the conscious choice of our Party in the past and today after the
negative developments.
The KKE did not join
the side of those forces who, originating in the communist movement and in the
name of criticism of the
D.
The necessity and relevance of Socialism. Enrichment of our programmatic conception
of Socialism
The Necessity and Relevance of Socialism
31. The programme of the Party states: “The
counterrevolutionary overthrows do not change the character of the epoch. The
21st century will be the century of a new upsurge of the world
revolutionary movement and of a new series of social revolutions”.
The
struggles which are restricted to defending some gains, despite the fact that
they are necessary, cannot provide real solutions. The only way out and the
inevitable perspective remains socialism, despite the defeat at the end of the
20th century.
The
necessity of socialism emerges from the sharpening of the contradictions of the
contemporary capitalist world, of the imperialist system. It flows from the
fact that in the imperialist stage of development of capitalism, which is
characterised by the domination of the monopolies, the material conditions that
necessitate the transition to a superior socio-economic system have fully
matured. Capitalism has socialised production to an unprecedented level.
However, the means of production, the products of social labour constitute
private, capitalist property. This contradiction is the source of all the crisis
phenomena of contemporary capitalist societies: unemployment and poverty, which
reach explosive levels during economic crises, the extended daily working time
despite the increase of labour productivity, the failure to satisfy the
contemporary social needs for education and professional specialisation, for
healthcare based on the modern scientific and technological breakthroughs, the
provocative destruction of the environment with severe consequences for public
health and the health of the workers, the lack of protection from natural
disasters despite the new technological possibilities, the destruction of
imperialist wars, the drug trade and trade in human organs, etc.
At the
same time, these contradictions in capitalism point to the way out: The adjustment
of the relations of production to match the level of development of the
productive forces. The abolition of private ownership of the means of
production, starting with the most concentrated, their socialisation, their
planned use in social production with the aim of satisfying social needs.
Central planning of the economy by the revolutionary working class state-power,
workers’ control. The socialist aim is realistic, because it is rooted in
the development of capitalism itself. Its realisation is not dependent on the
balance of forces, the conditions under which revolutionary action develops and
which can speed up or slow down developments.
The
victory of the socialist revolution, initially in one country or in a group of
countries, springs from the operation of the law of uneven economic and
political development of capitalism[52]. The conditions for socialist revolution do not mature
simultaneously worldwide. The imperialist chain will break at its weakest link.
The specific “national”
duty of each CP is the realisation of the socialist revolution and the
socialist construction in its country, as a part of the world revolutionary
process. This will contribute to the creation of a “fully
consummated socialism” within the framework of the “revolutionary
collaboration of the proletarians of all countries”[53].
Enrichment of our programmatic conception concerning
Socialism
32. The degree of maturation of the material preconditions
for socialism differs between the various capitalist societies as a result of
the law of unequal development of capitalism. The basic yardstick for the development
of capitalist relations is the extent and concentration of salaried labour.
Under the conditions
of imperialism, the relative capitalist backwardness can flame a sudden
sharpening of contradictions, hence a revolutionary crisis and the possibility
of victory. However, the degree of socio-economic backwardness will
correspondingly make more difficult the future socialist construction, the
struggle of the new against the old. The speed of socialist construction is
influenced by what it inherits[54].
Whatever
the case, the level of the capitalist past that the revolutionary
workers’ power inherits does not justify the questioning of the basic
laws of socialist revolution and construction. These laws have general
applicability in all capitalist countries, irrespective of their historically
conditioned peculiarities which undoubtedly existed during the course of
socialist construction in the 20th century and will definitely exist
during a future socialist construction.
33. The 15th Congress of the KKE defined the
coming revolution in
In the Programme of
the KKE our basic theses concerning socialism have been expressed, which today
we can enrich, utilising the conclusions concerning socialist construction in
the
34. The high level of monopolisation, especially in recent
years, is the material pre-condition for the socialisation of the means of
production in industry, trade and tourism, so that the wealth which is produced
can become social property. Every form of private-business activity in the areas
of health, welfare, social security and education should be immediately
abolished.
Social
ownership and central planning will create the possibility for the
disappearance of unemployment.
Central
planning of the economy based on the social ownership of the concentrated means
of production is a communist relation of production. The state plans will cover
long-term, intermediate and short term goals in the planning of socialist
construction and social prosperity.
The
implementation of central planning will be organised by sector, through a
single unified state authority, with regional and industry-level branches.
Planning will be based on a totality of goals and criteria such as:
§
In energy:
the development of infrastructure to meet the needs of centrally planned
production, the reduction of the level of energy dependency of the country, the
safeguarding of adequate and cheap popular consumption, the safety of workers
of the sector, and of residential areas, the protection of public health
and the environment. In this direction, energy policies will have the following
pillars; the utilisation of all domestic energy sources (lignite,
hydro-electric, wind etc), systematic research and discovery of new sources,
the pursuit of mutually beneficial interstate collaborations.
§
In transport priority will be given to mass rather
than individual transport, to rail transport on the mainland of the country.
All forms of transport will be planned with the criterion of being interlinked and complementary and with the
goals of cheap and fast movement of people and goods, the saving of energy and
the protection of the environment, the planned development and the obliteration
of uneven regional development, the full control of national security and
defence. Precondition for the realisation of these goals in the development of
transport is the planning of the relevant infrastructure-ports, airports,
railway stations, roads- and of an industry for the production of means of
transportation. The same applies to telecommunications, the processing of raw
materials, to manufacturing, especially machine-production, with the aim of a
self-reliant economy (to the extent possible), reducing the dependence on
external trade and transactions with capitalist economies in these crucial
sectors.
§
The land will be socialised, as will the large
capitalist agricultural businesses. State productive units for the production
and processing of agricultural products as raw materials or as articles of
consumption will be set up.
§
Productive cooperatives will be promoted in small
agricultural production and in small commodity production in the cities.
Productive cooperatives will create the preconditions for the extension of
communist relations in all sectors of the economy through the concentration of
small commodity production, its organisation, the division of labour inside the
cooperatives, the increase in labour productivity, and the utilisation of new
technology. A system for the distribution of cooperative products through state
and cooperative shops will be created. Central planning will determine the
proportions between the product that is distributed through the cooperative
market (and their prices) and the product that is distributed through the state
mechanism. The aim is that eventually all the produce of the cooperatives will
be distributed through a unified state mechanism.
§
The productive cooperatives are linked to the central
planning through set production targets and plans for the consumption of raw
materials, energy, new machines and services.
§
The new achievements in technology and science will be
used with the aim of reducing labour time, the increase of free time which can
be used for the upgrading of the educational-cultural level of the workers, for
the real ability of the workers to participate in the control of the
management, and the institutions of state-power.
§
Scientific research will be organised by state
institutions - higher education bodies, institutes etc- and will serve central
planning, the administration of social production, in order to develop social
prosperity
35. A part of the social product will be distributed
according to need through public and free services- healthcare, education,
social security, leisure, protection of children and the aged, as well as through
cheap (and in some cases free) transport, telecommunications services, energy
and water supply for popular consumption etc.
A state
social infrastructure will be created which will provide high quality social
services in order to meet needs which today are paid for by the income of the
individual or the family (e.g. restaurants in the workplace, in schools).
All
children of pre-school age will be provided with free, public and compulsory
pre-school education.
The free,
public, general and basic 12-year school education will be ensured for all
through a school with a unified structure, programme, administration and
functioning, technical infrastructure, trained specialised staff.
Exclusively
public and free professional education will be ensured after the completion of
the compulsory basic education.
Through a
unified system of free public higher education, scientific personnel will be
formed, capable of teaching in the educational institutions and of providing
the specialised staff in areas of research, socialised production and state
services.
An exclusively free
and public health and welfare system will be established. The directly social
production (socialised means of production, central planning, workers’
control) creates the material basis, so that a developing socialist economy -
in accordance with its level of development- can ensure equally, for every
member of society, the conditions for health care and welfare as social goods.
They are provided as a precondition for physical and psychological
wellbeing, the intellectual and cultural development of every person, which
depend on the living and working conditions, the overall environmental and
social conditions affecting each person’s ability for labour and social
activity.
36. With the creation and implementation of the first
state plan, the operation of commodity-money relations will already be
restricted. Their continual restriction, with the prospect of their complete
disappearance, is linked with the planned extension of communist relations in
the whole of production and distribution, with the expansion of social services
to satisfy an ever larger part of the needs of individual consumption. Money
gradually loses its content as a form of value, its function as a means of
commodity exchange and is transformed into a form of certification of labour
carried out, so that workers can have access to the section of the social
product which is distributed in accordance to their labour.
Access to
these products is determined by the individual’s labour contribution
within the framework of the whole of socially useful labour. The measure of an
individual’s contribution is labour time, which is determined by the Plan
in accordance with the following: the overall needs of social production, (e.g.
the transfer of labour force to specific regions, or priority industries),
other special social needs (e.g. maternity, individuals with special needs),
the vanguard stance in the organization and execution of labour.
Each
policy in the formation of the working “wage” is shaped based on
the above principles. Whatever deviations exist, as an inherited
differentiation on the basis of “value” determinations (which
reduce complex and specialized labour into simple labour), will be dealt with
in a planned way, giving priority to raising the income of the lowest paid
sections of the workers.
Central
planning aims, in the medium and long term, to develop in a generalized way the
ability of the workers to perform specialised labour, as well as shifts in the
technical division of labour, to achieve the generalised development of labour
productivity and the reduction of labour time.
The role
and the function of the Central Bank will change. The regulation of the
function of money, as a means of commodity circulation, will be restricted to
the exchange between socialist production and the production of
agricultural cooperatives, in general the commodity production of certain
consumer goods, until the final disappearance of commodity production. On this
basis, the respective functions of certain specialised state credit organisms
for agricultural and other productive cooperatives and certain small producers,
will be controlled.
The same
will hold true for international-interstate transactions (trade, tourism), as long
as capitalist states exist on earth. Consequently, as a department of state
planning it will regulate gold reserves or reserves of other commodities which
operate as world money.
The new role of the
Central Bank in the exercise of general social accounting will be shaped and it
will be connected with the organs and goals of central planning.
37. Socialist construction is not compatible with
participation of a country in imperialist formations, such as the EU and NATO.
Revolutionary state-power, in accordance with the international and regional
situation, will seek to develop inter-state relations, with mutual benefit,
between
38. Revolutionary working class state power, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, has a duty to obstruct the attempts of the
bourgeois class and international reaction to restore the rule of capital. It
has a duty to create a new society, with abolition of the exploitation of man
by man. Its functions-organizational, cultural, political, educational and
defensive - will be guided by the Party. It will express a higher form of
democracy, with the energetic participation of the working class, of the
people, in solving the basic problems in the construction of socialist society
and in the control over state-power and its organs, being its basic
characteristic. It is an organ of the class struggle of the working class,
which continues through other forms and under new conditions.
Democratic
centralism is a fundamental principle in the formation and functioning of the
socialist state, in the development of socialist democracy, in the
administration of the productive unit, of every social service.
The
revolutionary workers’ power will be based on the institutions that will
be born by the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its allies. The
bourgeois parliamentary institutions will be replaced by the new institutions
of workers’ power.
The
nuclei of working class state-power will be the units of production,
workplaces, through which working class and social control of the
administration will be exercised. The workers’ representatives to the
organs of state-power will be elected (and if necessary recalled) from these
“communities of production”. The exercise of workers’ and social
control will be institutionalised and safeguarded in practice, as will the
unhindered criticism of decisions and manoeuvres which obstruct socialist
construction, the unhindered denunciation of subjective arbitrariness and
bureaucratic behaviour of officials, and other negative phenomena and
deviations from socialist-communist principles.
The
representation of the cooperative farmers and small commodity producers
safeguards their alliance with the working class. The composition of the
highest organs is made up of delegates elected from the lower ones through
corresponding bodies. It will be ensured that the majority of the
representatives to these organs will made up of workers from the units of
socialist production and the public social services.
The
highest organ of state-power is a working body- it both legislates and governs
at the same time- and within its framework the allocation of executive and
legislative authorities is made. It is not a parliament, the representatives
are not permanent, they can be recalled, they are not cut off from production,
but are on secondment from their work for the duration of their term, according
to the requirements of their functions as representatives and have no special
economic benefit from their participation in the organs of state-power. From
the highest body, the government, the heads of the various executive
authorities (ministries, administrations, committees etc) are chosen.
A
revolutionary constitution and revolutionary legislation will be enacted, which
will be in accordance to the new social relations-social ownership, central
planning, workers’ control- and which defend revolutionary legality. On
this basis, Labour law, Family law and all the legal consolidation of the new
social relations will be shaped. A new judicial system will be formed, which
will be based on revolutionary popular institutions for the bestowal of
justice. The new judicial authorities will be under the direct supervision of
the organs of state-power. The judicial corps will be made up of elected and recallable
people’s lay judges, as well as of permanent staff, answerable to the
institutions of working class state power.
Among the
duties of revolutionary working class state power will be the radical overhaul
of that section of the administrative mechanism of the bourgeois state which
unavoidably will be inherited during the first phase of socialism. Working
time, the rights and duties of the workers will be regulated according to
revolutionary law. The party’s leadership, without any privileges, will
safeguard the revolutionary transformation of the public administration.
The new
organs of revolutionary security and defence will be based on the participation
of he workers and the people, and also it will have permanent specialised
staff.
In the
place of the bourgeois army and security mechanisms, which will have been
completely dissolved, new institutions will be created, based on the armed
revolutionary struggle for the destruction of the resistance of the exploiters
and for the defence of the revolution.
The direct control
of the army and of the forces for the defence of the revolution by the working
class state-power will be ensured. Theri cadre will be created on the basis of
their stance vis-à-vis the revolution.
39. The KKE, as the vanguard of the working class, has a
duty to lead the struggle for the full transformation of all social relations
into communist ones.
The
vanguard revolutionary role of the Party is consolidated through the constant
effort to deepen and develop its understanding of Marxism-Leninism, scientific
communism, with the assimilation of contemporary scientific achievements and
the class-based understanding of the problems which rear their heads during the
development of the communist socio-economic formation.
In every
phase it is important to guarantee the proletarian composition of the party, as
socialist society is not homogenous and has social contradictions.
The
vanguard revolutionary and leading role of the party is borne out by its
ability to activate the participation of he workers and workers’ control,
above all in the productive unit (workplace) and in the social services, in
order for the working class to develop into the subject of communist
self-management.
The role of the
Party is not simply ideological-educational. It is the party of the class which
has state power. The leading role of the Party in the exercise of state power
is a decisive duty. Consequently, the CP must have a direct organizational
relationship with all the structures of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It
must be concerned with all the important political questions which have to do
with the exercise of state-power; it must mobilize the working class in the
control of state-power and the administration of production. It is obliged to
give the strategic direction, without being sidetracked by secondary issues.
Epilogue
Our Party
will continue study and research, towards a better codification of our
conclusions, including issues which have not been fully dealt with. Equally
important is the assimilation of our present elaborations on
socialism-communism by all the members of the Party and the Communist Youth.
It is
this duty that will determine the ability of the Party to fully connect its
strategy with the everyday struggle, to formulate goals for the immediate
problems of the working people in connection with the strategy for the conquest
of revolutionary workers’ power and for socialist construction
The CC of KKE
19th of October 2008
[1] The Economic
School,
[2] The Economic
School,
[3] The
[4] Capitalist
relations of production, as a historically new form of exploitation of man by
man, with the relation of wage labour-capital, appeared and were extended in
the second half of the 14th century in the cities of northern Italy (e.g.
[5] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, SE,
[6] K. Marx,
“Capital”, Volume 1, pg. 91-92
[7] K Marx,
“Criticism of the
[8] K. Marx, “Capital”, Synchroni Epochi
Publications, V. 1, p 91-92.
[9] K. Marx, “Capital”, Synchroni Epochi
Publications, Volume 2, pg. 357.
[10] On the eve of
World War I there was an important for that time growth and concentration of
the working class in
[11] In 1913 the per
capita
[12] As it can be deduced from the history of the
CPSU, there was a sharp struggle in the Presidium of the CC in June 1957, one
year after the 20th Congress. The members of the Presidium of the C.C, Malenkov,
Kaganovitch, Molotov, opposed the line of the 20th Congress on both internal
and external policies: against expansion of the rights of the union republics
in economic and cultural construction, against measures restricting the state
mechanism and reorganizing the Department of Industry and Reconstruction,
against the measure of increasing material incentives for the Kolkhoz farmers,
against the abolition of obligatory handing over of agricultural products by
the individual households of the kolkhozniks. Molotov also opposed the
branching out to virgin lands. All three took a stand against the international
political line of the party. Finally, Malenkov, Kaganovitch, Molotov and
Shepilov were stripped of their rank in the CC and the Presidium of the CC at the
Plenary Session of the C.C in June. Bulganin was given a severe reprimand with
a warning. Other members were penalized. Pervukhin was downgraded from regular
to substitute member of the Presidium of the CC, Saburov was removed as
substitute member of the Presidium. In October 1957, the Presidium and the
Secretariat were enlarged with new members. “History of the CPSU”,
Political and Literary Editions, 1960, pgs. 861-865
[13] An orientation
that was laid out in the 15th Congress (1927). The AUCP (b) gave weight to the
rise in productivity of small and medium-sized households and in providing
technology and equipment. The nationalization of land did not come in conflict
with the rights of land-usage of small and medium peasants. It benefited the
small agricultural household and the forms of cooperation of the scattered
agricultural households from the most simple, the “companionships”,
up to the “artel”. The position concerning the small agricultural
household, the small production, was one of aid, not struggle. It rejected the
destruction of lower forms of organization of production in the name of larger
ones. At the same time, the advantages of the kolkhoz and the sovhoz were
projected. In parallel, it aimed to defeat certain sections of the kulak in the
villages and, subsequently, to wipe out the kulak class.
[14] The sovkhozes were state agricultural bodies organized
on the basis of the mechanization of agricultural production. The first
sovkhozes were created in 1918 from the expropriated land of large landowners.
Their produce was given in its entirety to the state. Sovkhoz workers had a
wage income, they were considered to be workers in social ownership, however,
they had the right to keep a small private agricultural household, just like
all the workers who lived in agricultural areas. They had the right, just as
kolkhoz farmers, to put on the market one part of the production of their
individual households. Certain sources estimate at 21.6 thousand the number of
sovkhozes that existed, with 12 million workers (26,4 thousand and 13 million
respectively for the kolkhoz). “Agrarian Economy”, Novosti
Publications, 1983.
[15] Decision of the CC, 15.3.1930 and personal article of
I.V. Stalin (“Dizzy from success”, I.V. Stalin, Collected Works,
V.12, pg. 218-227), where mistakes which aggravated the stabilization of the
worker-farmer alliance were noted and positions were taken in favour of
recognizing errors and correcting them, in as many areas and circumstances as
possible and where the mistakes had not created irreversible facts from
deviations or incorrect course.
[16] The
“
[17] L. Trotsky and
his supporters (later Zinoviev, Kamenev as well) argued that the
[18] This was factually confirmed with the exposure of
counter-revolutionary centres in mid 1930s. Despite some excesses in the
measures taken to deal with these centres, in the trials of 1936 and 1937, it
was revealed that there was cooperation between these centres and sections of
the army (Tukhasevsky case, who was reinstated after the 20th CPSU Congress),
as well as with the secret services of
[19] J. I. Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in
the
[20] Ibid., pg. 77-78
[21]
[22] N. A. Voznesensky, “The War Economy of the
[23] J.I. Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in
the
[24] “Undoubtedly,
with the abolition of capitalism and the exploiting system in our country, and
with the consolidation of the socialist system, the antagonism of interests
between town and country, between industry and agriculture, was also bound to
disappear. And that is what happened…. Of course, the workers and the
collective-farm peasantry do represent two classes differing from one another
in status. But this difference does not weaken their friendship in any way. On
the contrary, their interests lie along one common line, that of strengthening
the socialist system and attaining the victory of communism…. Take, for
instance, the distinction between agriculture and industry. In our country it
consists not only in the fact that the conditions of labour in agriculture
differ from those in industry, but, mainly and chiefly, in the fact that
whereas in industry we have public ownership of the means of production and of
the product of industry, in agriculture we have not public, but group,
collective-farm ownership. It has already been said that this fact leads to the
preservation of commodity circulation, and that only when this distinction
between industry and agriculture disappears, can commodity production with all
its attendant consequences also disappear. It therefore cannot be denied that
the disappearance of this essential distinction between agriculture and
industry must be a matter of paramount importance for us”. J.I.
Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the
[25] There were many small kolkhozes with 10-30 households
on small plots of land, where the technological means were not properly
utilized and the administrative managerial costs were very high.
[26] Despite the successes
that were achieved in the fulfillment of the 4th 5-year plan (1946-1950), the
CPSU leadership noted the following problems during that period: Slow rates in
the introduction of new scientific and technological achievements in a series
of branches of industry and in agricultural production. Factories with old
technical equipment and low productivity, production of tool machinery and
machines of outdated technology. Phenomena of slowing down, routine, inertia in
factory management, indifference concerning the introduction of technical
progress as a constant stimulus for the development of the productive forces.
Delay in the restoration of agricultural production, low productivity per acre
in wheat cultivation, low productivity in livestock production, the total
production of which had not even reached pre-war levels, with the result that
there were shortages of meat, milk, butter, fruits and vegetables that affected
the general goal of raising the level of social prosperity. Source:
[27] Delay in the
development of a mechanism that would reflect in the central planning the real
necessary propotions between branches and the sectors of the economy.
[28] It is important
to note how bourgeois forces characterized at that point the reforms of 1965:
1.) Bourgeois economic thought
characterized them as a return to capitalism (published material in the
“Economist”,
“Financial Times”)
2.) They had the support of Western
bourgeois economists of the Keynesian school and social democracy who
characterized the ‘reforms’ as an improvement in planning and the
battle against bureaucracy.
[29] The tractors etc until then had been state ownership.
Were concentrated in stations (machinery-tractor stations - MTS) and operated by workers
[30] On February of
[31] The Sovnarkoz
were abolished in 1965, when the separate Ministries per sector were
re-instated
[32] Plenum of the CC of CPSU in March 1965, with a
report of L. Breznev on the subect: “Urgent measures for the further
development of the agricultural economy in the
[33] Up until
[34] In 1970 the supplementary household in the USSR produced 38% of vegetables, 35% of meat and 53% of eggs. In all the supplementary household produced 12% of all agricultural products which were sold on the market (14% of livestock produce, 8% of non-livestock produce). Supplementary households produced 41% of potatoes, 13% of vegetables, 17% of meat, 9% of eggs, 6% of milk, 15% of wool which was sold as commodities (Economic School of Lomonosov University, Moscow: “Political Economy”,. Gutenberg. Athens 1984. Volume 4. P 319)
[35] Plenum of the CC of the CPSU, September 1965 on the subject “For the improvement of the management of industry, for the perfection of planning and the strengthening of the economic drive of industrial production”. The “Kosygin reforms” climaxed in the 1970s.
[36]
In industry, the reforms were applied experimentally in 1962, in the operation of two clothing production enterprises, according to a proposed system of administration by professor Liebermann (known as the Kharkov System).
Lieberman argued that the calculation of bonuses to directors in proportion with the overfulfillement of the Plan, introduced a contradiction between the interests of the directors and the interest of Soviet society as a whole. This is because the directors concealed the real productive capacity of the enterprises, they created stockpiles of raw materials and goods and they were disinterested in the discontinuation of the production of ‘useless goods’. They blocked the application of new technology in order not to alter the “norms”, that is the indexes of social production, based on which the plans’ coverage was measured. In this way, e.g. they produced thick paper, instead of thin, because the norms were measured by weight. He made some correct observations, but proposed mistaken policies. On this basis communists and workers were persuaded of the necessity of these measures.
[37] See articles of V.M
[38] See Documents
of the Pan-Hellenic Conference of KKE (1995) “Thoughts on the factors
that determined the overthrow of the socialist system in
[39] V. Tiulkin, first secretary of the CC of the RCWP-RCP, in his speech at the international conference on the 80-year anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Moscow, notes that
- The 19th Conference of the CPSU declared political pluralism.
- The road to market policies was opened at the 28th Congress of the CPSU.
- The Plenum of the CC of CPSU (April 1991) opened the way for privatisation policies.
- The policy of national “independence” (breaking from the USSR) was followed by the group of communists in the congresses of Soviets.
- The dissolution of the USSR was rubber-stamped by the so-called communist majority in the Supreme Soviet.
[40]
[41] The report of A. Zhdanov at the session of the
CC of the CPSU (February-March 1937) refers to the following problems which the
new electoral system sought to solve “we
must overcome the harmful psychology, which certain of our party and soviet
cadre have, who suppose that they
can easily win the trust of the people and sleep quietly, waiting for them to
be offered parliamentary positions at home, with thundering applause, for their
previous services. Through the secret ballot you cant take the people’s
trust for granted…We have an important layer of cadre in party and soviet
organisations, who think that their task finishes when they are elected to the
soviet. This is witnessed by the large number of cadre who do not attend the
sessions of the Soviets, the parliamentary groups and soviet departments, who
avoid fulfilling basic parliamentary duties… many of our cadre in soviets
tend to acquire bureaucratic features and have many weaknesses in their work,
and are ready to answer for their work 10 times before the party bureau in a
close “family” environment, rather than appear in a session of the
soviet and criticise themselves and listen to the criticism of the masses. I
think you know this as well as I do” KOMEP 4/2008
[42] The workers’ committees were organs of workers’ control in the period 1917-1918. These organs appeared in March 1917. Workers’ control was carried out based on the decree issued in November 1917. In 1919 the workers’ committees were merged with the trade unions. Later on, in the 1920s, the Production Councils functioned as organs of workers’ control in the factories.
[43] For conclusions
on this issue see the “Theses of the CC of KKE on the 60th
anniversary since the Anti-fascist victory of the People”, April 2005
[44] Initially the Secretariat of the EC of the CI on
[45] See
“History of the 3rd International”,
[46] It should be noted that at the 7th congress of
the KKE (1945) a decision concerning “the international unity of the working class” was voted which
mentioned amongst other things “The 7th congress
of the KKE… expresses the wish that all the workers parties in the world,
which believe in socialism, notwithstanding differences, should be incorporated
as quickly as possible in a unified international political organisation of the
working class”.
[47] Already, in 1935, the 7th Congress of the CI “recommended to the EC of the CI to shift the center of weight of its activity in the elaboration of basic political theses and theses concerning the tactics of the world labour movement, taking into consideration specific conditions and peculiarities of each country” and at the same time advised the EC of the CI to “ avoid as a rule direct involvement in the internal organisational affairs of the communist parties”. After the 7th Congress the so-called reorganisation of the mechanism of the Communist International started, by means of which “ the operational leadership of the parties, passed into the hands of the parties themselves… regional secretariats, which up to a point exercised some operational guidance, were abolished, .. In place of the departments of the Executive Committee of the CI only two organs were created; the cadre department and the department for propaganda and mass organisations.” Academy of Sciences of the USSR “History of the Third international” ps 433-434l.
[48] In the COMINFORM (Information Bureau of the CPs) the following
Communist and Workers’ parties were represented:
[49] Report of the
CC of CPR(b) to the 19th Congress. Page 28 of the edition of the CC
of KKE
[50] “The 20th
Congress of CPSU”, Zioga editions, 1965, page 8.
[51] “ “The preparation of a new war is integrally connected with the subordination of the countries of Europe and of other continents to US imperialism. The Marshall plan, the Western Union, NATO, all these links in the chain of a criminal conspiracy against peace are at the same time links of the chain which the overseas monopolies are tying around peoples’ necks. The duty of the communist and workers’ parties in the capitalist countries is to unite the struggle for national independence with the struggle for peace, to reveal the anti-national, traitorous character of the policies of the bourgeois governments which have been transformed into open lackeys of US imperialism, to unite and rally all democratic patriotic forces in every country around slogans calling for an end to their wretched subordination to the Americans, for a transition to and independent foreign and domestic policy which will meet the national interests of the peoples. The communist and workers’ parties must hold high the flag of the defence of national independence and the sovereignty of the peoples”. (Archive of the KKE; Resolutions of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ parties, meeting of November1949. Athens. Ps73-74)
[52] V.I Lenin:
“On the Slogan of the United States of Europe”, “The military programme of the
proletarian revolution”.
[53] V.I. Lenin
“Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality”
[54] Lenin in his
time defended the position that in the countries with weak-intermediate level
of capitalist development it is “easier to begin, more difficult to
continue” the socialist revolution.
[55] The
party’s programme adopted in the 15th Congress (1996) states
in Chapter D: “KKE’s concept
of the building of socialism is based on Marxist- Leninist theory, and its
enrichment with the conclusions and thoughts of our party around the
construction of socialism in 20th Century”
e-mail:cpg@int.kke.gr