18th Congress, Resolution on Socialism
“Assessments and conclusions on socialist construction
during the 20th century, focusing on the
The 18th
Congress of KKE, fulfilling the task set forward by the 17th
Congress four years ago, dwelled deeper into the causes of the victory of the counterrevolution
and of capitalist restoration. This has been an imperative and timely
obligation for our Party, as it is for every Communist Party. It was thus that
we faced this task during all the years that have elapsed since the 14th
Congress and the National Conference of 1995. It is a task interlinked with the
revival of consciousness and of faith in socialism.
For more than a
century now, bourgeois polemics against the communist movement, often assuming
the form of an intellectual elitism, concentrate their fire on the revolutionary
core of the workers’ movement; they struggle, in general, against the necessity
of revolution and its political offspring, the dictatorship of the proletariat
that is the revolutionary working class power. In particular, they fight
against the outcome of the first victorious revolution, of the October
Revolution in
For more than a
century now, every current negating, retreating or resigning from the necessity
of revolutionary struggle is being promoted as “democratic socialism”, in
opposition to the so-called “totalitarian”, “dictatorial”, “putchist”
communism. We are well aware of these polemics and calumnies against scientific
communism, against the class struggle. They pertain not only to the conditions
under capitalism, but, under different forms and conditions, also to the
process of formation of the new social relations, as well as their expansion
and maturation into communist relations.
Today, international
opportunism has regrouped itself through the “Party of the European Left”,
which has stepped up the tone of the “democratic socialism” rhetoric, under the
conditions of a synchronous manifestation of the capitalist economic crisis.
It is for this
reason that in the discussion on “socialist democracy” different weights and
measures are being used to judge events taking place during one or the other
period, with the explicit aim of erasing the contribution of socialist
construction. In some instances they negate the entire 70-year history of the
KKE remains
steadfast in the defense of the contribution of socialist construction in the
Today our Party is
ideologically more steeled and politically experienced to rebut the ideological
interventions of the bourgeois centers propagated through their periodicals and
books or via the educational process. We are dealing here with interventions
that may exert a certain influence in the immediate vicinity of the Party or
even within the Party itself.
We are studying the
ruthless course of the class struggle during the transition to the new society,
for its foundation and development, for the expansion and deepening of the new
relations of production and distribution, of all social relations and for the molding
of the new man. We bring forward the contradictions, the mistakes and
deviations under the pressure of the international correlation of forces,
without resorting to blanket nihilism.
We examine things in
a critical and self-critical manner so as to make KKE, as part of the
international communist movement, stronger in the struggle for the overthrow of
capitalism, for the construction of socialism. We are studying and judging the
course of socialist construction in a self-critical manner, that is with full consciousness
that our weaknesses, theoretical shortcomings and mistaken evaluations also
constituted part of the problem.
We are forging ahead
to additional assessments and conclusions, to the enrichment of our
programmatic conception of socialism armed with a collective spirit, with a
self-consciousness regarding the difficulties and deficiencies and with
revolutionary determination. We are well aware that future historical studies,
carried out by our Party and by the communist movement internationally, will
undoubtedly illuminate further the issues regarding the experience of the
KKE has the
experience to guarantee the continuation, the enrichment of knowledge and of a
unitary perception, as it has done since its 14th Congress.
The pre-congress
procedures have revealed the responsibility and maturity of Party members and
cadre, in their ability to voice their opinions in the direction, with the
criteria and along the main axes of the Theses of the C.C, which have been
overwhelmingly approved.
The new C.C is being
assigned the task of organizing further research on the specific subjects being
pinpointed, of seeking the cooperation of other communist forces, particularly
from the countries that were engaging in socialist construction in the past, of
choosing the ways of participation of Party members in the final formulation of
the conclusions that will be the end result of these specialized studies.
With the present
decision of the 18th Congress, KKE enriches its programmatic
conception of socialism.
Our Party is
emerging more powerful and united, capable of inspiring and uniting new working
class and popular forces, particularly of a younger age, in the struggle for
socialism.
The 18th
Congress expresses its revolutionary optimism that in the course of the years
to come a regroupment of the international communist movement (of which KKE is a
part) will become apparent, a regroupment on the basis of the development of
its communist ideological and strategic unity.
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 the superiority of
socialism over capitalism and the huge advantages that it provides for peoples’
lives and working conditions.
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 Eastern Europe, the
anti-fascist struggle, with the decisive contribution of the
The socialist state provided historic examples of
internationalist solidarity to peoples who were fighting against exploitation,
foreign occupation and imperialist intervention. They contributed in a decisive
manner 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 creativity. 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
In the
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 the insurance
contributions of enterprises and institutions. Similar conditions prevailed in
the rest of the European socialist states.
Socialist power laid the foundation for the abolition
of inequality of 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, although not all forms of unequal
relations between the two genders, which had become entrenched over a long
period of time, had been successfully eradicated.
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, educational,
women’s, youth, 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, in society
in general 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 polemics regarding democracy and
“rights” 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 socialist
relations and was finally 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 interest
and mutual aid between states that were building socialism. The level of
development of socialism in each revolutionary worker’s state was not the same.
It depended to a large extent on the level of capitalist development that
existed when power was conquered - an issue that must be taken under
consideration when assessments and comparisons are made.
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 an intrinsic potential for a dramatic and continual elevation
of social prosperity and for the wholesale development of men and women.
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
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: “Proportional 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. Forms
of production cooperatives are set up, in those sectors where the level of the
productive forces does not yet allow the socialization of the means of
production. The forms of group property constitute a transitional form of
ownership between private and social ownership, and not an immature form of
communist relations.
Part of the social needs is covered in a universal,
free fashion. However, a still significant part of the social product for
individual consumption is distributed based on the principle, “to each
according to his labour, while each one works according to his abilities.”
Under conditions of developed communism the distribution of the social product
is based on the principle: “to each according to his needs”.
Under socialism, on the basis of its economic immaturity,
there still continue to exist social inequalities, social stratification,
significant differences or even contradictions, such as those between city and
country, between intellectual workers and manual labourers, between specialized
and unskilled workers. All of these inequalities must be completely eradicated,
gradually and in a planned way.
During the construction of socialism, the working
class acquires progressively, not in a uniform fashion, the ability to have an
integral knowledge of the different parts of the productive process, of
supervisory work, a substantive role in the organization of labour. As a result
of the difficulties in this process, it is still possible that workers with a
managerial role in production, workers engaged in intellectual labour and
possessing a high scientific specialization, would tend to isolate the
individual interest and the interest of the production unit from the social
interest, or would tend to lay claim to a larger share of the total social
product, since the “communist attitude” towards labour has not yet prevailed.
The leap that takes place during the period of
socialist construction, that is 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. A
struggle of the “seeds” of the new against the “vestiges” of the old system takes
place in all spheres of social life. It is a struggle for the radical change of all economic relations and, by
extension, of all social relations, into communist relations.
The social
revolution cannot be restricted only to the conquest of power and the formation
of the economic base for socialist development, but is extended during the
entire socialist course; it includes the development of socialism for the
attainment of the higher communist stage. During this long-term transition from
the capitalist to the developed communist society, the policies of the
revolutionary workers’ power, with the Communist Party as the leading force,
acquire priority in the formation, extension and deepening of the new social
relations, in their full and irreversible supremacy, not in a subjectivist manner,
but based on the laws of the communist mode of production.
It is thus that the class struggle of the working
class continues – under new conditions, with other forms and means- not only
during the period when the foundations of socialism are being laid, but also
during the development of socialism. It is an ongoing battle for the abolition
of every form of group and individual ownership over the means and products of
production, and of the petit-bourgeois consciousness that has deep historical
roots. It is a struggle for the formation of an analogous social consciousness
and attitude corresponding to the directly social character of labour. Consequently,
the dictatorship of the proletariat, as an instrument of class domination and
class struggle, is necessary, not only during the “transition period”, for the
consolidation of the new power, the realization of the measures for the
development of the new economic relations and the abolition of the capitalist
relations, but also during the development of socialism until its maturation
into the higher, communist stage.
3. Socialist construction is an
uninterrupted process, which starts with the conquest of power by the working
class. In the beginning, the new mode of production is formed, essentially prevailing following
the complete abolition of capitalist relations, of the relation of capital to
wage labour. Subsequently, the new relations are extended and deepened, communist
relations and the new type of man develop to a higher level that guarantees their
irreversible supremacy, provided that capitalist relations have been abolished
on a worldwide scale or at least in the developed and influential countries of
the imperialist system.
The socialist course contains the possibility of a
reversal and a retreat backwards to capitalism. Such a retreat is not a new
phenomenon in social development and in any 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 transition
from a lower phase of development to a higher one is not a straightforward
ascending process. This is shown by the very history of the prevalence of
capitalism.
4. The approach arguing for the existence of
“transitional societies”, with distinct characteristics both in relation to
capitalism, as well as in relation to socialism, is an incorrect one. Starting
from this viewpoint the development of capitalist relations in
We do not overlook the special characteristics of the
period which in the Marxist bibliography is known as the “transitional
period”, during which the socialist revolution is seeking victory, a
possible civil war develops and the sharp struggle of the immature communist (socialist)
relations that are just beginning to develop against capitalist exploitative
relations, which have still not been abolished, is being waged. Historical
experience has shown that this period cannot last for a long time. In the
The 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.
It is also a
mistake to restrict exclusively to the transitional period social phenomena and
contradictions that continue, up to a certain extent, to exist also during the
immature (socialist) phase of communism (forms of individual and cooperative
production, the existence of commodity-money relations, the difference between
town and country). Such an approach perceives socialism as a classless society
with the persistence of the contradiction between manual and intellectual
labour being the only characteristic differentiating it from developed
communism. Thus, according to this approach, it is during the socialist phase
that the withering-away of the state is effected, that the dictatorship of the
proletariat ceases to exist. This view distances itself from the class approach
to the issue of the state and of the class struggle under socialism. It
underestimates the role of the subjective factor in socialist development. In
certain cases it leans towards a spontaneous decay of forms of individual –
cooperative property, of commodity-money relations. It downplays the character
of social ownership, on the basis of actual problems in the “mediation” between
producers.
5. The formation of the 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,
with the formation of institutions of workers’ control. On the basis of these
new economic relations, the productive forces, man and the means of production,
develop with rapid rates; production and the entire society become organized.
Socialist accumulation is achieved, as well as 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. The material
prerequisites for the abolition of any differentiation in the distribution of
the social product among the workers in the directly social production, in the
social services, as well as for the continuous reduction of the necessary
labour time are being continually expanded.
It is a mistake to argue that true socialization
presupposes the complete abolition of the distinction between managerial and
executive labour. The same holds true of the thesis that the “nationalisation”
(transformation into state property) of the means of production on behalf of
the dictatorship of the proletariat is something distinct from their
“socialization”. These arguments tend to question the role of the dictatorship
of the proletariat as an instrument of the class struggle of the proletariat,
which does not restrict itself to the duties of crushing the
counter-revolutionary activities of the bourgeoisie, but also has the
fundamental duty of constructing the new relations, of eradicating all social
differences and inequalities.
Socialization under socialism, as well as the entire
organization of the economy and the society, is effected through the state of
the working class, under the guidance of the Communist Party, which depends on
the mobilization of the working masses, on workers’ control.
The complete supremacy of communist relations, the transition
to the higher phase of the new socio-economic formation presupposes the
complete abolition of classes. It 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, between manual and intellectual
labour, one of the most profound roots of social inequality, the complete extinction of national contradictions.
[4]
In accordance with the universal social law of the
correspondence of the relations of production with the level of 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 of all economic relations,
in the direction of their complete transformation into communist relations, by
means of revolutionary policies. As was shown in practice, any delay or, even
more importantly, any retreat in the development of socialist relations leads
to a sharpening of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of
productions. On this basis, social contradictions and differentiations may
develop into social antagonisms and lead to a sharpening of the class struggle.
Under socialism there exists an objective basis that contains the
possibility for social forces to act, under certain conditions, 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 through which the distribution of
the social product in monetary form becomes 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 the plan that organizes production and determines its
proportions, with the aim of satisfying the expanded social needs, and the
distribution of products (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.
Central Planning expresses
the conscious mapping of the objective proportions of production and
distribution, as well as the effort for the all-round development of the
productive forces. It is for this reason that it should not be understood as a
techno-economic instrument, but as a communist relation of production and distribution
that links workers to the means of production, to socialist bodies. It includes
a consciously planned choice of motives and goals for production, and it aims
at the extended satisfaction of social needs (basic economic law of the
communist mode of production). The guiding laws of Central Planning cannot be
identified with the plan existing at any specific moment, which should reflect
in a scientific way these objective proportions.
Among the problems of Central Planning is included 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 to the development of the productive forces.
Likewise, the way in which the basic law of communism is realized must develop,
with the goal of overcoming the inadequacies and differentiations that exist in
the coverage of social needs.
7. A characteristic of the first stage of communist
relations is the distribution of one part of the products “according to
labour”. A theoretical and political debate has arisen regarding the “measure”
of labour. The distribution of part of socialist production “according to
labour” (which in terms of form resembles commodity exchange [5]) 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 necessary human productive power and
all the means of production in the necessary dimensions, through the broad use
of new technology. Labour productivity does not yet allow a decisively large
reduction of labour time, the abolition of heavy and one-sided labour, so that
the social need for compulsory labour can be abolished.
The planned distribution of labour power and of the
means of production entails the planned distribution of the social product. The
distribution of the social product cannot be effected 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 change [6] (e.g. these were at a certain level
in the
Marxism clearly defines labour time as the
measure of the 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 that is
distributed based on labour. [7] Another part (education, health,
medicines, heating, etc.) is already distributed based on needs. “Labour
time” [8] under socialism is not the “socially necessary labour time”
that constitutes the measure of value for the exchange of commodities in
commodity production. “Labour time” is the measure of the 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 labour
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 the 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.; special social needs, such as motherhood,
individuals with special needs, etc.; the personal stance of each individual vis-a-vis
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 workers’ participation in the carrying out of
their duties regarding workers’ power and administration of production, etc. The all-round development of man as the
productive force in the building of the new type of society and of communist
relations (including the communist attitude towards directly social labour) is
a two-way relationship. Depending on the historical phase, either one or the
other side will take precedence.
The development of Central Planning and the extension
of social ownership in all areas make money gradually superfluous, removing its
content as the 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 part
of the production that is allocated to the state and sets the state prices, as
well as the maximum prices for that part of production that is allocated through
the cooperative market.
The direction by which to resolve the differences
between town and country, between industrial and agricultural production, consists
of: the merging of the peasant-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, provided by the socialist
state and belonging to it and for the enhancement of labour productivity; the
creation of a strong infrastructure for the preservation of the product from
unforeseen weather hazards; the subjection of the directly social labour for
the production of agricultural raw materials and their industrial processing to
unified socialist organizations. This direction serves to transform the entire
agricultural production into a part of the directly social production.
C. Socialism in the USSR
9. We focus on 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 guiding character
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 the counter-revolution. They constituted the last act of the process
that led to the strengthening of social inequalities and differences and of the
forces of counterrevolution and social regression. 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 of the founding of socialism, up until the Second World War, concentrates
the ideological and political wrath of 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 prove a lack of the basic level of development of the material prerequisites
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 from 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 have been created, already exist.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks considered that problems of a
relative backwardness in the development of the productive forces (“cultural
level”) would not be solved by any intermediate power between the bourgeois and
proletarian powers, but by the dictatorship of the proletariat. [10]
Based on the statistical data of that period,
capitalist relations of production at the monopoly stage of their development
predominated in
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 [12] and with a large
degree of unevenness in its development, due to the extensive survival of
pre-capitalist relations, particularly in the asiatic ex-colonies of the
tsarist empire. Socialist
construction began following the enormous 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, even at their initial stage of development. 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 reject the 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 the “Maoist” current vis-a-vis
the construction of socialism in the USSR, the characterization of the USSR as
social-imperialist, the rapprochement of China with the USA, as well as the
inconsistencies in matters of socialist construction in China (e.g. the
recognition of the national bourgeoisie as an ally in socialist construction,
etc.).
Our own critical assessment
considers as given the defence of the construction of socialism in the
10. The 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 during the foundation of the basis of socialism and its
subsequent development, 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 under socialism, the lower stage of communism.
·
The strategy of and the developments in the international communist
movement.
11. The course of building a new society
in the
Up until World War II, the bases for the development
of the new society were created. The class struggle which led to the abolition
of capitalist relations and the supremacy of the socialized sector of
production, on the basis of Central Planning, was being carried out with
success. Impressive results were achieved concerning the growth of social
prosperity.
Following World War II and the post-war reconstruction,
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 matters relating to
the economy, the strategy of the communist movement and international relations.
The correlation of forces in the struggle being waged during the entire
preceding period was altered, with a turn in favor of the
revisionist-opportunist positions, 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 during 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.
Assessments on 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 regarding the economy already came to
the center of the theoretical debate and of political struggle: Is socialist
production commodity production? What is the role of the law of value, of
commodity-money relations under socialist construction?
It is incorrect to argue theoretically that the law of
value is a law of motion of the communist mode of production in its first (socialist)
stage. This approach became dominant since the decade of the 1950s in the
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 had been inherited from capitalism and had been
exacerbated by the imperialist encirclement and intervention. It was during
this period that Soviet power reduced dramatically the deep unevenness that the
revolution had inherited from the tsarist empire.
During the 1917-1940 period the Soviet power noted, for
the most part, successes. It carried out the electrification and
industrialization of production, the expansion of transport means, and the
mechanization of a large part of agricultural production. It initiated planned
production and achieved impressive rates in the development of socialist
industrial production. It successfully developed domestic productive capacities
in all the industrial branches. Production cooperatives (kolkhozes) and state
farms (sovkhozes) were created, and in this way the basis for the expansion and
supremacy of socialist relations in agricultural production was established.
The “cultural revolution” was realized. The formation of a new
generation of communist specialists and scientists was begun. 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 new socio-economic formation.
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 C.P to implement
a temporary policy of preservation, to a certain extent, of 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, the large scale of the 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), which was implemented
following the civil war, constituted a policy of temporary concessions to
capitalism. It had the basic goal of restoring industry from the ravages of war
and, on this basis, to build in the field of agricultural production relations
that would “attract” farmers into the cooperatives. A number of enterprises
were given over to capitalists for use (without them having ownership rights
over them), 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 provided to the peasants to put on the market the
remaining portion of their agricultural production.
The 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. It is presumptuous and misleading to utilize NEP, as
was done by the leadership of the CPSU with perestroika during the 1980s, to
justify the turn towards private property and capitalist relations.
15. The new phase of development of the
productive forces at the end of the decade of the 1920s allowed the replacement
of NEP by the policy of “socialism’s attack against capitalism”, that
had as its main goal the complete abolition of capitalist relations. The concessions
towards the 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).
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 the exceptionally large number of individual commodity
producers, mainly peasants. 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 to depend almost
exclusively on bourgeois specialists.
The specific conditions (imperialist encirclement, the
threat of war in combination with the extensive backwardness) forced the
promotion of collectivization at accelerated rates, something which sharpened
the class struggle, especially in the rural areas. There were of course mistakes and
certain bureaucratic excesses in the development of the collectivization
movement in agricultural production, that were pointed-out by the Party itself
in its decisions of that period [14]. However, the
orientation of Soviet power for the reinforcement and the generalization of
this movement were in the correct direction. It aimed at the development of a
transitional form of ownership (cooperative) that would contribute to the
transformation of small individual commodity production into directly social
production.
16. The policy of “socialism’s attack
against capitalism” was carried out under conditions of intense class
struggle. The kulaks (the bourgeoisie in the village), social strata that benefited
from the NEP (NEPmen) and sections of the intelligentsia that originated from
the old exploiting classes reacted in many ways, including acts 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 elements of backwardness in Soviet society. During the 1930s their views
converged to the thesis that the overcoming of capitalist relations in the
Along the way, several opportunist forces established
contacts with openly counter-revolutionary forces that were organizing plans to
overthrow Soviet power in cooperation with secret services from imperialist
countries.
The prevailing conditions dictated the direct and resolute
confrontation of these centers with the trials of 1936 and 1937, trials that
revealed conspiracies with elements in the army (the Tukhachevsky case, who was
rehabilitated following the 20th Congress), as well as with the
secret services of foreign countries, particularly of
The fact that some leading cadre of the Party and of
Soviet power spearheaded opportunist currents proves that it is possible even
for vanguard cadre to deviate, to bend when faced with the sharpness of the
class struggle and to finally severe their ties with the communist movement and
pass over to the side of the counter-revolution.
17. Following World War II, the debate on
the laws of socialist economy, a debate that had subsided due to the war, was
intensified once again. A confrontation developed around specific problems [16]
between two basic theoretical and political currents, the «marketeers»
and the «anti-marketeers» (tovarniki and anti-tovarniki), a confrontation that
involved Party cadre and economists.
I.V. Stalin, as General Secretary of the C.C of the
Party, was in the forefront of the organized intra-party discussion and
supported the anti-market direction. He contributed to the formulation of
political directives in that direction, for example the merging of kolkhozes,
the dissolution of «auxiliary enterprises» in the kolkhozes
(production of building materials). He confronted the current that pushed for
the strengthening of commodity-money relations [17], rejecting proposals to
hand-over means of mechanized production to the kolkhozes. He recognized that
socialist production is not commodity production and, thus, that the law of
value cannot be reconciled with its fundamental laws. He highlighted the role
of Central Planning in the socialist economy. He argued that the means of
production are not commodities, despite the fact that they appear as
commodities “in form, but not in content.” They become commodities only
in external trade [18]. He also
recognized that the operation of the law of value (of commodity-money
relations) in the
Polemics were waged against “market” economists
and political leaders who argued that the law of value is in general a law of
the socialist economy as well. A correct criticism was also raised against
those economists who supported the complete abolition of distribution in
monetary form, without taking into account the objective limitations still
placed by the productive base of the society at the time.
A weak spot in this approach was the thesis that the
means of consumption are produced and distributed as commodities [19]. This
thesis was correct only to the extent that it concerned the products of
socialist production that were destined for the external trade, as well as the exchange
of products between the socialist industry and cooperative and individual production.
It was incorrect as far as it concerned the remaining means of consumption of
socialist production, which are not commodities, even though they are not
distributed freely.
This approach estimated correctly that in the
The need had matured for communist relations to be expanded, consciously,
in a well-planned manner, that is theoretically and politically prepared, and
to gain supremacy 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).
The maturity of the expansion of communist relations in agricultural
production concerns to a significant extent the capacity of industry to provide
corresponding machinery, the capacity of Central Planning to carry out works
for the amelioration of agricultural productivity, protection from weather
calamities, etc. Despite the fact that at the beginning of the 1950’s there still
existed unevenness in the
However, there still remained small kolkhozes [22] which had to merge
into bigger ones in the direction of the socialization of agricultural
production, as was supported by the leadership of the Bolshevik C.P. The goal
was set of excluding the left-overs of the production of kolkhozes from market
distribution and their transition to the system of exchange between the state
industry and the kolkhozes. A discussion was also initiated on the prospects of
creating a unified economic body, which would contribute in the direction of an
«all-embracing production sector» that would have the responsibility of
allocating the entire production of consumer products.
The party and state
leadership took a clear stand in the debate regarding the issue of the necessary
proportions between Department I of social production (production of the means
of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption). It
correctly stood for the essential priority of Department I in the planned
proportional distribution of labour and of production among the different
branches of socialist industry. Expanded reproduction and socialist
accumulation (social wealth), necessary for the future expansion of social
prosperity, are dependent on this category of production (Department I).
The correct positions and directives of Stalin and the
«anti-marketeer» economists and cadre of the C.P did not manage to lead
to the elaboration of a comprehensive theoretical plan and a corresponding
political line, capable of confronting the market-oriented theoretical
positions and political choices that were being strengthened. Powerful social
pressures, as well as discrepancies, deficiencies and fluctuations that existed
within the «anti-marketeer» current, contributed to this.
18. Social
resistance (by kolkhoz peasants, executives in agricultural production and in industry)
to the need for an expansion and deepening of the socialist relations of
production was expressed, at an ideological and political level, through an
internal party struggle at the beginning of the 1950’s. The sharpened debate,
which ended with the theoretical acceptance of the law of value as a law of
socialism, signified political choices with more immediate and powerful
consequences on the course of socialist development, in comparison with the
pre-war period, when the material backwardness made the effect of these
theoretical positions less painful.
These forces were expressed politically through the
positions adopted in the decisions of the 20th Congress of the
CPSU, a congress which proved to be one of supremacy of the right opportunist
deviation. Political choices were gradually adopted that expanded
commodity-money (potentially capitalist) relations, in the name of correcting
weaknesses in Central Planning and in the administration of the socialist productive
units.
In order to solve the problems that arose in the
economy, ways and means that belonged to the past were used. 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
capacities for multi-specialization, for alternation in the technical division
of labour), workers’ participation in the organization of labour, workers’
control from the bottom up, the reverse trend began to strengthen itself. In
such a setting the level of social consciousness gradually backslided. The
previous experience and the effectiveness of the factory soviet, of the
Stakhanovite movement in quality control, in the more effective organization
and administration, in inventions for the conservation of material and labour
time, were lost.
The “market-oriented” economists (Lieberman,
Nemtsinov, Trapeznikov, etc.) mistakenly interpreted the existing problems of
the economy, not as subjective weaknesses in planning [23], but as consequences
stemming from the objective weakness of Central Planning to respond to the
development of the volume of production, to the variety of sectors and the
variegation of products required for the fulfillment of new social needs.
They claimed that the theoretical cause was the
voluntarist denial of the commodity character of production under socialism,
the underestimation 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 the quality, technology and prices of all
commodities, the level of salaries, but that the use of market mechanisms was
also required to facilitate the goals of a planned economy.
It was in such a way that, at a theoretical level,
theories of “socialist commodity production” or “socialism with a market”, the
acceptance of the law of value as a law of the socialist (immature communist)
mode of production, which operates even in the phase of socialist development,
prevailed. These theories constituted the basis for the formulation
of economic policies [24].
19. The policy
of weakening Central Planning and social ownership escalated after the 20th
Congress. In 1957, the branch ministries that directed industrial production across
the entire
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 [28]. Subsequent
reforms included: The reduction in the state procurement quotas from the
kolkhozes [29], the possibility of selling the surplus output at higher prices,
the lifting of the restrictions on the transactions of the individual peasant
households and the elimination of the tax on private ownership of animals.
Debts of the kolkhozes to the State Bank were erased, the deadlines to pay off
debt from monetary advances were extended, the direct sale of animal feed to
private animal owners was permitted. Thus, the portion of agricultural
production which originated from individual households and the kolkhozes and
which was freely sold on the market [30] was preserved and increased, while the lagging behind
of livestock production deepened, the unevenness in the satisfaction of the
needs for agricultural products between the various regions and Republics of
the USSR increased.
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” [31] (the system of “economic accounting” –
“khozrachet”- of enterprises, having 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 in industry, 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 pushed forward in the period between the 23rd (1966) and
24th (1971) Congresses. According to the New System, the supplementary
payments (bonuses) of the directors would be calculated not on the basis of the
overfulfillement of the plan in terms of volume of production
[32], 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 payments 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 differentials 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 such transactions,
etc. The Central Plan would determine the total level of production and
investments only for new enterprises. Modernisation of old enterprises had to
be financed out of the profits of the enterprises.
These reforms
concerned the entire sector of the so-called «property of the whole people», i.e. including the operation of the sovkhozes
(state farms) themselves. With a decision of the C.C of the CPSU and of the
Council of Ministers of the
The theoretical sliding
and the corresponding political retreat in the
The market reforms
that were chosen were not a one-way street. The confrontation of the economic
problems required the elaboration of more effective incentives and indices of
Central Planning, as well as of its sectoral, cross-sectoral and enterprise -
level implementation. At the same time, proposals and plans for the use of
computers and information technology [34], which could have contributed to improvements in
the technical processing of data, in order to improve the observation and
control of the production of use values through quantity and quality
indicators, were rejected.
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 principle of distribution “according to labour” was violated.
The 24th
CPSU Congress (1971), with its directives on the formulation of the 9th
5-Year plan (1971-1975), reversed the proportional priority of Department I over
Department II. The reversal of this proportion had been proposed at the 20th
Congress, but had not been accepted. This 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 growth of social wealth, the satisfaction of social
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 modern technology in industry, in transport
services, storage and distribution of products.
The choice to
overturn the proportions did not help to deal with contradictions that had been
expressed (e.g. the excess income in monetary form and the lack of an adequate
amount of consumer goods, such as electronic household appliances, colour TVs).
On the contrary, it moved Central Planning away from its basic goal of 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.
During 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 the
multiplicity of forms of ownership.
At 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 that became dominant should
not be judged today only from a theoretical perspective, but also by its
practical 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 large majority of enterprises. Shortages appeared
in many consumer products, as well as other problems in the “market”, because
enterprises were causing an artificial rise in prices, by hoarding commodities
in warehouses or by supplying them in controlled quantities.
An important index of the retreat of the Soviet
economy during the 1970’s was the decline in the
The ever increasing
involvement of market elements in the directly social production of socialism
was weakening it. It led to a decline in the dynamics of socialist development.
The short-term individual and group interests (with an increase in income
differentiation among the workers in each enterprise, between the workers and
the managerial apparat, between different enterprises) were strengthened vis-a-vis the overall interests of society. As time
passed, the social conditions were created for the counterrevolution to
flourish and to 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 the kolkhozes and of foreign trade. Data regarding
the so-called “Para-economy” (parallel economy) were also provided by the
Procurator General of the
The income differentiation among the individual
agricultural producers, the kolkhozniks, widened, as well as their opposition
to the tendency to strengthen the directly social character of agricultural
production. A portion of the peasants and of the managerial cadre of the
kolkhozes who were getting rich was strengthened as a social layer hampering socialist
construction. The
social differentiation in industry was even more pronounced through the
concentration of “enterprise profits”. The so-called “shadow capital”, the
result not only of enrichment through enterprise profits, but also of the black
market, of criminal acts of embezzlement of the social product, sought its
legal functioning as capital in production, i.e. the privatisation of the means
of production, the restoration of capitalism. The owners of this capital constituted
the driving social force of the counterrevolution. They utilised their position
in the state and party mechanisms. They
found support in sectors of the population which were more vulnerable, due to
their objective position, to the influence of bourgeois ideology and to
wavering, e.g. a significant part of the intelligentsia, sections of the youth,
such as the university students [35]. 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 perestroika, with the overthrow
of socialism.
Conclusions on the role of the Communist Party in the process of
socialist construction
21. The
indispensable role of the Party in the process of socialist foundation and
development is expressed in its leadership of working class state-power, in the
mobilisation of the 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 foundation and development of the
new society is carried out by the revolutionary workers’ power, with the
Communist Party, which acts consciously on the basis of 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, relative to all previous socio-economic formations, where human
activity was dominated by the spontaneous enforcement of social laws on the
basis of the spontaneous development of the relations of production.
Consequently, the scientific and class nature of the policies of the CP is a crucial
precondition for socialist construction. To the extent that these features become
lost, opportunism grows and, if it is not dealt with, it gradually develops
into a counterrevolutionary force.
The duty to develop the communist relations of
production - distribution pre-supposes the development of the theory of
scientific communism by the C.P, through the understanding of the laws of
motion of the communist socio-economic formation with the utilisation of
scientific study for class oriented purposes. Experience has shown that the
governing parties, in the
Class consciousness in the working class as a whole
does not develop spontaneously and 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 penetration of revolutionary consciousness amongst the
masses. It is on this material basis that ideological work, as well as the
impact of the revolutionary party which consolidates its leading role to the
extent that it mobilises the working class to construct socialism, must become
rooted.
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 tenacity, 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, the gradual loss of the revolutionary character of the Party,
confirm that in socialist society the danger for the development of deviations
never disappears. Beyond the imperialist surroundings and their undoubted negative
impact, the social base of opportunism remains, as long as forms of private and
group ownership, commodity-money relations and social differentiations remain.
The material basis of opportunism will continue to exist for the entire
duration of socialist construction and as long as capitalism, particularly in the
more powerful capitalist states, continues to exist on earth.
The new phase, following World War II, found the Party
weakened ideologically and in class terms, with massive losses of cadre
experienced and hardened in the class struggle, with theoretical weaknesses vis-a-vis
the new problems which were sharpening. It found itself vulnerable to the
inner-party struggle which reflected the existing social differences. Under
these conditions, the scales tipped in favour of the adoption of opportunist
and revisionist positions, many of which had been defeated during previous
phases of the inner-party struggle.
The adoption of revisionist and opportunist positions
by the leadership of the CPSU and of the other CPs in power, in the end transformed
these parties into vehicles which led the counterrevolution in the 1980’s.
The 19th Congress (1952) highlighted the
underestimation of and other serious problems in the development of the
ideological work of the Party [36]. The official data reveal changes in the
number and the composition of the Party membership. At the 18th
Congress (March 1939) the C.P (b) numbered 1,588,852 full members and 888,814 candidate
members. During the course of World War II, the full members exceeded 3,615,000
and the candidate members 5,319,000 [37]. In the course of the war, the C.P
lost 3 million members [38]. At the 19th Congress in 1952, the CPSU
numbered 6.013,259 full members and 868,886 candidate members [39].
The opportunist turn which took place during the 20th
Congress of the CPSU (1956) 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 mobilization
of consistent communists more difficult. A struggle was waged within the ranks
of the CPSU before, during [40] and after the 20th Congress. The
period when Andropov was the GS of the CC of the CPSU (November 1982-February
1984), which preceded the period of perestroika, is too brief to be
definitively judged. Nevertheless, in articles and documents of the CPSU of
this period, references are being made to the need to intensify the struggle
against bourgeois and reformist views regarding the construction of socialism,
as well as to the need for vigilance vis-a-vis the subversive activities of
imperialism.
The consistent communist forces that existed within
the CPSU were not able to reveal in time the treacherous counterrevolutionary character
of the line which got the upper hand at the Plenum of the C.C of April 1985 and
at the 27th Congress of the CPSU (1986). History has shown that at
the 28th Congress (1990), on the eve of the final assault of the counterrevolution,
there co-existed within the CPSU bourgeois, opportunist and communist forces.
The communist forces did not have the strength to prevail, to prevent the
victory of the counterrevolution, although they offered resistance during the
28th Congress and later on. They grouped themselves around the «United
Front of the Working People of Russia», they put up
candidates for the positions of president and vice-president of
Despite such resistance, a revolutionary communist
vanguard, with ideological political clarity and cohesion, 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 a powerful resistance,
both within the governing parties and within the international communist
movement, could have contributed so that today’s struggle for the
reconstruction of the international movement would be taking place under better
conditions. It could have created the preconditions for the overcoming of its
deep crisis.
The 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 and the full-fledged development and
victory of the counterrevolution were not inevitable.
We are continuing the investigation of all the factors
which contributed to this development. The following factors can be included:
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 extensive casualties 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 relative dependence which communist
state-power in the
- The historical inheritance of the
- 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
massive losses during World War II and the sacrifices at the level of social
prosperity required by the post-war reconstruction, under the conditions of
competition with the 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 during the course of assimilation of the countries of
Eastern and
- The fear of a new war, due to the imperialist
interventions in Korea etc, the Cold war, the Holstein dogma of West Germany
(the non-recognition of the GDR, and its characterization as a «zone of soviet
occupation»).
B) Imperialist strategy adapted itself in form during
the different periods of the revolutionary workers’ power (direct imperialist
assault in 1918 and 1941, proclamation of the “cold war” in 1946), including a
differentiated policy of diplomatic relations and commercial transactions with
certain states of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as a more direct
ideological and political pressure on the USSR. The interventionist policy of
international imperialism towards the countries of socialist construction
utilized the subversive role of international social democracy.
The international correlation of forces during World
War II favoured the strengthening of opportunism, which finally prevailed
during the 1950’s. The multi-faceted external pressure from the beginning of
the 1940’s took the following forms:
- German imperialist occupation of a significant part
of the USSR
- Imperialist encirclement of the USSR through its
forced alliance with the USA and Great Britain
- Problems in the strategic line of the international communist movement, particularly in the C.P’s
of the USA and Great Britain, that is in the C.P’s of the main imperialist
powers, which became allies when a significant part of the USSR was under
German occupation.
- Pressure from petit-bourgeois forces in the
liberation fronts and their governments in the states newly allied to the USSR.
The external pressure intermingled with the internal
pressure from petit-bourgeois forces (or even from cadre of a bourgeois origin
in the economy and the administration). The private (individual) commodity
production became stronger in the USSR with the incorporation of new
territories following World War II.
All of the above constitute factors for the
development of opportunism, conditions under which a large growth of the
Party’s ranks and a loss of cadre and members of the Revolution took place.
The evolution of the social composition of the Party,
of the structures and of the internal Party procedures (the reasons for the
long delay in holding a congress) and their influence on the ideological level
and on the revolutionary characteristics of the Party as a whole, of its
members and cadre, are objects of further study.
C) The problems of strategy and the split in the international communist movement.
The course of Soviet power
23. The theoretical foundation for the
analysis of the course of Soviet power is that state-power under socialism is
the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the power of the working class which
is not shared with anyone, as is the case in all forms of state-power. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of the working class in the
class struggle which continues by other means and forms.
The working class, as the bearer of the 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 supremacy of communist relations, for the “eradication” of classes and
the withering away of the state. Through its revolutionary state-power, the working class as the ruling
class implements its alliance with other popular strata (e.g. the cooperative small
owners of town and country, the self-employed in the service sector), as well
as with scientists-intellectuals and technicians originating from the
upper-middle strata who are not yet workers in directly social (socialist)
production. Through this alliance, the working class seeks to lead these strata
in the foundation and development of socialism, towards the total supremacy of
communist relations.
Such an alliance contains of course compromises, as
well as struggle, since there exist objective contradictions between these social
forces, since this alliance groups together common, as well as distinct,
potentially competitive interests. Contradictions which, if they are not solved
in the direction of expanding and deepening socialist relations, are liable to
sharpen into antagonistic contradictions.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is retained until
all social relations become communist, i.e. as long as there is a need for the
state as a mechanism of political domination. Its necessity is also the result of
the continuation of class struggle internationally.
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, since the most essential duty of the dictatorship of the
proletariat is the formation of the new social relations.
In the first Constitution of the RSFSR [43] and in the first
Constitution of the USSR of 1924 (as well as in the constitutions of the
Republics of 1925), the relationship between the masses and the state machine
was effected through the indirect electoral
representation of the workers, with the production unit being the electoral
unit. The right to vote was ensured only for working people (not generally for
the citizens). The bourgeoisie, the landowners, anyone who exploited another’s
labour power, priests and monks, counterrevolutionary elements were denied the
right to vote. The concessions towards the capitalists during 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 residents).
The holding of elections in electoral assemblies was abolished, replaced by their
holding through 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 [44], such as the lack of
direct communication of party and soviet officials with the base and with the operation
of the Soviets, bureaucratic attitudes, etc, as well as at guaranteeing the
stability of Soviet power in the face of the coming war.
The critical approach to these changes focuses on the
need to study further the functional downgrading of the production unit as the nucleus
of organisation of workers’ power, due to the abolition of the production unit
principle and of the indirect election of delegates through congresses and
assemblies. We need to study 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 democratism
in the dictatorship of the proletariat).
25. Following the 20th Congress
(1956) the powers of the local soviets on questions which concerned “economic
accounting” and “self-management” of socialist enterprises were strengthened.
In this way, democratic centralism at the political level receded to bring it
to par with the retreat of Central Planning at the economic level. Measures
were adopted which strengthened the “permanence” of officials in the soviets,
through the gradual increase of the terms of office of their organs and an expansion
of the possibility for the exemption of delegates from their duties in
production.
At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) mistaken
assessments and approaches concerning “developed socialism” and the “end
of class struggle” were adopted. In the name of “non-antagonistic
contradictions” between social classes and groups, the thesis that the USSR
was a “state of the whole people” (consolidated in the constitutional
revision of 1977) and the CPSU a “party of the whole people” was
adopted. This
development contributed to the adulteration of the characteristics of the
revolutionary workers’ state, to the deterioration of the social composition of
the Party and its cadre, to the loss of revolutionary vigilance, which was
theorised with the thesis for the “irreversibility” of the socialist course.
Through perestroika and the reform of the political
system in 1988, the Soviet system degenerated into a bourgeois parliamentary
organ with a division of the executive and legislative functions, a permanence
of office holders, an undermining of the right to recall, high remuneration,
etc.
26. Practical experience reveals the
gradual distancing of the masses from participation in the soviet system, which
– particularly during the 1980s - had attained 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 becoming
stronger through the economic policies being followed, to the sharpening of
contradictions between individual and group interests on the one hand, and the
collective social interest on the other. It was in this fashion that the
criteria of workers’ control were degenerating or were adopting a formal
character.
So 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 practice was becoming more and more removed
from the official pronouncements, as the rates of the expanded industrial and
agricultural reproduction declined, in tandem with the rates of satisfaction of
the ever increasing social needs.
The working class, the popular masses in general, did
not reject socialism. It is notable that the slogans used by perestroika were “revolution
within the revolution”, “more democracy”, “more socialism”, “socialism with a human face”, “return to
the Leninist principles”, because a large section of the people, who saw
the problems, wanted changes within the framework of socialism. Both the
measures which initially weakened communist relations while strengthening
commodity-money relations, as well as those which later paved the way for the
return of private ownership over the means of production were promoted as
measures that would strengthen socialism.
The strategy of the
international communist movement and developments within it
27. Developments within the international
communist movement and the issues of its strategy played an important role in
the worldwide class struggle and in the configuration of the correlation of
forces [45].
Problems of ideological and strategic unity were
expressed during the entire course of the Communist International (CI), regarding
the character of the revolution, the nature of the coming war
following the rise of fascism in Germany [46] and the attitude vis-a-vis
Social democracy.
The opportunist groups within the Bolshevik CP (Trotskyites -
Bukharinites) were also connected to the ongoing struggle within the CI
concerning the strategy of the international communist movement. At the end of
the 1920s, during the 6th Congress of the C.I, Bukharin, as president
of the CI, supported forces in the C.P’s and the CI which exaggerated the
“stabilisation of capitalism” and the unlikelihood of a new revolutionary
upsurge, and expressed a spirit of rapprochement with social democracy,
especially its “left wing”, etc.
A relaxation in the functioning of the CI as a unitary
centre had appeared many years before its self-dissolution (1943) [47]. The dissolution of
the C.I (May 1943), despite the problems of unity it had and irrespective of
whether it could be retained or not, deprived the international communist
movement of the centre and the capacity 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 concerning
every CP in the conditions of its own country [48].
Irrespective of the reasons which led to the
dissolution of the CI, there is an objective need for the international
communist movement to formulate 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 [49], such as: the
cessation of the activities 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 Young Communist
International (1935), according to which the struggle against fascism and war
demanded a change in the character of the communist youth organizations, which
led in some cases to their unification with socialist youth organizations (e.g.
in Spain, in Latvia, etc).
While the war created a sharpening of the class
contradictions inside many countries, the antifascist struggle led to the
overthrow of bourgeois power, with the decisive support of the popular
movements by the Red Army, only in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
In the capitalist West, the C.P’s did not elaborate a
strategy for the transformation of the imperialist war or of the national
liberation struggle into a struggle for the conquest of state-power. The
strategy of the communist movement did not utilise the fact that the
contradiction between capital and labour was an integral component of the
antifascist-national liberation character of the armed struggle in a number of
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.
The lack of such a strategy in the C.P’s cannot be
justified by the negative correlation of forces, due to the military presence
of American and British troops in a series of Western European countries. The
C.P’s are obliged to elaborate their strategy irrespective of the correlation
of forces. There was a gradual retreat from the concept that between capitalism
and socialism there can exist no intermediate social system, and thus no
intermediate political power between bourgeois and working class state-power.
This thesis holds true, irrespective of the correlation
of forces, independently of the problems which can act as a catalyst for the
speeding up of developments e.g. the sharpening of inter-imperialist
contradictions, an imperialist war, changes in the form of bourgeois state
power which can take place.
28. Following the end of World War II, alliances
were restructured. 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 socialist
states.
Under these conditions, the negative results of the
increasing opportunist erosion of some sections of the international communist
movement became even clearer. The seriously damaged ideological unity and the
lack of an organisational connection between the CPs, after the dissolution of
the CI, did not allow the elaboration of an independent unified strategy of the
international communist movement vis-a-vis the strategy of international
imperialism.
The “Information
Bureau” of the Communist Parties [50], which was established in
1947 and was dissolved in 1956, as well as the
international meetings of the 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 U.S hegemony, started
the “Cold War”. It was a carefully elaborated strategy for undermining the
socialist system.
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 GDR 1953, in Hungary in 1956,
in Czechoslovakia in 1968 etc). A differentiated economic and diplomatic
strategy was followed vis-a-vis the new socialist states in order to break
their alliance with the USSR, to strengthen the conditions for their
opportunist erosion.
At the same time, the imperialist system, with the USA
at its helm, created a series of military, political, economic alliances and
international lending organisations (NATO, EC, IMF, World Bank, international
trade agreements). These ensured the coordination of capitalist states, and bridged
some of the contradictions amongst them, in order to serve the common strategic
goal of a multi-pronged pressure on the socialist system. They organised
imperialist interventions, systematic and multi-faceted provocations and
anti-communist campaigns. They used the most up-to-date ideological weapons to
manipulate the peoples, to create a hostile climate against the socialist
states and the communist movement in general. They utilised the opportunist
deviations and the problems of ideological unity of the communist movement.
They supported economically, politically, and morally every form of discontent
or disagreement with the CPSU and the USSR. They made billions of dollars
available from their state budgets for this purpose.
29. The line of “peaceful co-existence”,
as was developed in the post-war period, to some extent at the 19th
Congress (October 1952) [51] and primarily at the
20th Congress of the CPSU (1956) [52], acknowledged the
capitalist 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 nurturing of utopian perceptions,
such as that it is possible for imperialism to accept on long term basis its
co-existence with forces that have broken its worldwide domination.
Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU
(February 1956) and its thesis for a “variety of forms of transition to
socialism, under certain conditions”, the line of “peaceful co-existence”
was also linked to the possibility of a parliamentary transition to socialism
in Europe, a strategy that already existed in a number of Communist Parties and
ended up gaining the upper hand in most of them. This thesis constituted in
essence a revision of the lessons of the Soviet revolutionary experience and a
reformist social democratic strategy. The united strategy of capitalism against
the socialist states and the labour movement in the capitalist countries was
underestimated. The contradictions between the capitalist states, which of
course contained the element of dependency, as is inevitable within the
imperialist pyramid, were not correctly analysed. The assessment that there was
a relationship of “subordination and dependency” of every capitalist country
from the USA gained the upper hand [53]. The strategy of
the “anti-monopoly government”, as a sort of stage between socialism and
capitalism, that would solve problems of “dependency” from the USA, was
adopted. This line was adopted even by the CPUSA, i.e. the C.P of the country
which was at the top of the imperialist pyramid. In political practice it found
expression in the participation of C.P’s in governments which managed
capitalism in alliance with social democracy.
It was thus that C.Ps chose a policy of alliances that
included bourgeois forces, those defined as “nationally thinking” as
opposed to those which were deemed as servile to foreign imperialism. Such
views also held sway in that section of the communist movement which, during
the split of the 1960’s, oriented itself towards the CP of China and
constituted the Maoist current.
The attitude of many C.P’s towards social democracy
was part of this strategy. The view that social democracy could be distinguished
into a “left” and a “right” wing became dominant in the C.P’s, seriously
weakening the ideological struggle against it. In the name of the unity of the
working class, the C.P’s made a series of ideological and political
concessions, while the proclamations of unity from the side of social democracy
did not aim at the overthrow of the capitalist system, but at the detachment of
the working class from the influence of communist ideas and at its alienation
as a class.
In Western Europe, in the ranks of many CPs, under the
pretext of the national peculiarities of each country, the opportunist current
known as “Euro-communism” held sway, a current which denied the
scientific laws of the socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the
proletariat and revolutionary struggle in general.
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 complete rupture of relations between the CPSU and the CPC and later
with the creation of the current known as “Euro-communism”, deepened.
The mutual interaction of contemporary opportunism
between the CPs of the capitalist countries and the governing CPs was
strengthened in the conditions of a fear of a nuclear strike against the
socialist countries, of the sharpening of class struggle inside the socialist
states (Central and Eastern Europe) and of new imperialist wars (against 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 Europe and
worldwide. Thus, directly or indirectly, imperialist pressure on the socialist
states was strengthened, utilizing, among others, both the euro communist
current, as well as the Trotskyite and Maoist currents which, to a greater or
lesser extent, supported the imperialist attacks against the USSR and the other
socialist countries.
An evaluation of the
stance of KKE
30. The 14th
Congress of the KKE (1991) and the National Conference (1995) evaluated in a
self-critical manner the following: we did not avoid as a party the
idealisation and the embellishment of socialism, as it was constructed during
the 20th century. We underestimated the problems that 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. We underestimated the complexity of the struggle with the inherited
remnants of the past; we overestimated the course of socialist development,
while underestimating the tenacity of the international imperialist system.
Our self criticism concerns our mistaken perception
regarding the causalities of socialism and the nature of the contradictions in
the process of formation and development of the new society. The stance adopted
by our Party constituted part of the problem. 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, revolutionary struggle, to contribute with its own
forces to the creative development of ideological and political positions,
based on the developing conditions. To a great extent, as a party, we adopted
mistaken theoretical assessments and political choices of the CPSU.
Our attitude was influenced to a significant extent by
the formality of relations which appeared between the communist parties, by the
uncritical adoption of CPSU’s positions 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 uncritically accepted 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 our Party during this period.
This critical treatment of the stance of 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 the construction of socialism-communism in the 20th
century, even with the lives of thousands of its members and cadre. It
militantly propagandised the contribution of socialism. The militant defence of
the contribution of socialism in the 20th century was and is a conscious
choice of our Party.
KKE did not join the side of those forces which, originating
in the communist movement and in the name of criticism of the USSR and the
other countries, were led to utter rejection, to the denial of the socialist
character of these countries, to the adoption of the propaganda of imperialism;
neither did it revise its defence of socialism, despite its weaknesses.
Issues for further
study
31. On the basis of the preceding
evaluations and directives, the new C.C should organize the deeper study and
extraction of conclusions on a series of issues:
* The forms of organisation of workers’ participation,
their rights and duties, during different periods of Soviet Power, such as the
Workers’ Committees and the Production Councils in the
1920’s, the Stakhanovite
movement in the 1930’s, in contrast to the “self-management councils” under perestroika.
Their relationship to Central Planning and the realisation of the social
character of ownership over the means of production.
* The development of the Soviets as a form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. How was the relationship “Party – Soviet –
working class and popular forces” realized during the different phases of
socialist construction in the USSR. Issues concerning the functional downgrading
of the production unit as the nucleus of organisation of workers’ power, with the
abolition of the principle of the production unit being the electoral unit and
of the indirect election of delegates through congresses and assemblies. The
negative impact on the class composition of the higher state organs and on the
application of the right of recall of delegates.
* The development of the wage policy which was
followed during the socialist course of the USSR. The evolution of the working
class structure. Further study of the relationship between individual and
social in the production and distribution of the product of socialist
production.
* The development of relations of ownership and
distribution in the agricultural production of the USSR. The differentiations
among workers in the socialist production units and services and the
stratification within private and cooperative agricultural producers.
* The developments 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.
* The evolution of relations between the member states
of the CMA, as well as the economic relations between the member states of the
CMA and the capitalist states, especially during the period when socialist
construction began to retreat.
* How the form (People’s Democracy) of working class
state-power was expressed in the other socialist states, the alliance of the
working class with the petit bourgeois strata and the struggle between them.
The bourgeois nationalist influences in certain policies of the 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 Germany, the CP of Czechoslovakia, the
Hungarian Workers’ Party.
* The course of the Communist International and of the
evolution of the strategy of the international communist movement.
* The development of the international correlation of
forces and its influence on the growth of opportunism in the CPSU. The
elucidation of the factors that led to the supremacy of opportunism in the
CPSU.
D. The Necessity and
Timeliness of Socialism. Enrichment of our Programmatic Conception of Socialism
The necessity and timeliness of socialism
32. 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”. Those struggles
which limit themselves to defending some gains, despite the fact that they are
necessary, cannot provide substantive 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 preconditions 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 large increase of labour
productivity, and a simultaneous expansion of partial employment. The failure
to satisfy the contemporary social needs for education and professional
specialisation, for healthcare prevention and rehabilitation, 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, this contradiction of capitalism
points to the way out: The alignment of the relations of production with the
level of development of the productive forces. The abolition of private property
over 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 workers’
socialist power, workers’ control. The socialist aim is realistic, because it
is rooted in the development of capitalism itself. Its designation is not
dependent on the correlation of forces, that is on 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. [54] The preconditions
that bring socialist revolution to the agenda 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 of socialist construction in its own
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”. [55]
The Leninist thesis concerning the weak link does not
overlook the dialectic relationship of the national with the international in
the revolutionary process, which is expressed by the fact that the transition
to the highest phase of communism presupposes the worldwide predominance of
socialism, or at least, its victory in the developed and most influential
countries in the imperialist system.
33. 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. [56]
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. They will
definitely also exist during a future socialist construction, which will
however begin on the basis of a capitalist development far more advanced than
that of 1917 Russia.
Enrichment of our programmatic conception concerning socialism
34. The 15th Congress of KKE
defined the coming revolution in Greece as socialist. It also defined the
anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly and democratic character of the Front as the socio-political
alliance of the working class with the other popular strata, which, under
certain preconditions and under the leadership of KKE, may evolve into a
revolutionary front for the realization of the socialist revolution. Subsequent
Congresses, especially the 16th, enriched the programmatic content
of the Front.
In KKE’s Programme our basic theses concerning
socialism have been expounded, which today we can enrich and develop, utilising
the conclusions concerning socialist construction in the USSR during the 20th
century, based on the
Marxist-Leninist theses which were developed in the 2nd chapter.
35. The high level of monopolisation which
has occurred, especially in recent years, is the material pre-condition for the
immediate socialisation of the means of production in industry, in concentrated
trade and tourism, so that the wealth which is being produced can become social
property. On the basis of socialization, every form of private-business
activity in the areas of health, welfare, social security, education, culture
and sports 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. Central Planning should guarantee the precedence of Department I
relative to Department II, the proportional expanded reproduction. 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. Planning will be
carried out based on the criterion of having all forms of transport operate in
an interlinked and complementary way and with the goals of cheap and fast transport
of people and goods, the saving of energy and the protection of the
environment, the planned development for the obliteration of uneven regional
development, the full control of national security and defence of the socialist
state. A 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, to the processing of
raw materials, to manufacturing, especially machine-production, with the aim of
a self-reliant economy (to the extent possible), reducing the dependency 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.
·
Production cooperatives of the small and medium peasants will be
promoted, having the right of the use of land as a productive medium. Small and
medium peasants will participate taking initially into account, for the
purposes of distribution, the amount of land and the number of animals by which
each of them was integrated into the cooperative. The measure of the
socialization of the land precludes, on the one hand, the possibility for land
concentration inside or outside the cooperative and, on the other hand, changes
in the utilization of the land and its commodification. Greek reality does not
require land redistribution. Land tillers possessing no property will be
employed in the state-organized agricultural units. The production cooperative
for small commodity production in the cities will be promoted along similar
lines.
Production 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 within 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
production cooperatives are linked to 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, for the acquisition
of the abilities to fully participate in the control of management, and in the
institutions of state-power.
·
Scientific research will be organised through state institutions -
higher education bodies, institutes, etc- and will serve Central Planning, the
administration of social production and social services, in order to develop
social prosperity.
36. A part of the social product will be
distributed according to need, fulfilling in an equal fashion public and free services- healthcare,
education, social security, leisure, protection of children and the aged, 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 are
being tackled today by the individual or family households (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 exclusively public, free, general (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 public and free health and welfare system will be
established. The directly social production (socialised means of production,
Central Planning, workers’ control) creates the material preconditions, so that
a developing socialist economy - in accordance with its level of development-
can ensure equally, to all its members, the conditions for health care and
welfare as social goods. They are being provided as a precondition for physical
and psychological well-being, for 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.
37. With the elaboration and implementation
of the first state plan, the operation of commodity-money relations will
already become restricted. Their continual restriction, with the prospect of
their complete disappearance, is linked to 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 certificate of
labour, by which workers can have access to that part of the social product that
is distributed in accordance to their labour.
Access to these products is determined by the
individual’s labour contribution in total social labour. The measure of an
individual’s contribution is labour time, which is determined by the Plan and
is coupled to the following goals: savings in raw materials, the application of
more productive technologies, the more rational organization of labour, the
performance of control functions in administration – management.
Labour time also takes into consideration the overall
needs of social production, the material conditions of the production process
in which “individual” labour is incorporated, the particular needs of social
production (e.g. the transfer of labour force to specific regions, or priority sectors),
as well as other special social needs (e.g. maternity, individuals with special
needs). Incentives will be created for the development of a vanguard communist
attitude vis-a-vis the organization and execution of labour, the overall
increase in the efficacy of the collective in the production unit or social
service, as a result of the different combined particular labours. The
incentives will aim at the decrease of purely unskilled and manual labours, at
the decrease of labour time, in parallel with access to educational programmes,
leisure and cultural services, participation in workers’ control. We reject the
monetary form of incentives.
The policy dictating the monetary income from labour
will be elaborated based on the above-mentioned principles, with a tendency
towards softening and subsequently eliminating monetary income differentials.
Whatever temporary deviations exist, aiming at the recruitment of experts in
certain sectors of the economy, 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 to perform specialised labour, as
well as shifts in the technical division of labour, to achieve the all-round
development of labour productivity and the reduction of labour time, in the
perspective of eliminating the differences between executive and administrative
labour, between manual and intellectual labour.
· 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
that portion of consumer goods that are not produced by the socialist
production units, until the final elimination of commodity production. On this
basis, the respective functions of certain specialised state credit organisms
for agricultural and other productive cooperatives and certain small commodity 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 Central 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.
38. Socialist construction is not
compatible with participation of the country in imperialist formations, such as
the EU and NATO. Revolutionary state-power, depending on the international and
regional situation, will seek to develop inter-state relations, with mutual
benefit, between Greece and other countries, especially with countries whose
level of development, problems and immediate interests can ensure such a
beneficial cooperation. The socialist state will seek cooperation with
countries and peoples who have objectively a direct interest in resisting the
economic, political and military centres of imperialism, first and foremost
with the peoples who are constructing socialism. It will seek to utilize every available
rupture which might exist in the imperialist front due to inter-imperialist
contradictions, in order to defend and strengthen the revolution and socialism.
A socialist Greece, loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism,
will be, to the extent of its capacities, a bulwark for the world
anti-imperialist, revolutionary and communist movement.
39. Revolutionary working class state
power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, has the duty to obstruct the
attempts of the bourgeoisie and international reaction to restore the rule of
capital. It has the duty to create a new society, with the abolition of the
exploitation of man by man. Its function is not only repressive –
organizational. It is also constructive - political, cultural, educational and defensive – under the guidance
of 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 instrument
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 borne 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 when necessary recalled) from these
“communities of production”. Young people that are not engaged in production (e.g. students in higher education) will take part
in the election of representatives through the educational units. The
participation of non-working women and retirees will take place in a special
fashion, utilizing mass organization and the units providing special services.
The exercise of workers’ and social control will be
institutionalised and safeguarded in practice, as will the unhindered criticism
of decisions and practices 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 be 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- within the framework of which the
allocation of executive and legislative powers 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 leave from their work for the duration of their
term, according to the requirements of their functions as representatives. They
have no special economic privilege from their participation in the organs of
state-power. The government, the heads of the various executive authorities
(ministries, administrations, committees etc) are chosen by the highest body.
A revolutionary constitution and revolutionary
legislation will be enacted, which will be in accordance with the new social
relations-social ownership, Central Planning, workers’ control- and which will 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 set up, 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 replacement of all administrative mechanisms with new ones
corresponding to the character of the proletarian state. The utilization of
structures and personnel originating from the old state mechanism presupposes
their revolutionary re-education. 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 carrying out of the
aforementioned directives.
The new organs of revolutionary security and defence
will be based on the participation of the workers and the people, but will also
have permanent specialised staff.
In the place of the bourgeois army and repressive
organs, which will be 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 leading role of
the Party in the military units and in the forces for the defence of the
revolution will be ensured. Their cadre will be shaped on the basis of their
stance vis-à-vis the Revolution.
Gradually, via new military schools, a new corps will
be created, chosen mainly out of youth from working class background. It will
be educated in the principles of the new state-power. The positive experience
of socialist construction, where the duties for the defence of the revolutionary
achievements were carried out not only by the special permanent bodies, but
also via the responsibility of the people through workers’ committees on shifts
etc, will be utilised.
40. KKE, as the vanguard of the working
class, has the duty to lead the struggle for the full transformation of all
social relations into communist ones.
Its vanguard revolutionary role is consolidated
through the constant effort to further assimilate and develop Marxist-Leninist
theory, scientific communism, with the assimilation of contemporary scientific
achievements and the class-based interpretation of the problems which rear their
heads during the process of foundation and 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 revolutionary leading role of the party is borne
out by its ability to energize workers’ participation and control, above all in
the production unit and in the social services.
The role of the Party is not simply
ideological-educational. It is the party of the class which has state power,
with a leading role in it. Consequently, the CP must have a direct leading organizational
relationship with all the structures of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It
provides the strategic direction. 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 of the
administration of production.
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 of the Communist
Youth, by the friends of the Party.
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
February
2009
The 18th Congress of KKE
Endnotes
[1] Economic School of
the University of Lomonosov, Moscow. “Political Economy”, Vol. 4, Gutenberg
Press, 1980, p. 150.
[2] The Great Soviet Encyclopedia,
Vol 31, p. 340, refers to the law with the title, “Principles of labour legislation
in the USSR and the Union Republics”.
[3] V.I.
Lenin, Collected Works, Greek edition (Synchroni Epohi), vol. 43, p. 57 and
p.79, vol. 44, pp 191-200.
[4] V.I. Lenin,
Collected Works, SE, Athens, Vol 39, p. 15.
[5] K.
Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Greek edition (SE), p. 22.
[6] K. Marx, “Capital”,
Volume 1, pp. 91-92 (Greek edition)
[7] K. Marx, “Critique
of the Gotha Programme”, Greek edition, p. 21, 22, 23 and Fr. Engels,
“Anti-Duhring”, Greek edition, 2006, p. 328, 329, 330.
[8] K. Marx, “Capital”, Volume
1, p 91-92. (Greek edition). « Time » as a measure of labour must be
viewed “merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities.”
[9] K. Marx, “Capital”, Volume
2, p. 357. (Greek edition).
[10] V.I. Lenin,
« Regarding our revolution », Collected Works, Greek edition (SE),
vol. 45.
[11] On the eve of World
War I there was an important for that time development and concentration of the
working class in Russia: the total number of workers was estimated at 15
million, out of which 4 million were workers in industry and railroads. In
addition, it was estimated that 56.6% of industrial workers was concentrated in
large industries with more than 500 workers. Russia was 5th in the
world and 4th in Europe in terms of its share in the volume of
international industrial production. Of course, the rise of industrial
production had begun at the end of the first decade of the 20th
century. The branches of means of production increased their production by 83%
during the period 1909-1913 (average annual increase of 13%). However, large
capitalist industry was concentrated in six areas: Central, N-W (Petrograd),
Baltic, South, Poland, Urals, which accounted for about 79% of industrial
workers and 75% of industrial production. The profound unevenness that
characterized the economy of the Russian Empire on the eve of WW I is reflected
in the statistical data from that era, despite their various flaws. The working
class only approached 20% of the total population (depending on the source it
was variably cited from 17% to 19.5%). Small commodity producers (peasants,
artisans, etc) accounted for 66.7% and the exploiting classes for 16.3%, out of
which 12.3% were kulaks. National Academy of Sciences of USSR, “Political
Economy”, Cypraiou Publications, 1960, p.542 and “The Great Soviet
Encyclopedia” Vol. 31, p.183-185.
[12] In 1913 the per
capita GNP of Russia was 11.5% that of the USA. Approximately 2/3 of the population
was completely illiterate.
[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 policy vis-a-vis 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, it promoted the advantages of the kolkhoz and the sovkhoz. In
parallel, it aimed to defeat certain sections of the kulak in the villages and,
subsequently, to eliminate the kulak class as a class.
[14] 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, Greek edition), where mistakes
which aggravated the stabilization of the worker-peasant alliance were noted
and positions were taken in favour of recognizing errors and correcting them,
in as many areas and circumstances as possible, where the mistakes had not
created irreversible facts from deviations or an incorrect course.
[15] The “Shakhty” affair
concerns the sabotage carried out in the coal mining industry of the Donbas
area by bourgeois specialists, cadre of industry who had been employed by the
soviet power in the organization and administration of production. During the
trial that took place in 1928, it was proven that these executives had
connections to the old capitalist coal mine owners who had left for abroad. The
sabotage was part of an overall plan to undermine socialist industry and soviet
power.
[16] 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 administration, 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:
G. Malenkov, “Report of the CC of the CP (Bolshevik) of the USSR at the 19th
Congress of the Party”, CC KKE publication, p 48-64.
[17] G.
Malenkov, “Report of the CC of the CP (Bolshevik) of the USSR at the 19th
Congress of the Party”, CC KKE publication, p 60.
[18] I.V. Stalin,
“Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, Sychroni Epochi Publications,
1988, pp. 77-78 (Greek edition).
[19] I.V. Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”,
Sychroni Epochi Publications, 1988, pg. 44 (Greek edition).
[20] “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”.
I.V.
Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” Sychroni Epochi
Publications, 1988, p. 50-52 (Greek edition).
[21] G. Malenkov,
“Report of the CC of the CP (Bolshevik) of the USSR at the 19th
Congress of the Party”, CC KKE publication.
[22] There were many
small kolkhozes with 10-30 households on small plots of land, where the
technological means were not fully utilized and the administrative managerial
costs were very high.
[23] Delay in the
development of a mechanism that would reflect in Central Planning the real
necessary proportions between branches and sectors of the economy.
[24] 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
with a battle against bureaucracy.
[25] The Sovnarkhoz were
abolished in 1965 and the separate Ministries per sector were re-instated.
[26] The tractors etc
until then had been state ownership. They were concentrated in stations
(machine-tractor stations - MTS) and were operated by workers.
[27] In February
1958 a plenary session of the Central Committee of CPSU decided the
dissolution of the MTS and the selling of their technical means to the
kolkhozes. This policy resulted in a big expansion of the kolkhoz ownership at
the expense of the social ownership.
[28]
Plenum of the CC of CPSU in March 1965, with a report of L. Brezhnev on the subject:
“Urgent measures for the further development of the agricultural economy of the
USSR”.
[29] Up
until 1958, in the USSR, forms of procurement of agricultural products from the
kolkhozes were being used that limited the market element or retained it in
form, but not in content; obligatory procurements at low supply prices, which
had the force of a tax, contracts, i.e. selling of products by the kolkhozes on
the basis of a contract with the supply organizations, payment in kind for the
work of the MTS, purchases of products above the obligatory procurements at
prices slightly higher than the procurement prices. The procurement system was
instituted in 1932-1933. The contract made its appearance earlier and was
extended to the supply of technical crops.
[30] 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 (8% of the commodity
produce of agriculture and 14% of animal breeding)
Source: Economic
School of Lomonosov University, Moscow: “Political Economy”, Gutenberg. Athens
1984. Volume 4, p. 319.
[31] 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.
[32] In industry, the
reforms were applied experimentally in 1962, in the operation of two clothing
production enterprises, according to a system of administration proposed by
professor Liebermann (known as the Kharkov System).
Lieberman argued
that the calculation of bonuses to directors in proportion with the over-fulfillment
of the Plan, introduced a contradiction between the interests of the directors
and the interest of Soviet society as a whole. This was because the directors
concealed the real productive capacity of the enterprises, created stockpiles
of raw materials and goods and were indifferent to 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. It was on this basis that communists and
workers were persuaded of the necessity of these measures.
[33] The
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol 30, p. 607, entry “Sovkhoz” (Greek edition).
[34] See articles of V.M
Glushkov [published in KOMEP (Communist Review) 1/2005] and N.D. Pikhorovich in
KOMEP 3/2005.
[35] See Documents of the
National (Pan-Hellenic) Conference of KKE (1995) “Thoughts on the factors that
determined the overthrow of the socialist system in Europe. The necessity and
relevance of socialism”, pages 23-24.
[36] G.
Malenkov, “Report of the CC of the CP (Bolshevik) of the USSR at the 19th
Congress of the Party”, excerpts re-published in KOMEP (Communist Review)
2/1995.
[37] Ibid
[38] The
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol 17, p. 671, entry “CPSU” (Greek edition).
[39] G.
Malenkov, “Report of the CC of the CP (Bolshevik) of the USSR at the 19th
Congress of the Party”, excerpts re-published in KOMEP (Communist Review)
2/1995.
[40] 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 and Molotov,
opposed the line of the 20th Congress on both internal and external
policies: against expansion of the powers of the union republics in economic
and cultural construction, against measures restricting the state mechanism and
reorganizing the administration of Industry and Construction, against the
measure of increasing material incentives for the kolkhoz farmers, against the
abolition of obligatory procurements of agricultural products from the supplementary
households of the kolkhozniks. Molotov also opposed the expansion 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 also
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, pp. 861-865.
[41] Victor Tiulkin,
first secretary of the CC of the RCWP-RCP, in his speech at the International
Conference on the 80th 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 privatization policies.
-The policy of
national “independence” (cessation 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.
In an article in
2000, on the 10th anniversary of the convocation of the 28th
Congress of the CPSU, Tiulkin mentions that, in the All-Russia Conference which
created the Communist party of the Russian Federation (within the framework of
the CPSU) appeared for the first time the faction “Movement
of the Communist Initiative” which, together with others, voted against the
decisions of the 28th Congress of the CPSU.
[42] Lenin notes: “Agreement
between the working class and the peasantry may be taken to mean anything. If
one does not take into consideration the fact that, from the working-class
standpoint, an agreement is permissible, correct and possible in principle,
only if it supports the dictatorship of the working class and is one of the
measures aimed at the abolition of classes (...)” (V.I. Lenin, “Report on the
tax-in-kind”, Collected Works, Vol. 43, p.301, Greek edition).
Elsewhere in the
same discussion, Lenin noted: “What does it mean to lead the peasantry? It
means, first, pursuing a course towards the abolition of classes, and not the
course of the small producer. If we strayed from this bedrock course, we would
cease to be socialists and would find ourselves in the camp of the petty
bourgeoisie, in the camp of the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries...”
(V.I. Lenin, “Concluding speech on the tax-in-kind report”, Collected Works,
Vol. 43, p.318, Greek edition).
[43] Russian Soviet
Federal Socialist Republic.
[44] The report of A.
Zhdanov at the session of the Plenum of the CC of the AUCP (b) (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 to be offered their deputy positions at
home, with thundering applause, for their previous services. Through the secret
ballot you can’t take the people’s trust for granted…We have an important layer
of cadre in party and soviet organizations, 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 deputies’ 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, they 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 plenum and criticize themselves and listen to the
criticism of the masses. I think you know this as well as I do”
KOMEP (Communist Review)
4/2008
[45] For assessments and conclusions
on this issue see the “Theses of the CC of KKE on the 60th
anniversary of the Anti-fascist victory of the People”, April 2005.
[46] Initially the
Secretariat of the EC of the CI, on the 9th of September, 1939, characterized
the war as imperialist and predatory on both sides, calling on the sections of
the CI in countries involved in the war to struggle against it.
[47] See “History of the
3rd International”, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, p. 428 (Greek
edition).
[48] It should be noted
that at the 7th Congress of the KKE (1945) a decision concerning “the
international political 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, irrespective of differences, should be
incorporated as quickly as possible in a unified international political organization
of the working class”.
Source: “The KKE. Official
Documents”, S.E, vol. 6, p.113.
[49] 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 to the elaboration of basic political
theses and theses concerning the tactics of the world labour movement, taking
into consideration the 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 organizational affairs of the communist parties”.
After the 7th Congress the so-called reorganization 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 organizations.”
Academy of Sciences
of the USSR “History of the Third international” pp
433-434.
[50] In the COMINFORM
(Information Bureau of the CPs) the following Communist and Workers’ parties
were represented: Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, USSR,
Czechoslovakia and France.
[51] Report of the CC of CP
(b) to the 19th Congress, p. 28 of the edition of the CC of KKE.
[52] “The 20th
Congress of CPSU”, Zogia editions, 1965, page 8.
[53] “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
defense 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)
[54] V.I Lenin: “On the
Slogan for a United States of Europe”, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp.
359-363 (Greek edition) and “The military program of the proletarian
revolution”, Collected Works, Vol. 30, pp. 131-143 (Greek edition).
[55] V.I. Lenin
“Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality”, Collected Works,
Vol. 36, p.306 (Greek edition).
[56] Lenin in his time
defended the position that in the countries with a “weak-intermediate” level of
capitalist development it is “easier to begin, more difficult to continue” the
socialist revolution.
e-mail:cpg@int.kke.gr