– Hardial Bains, 1994 –
PDF
The International Seminar: The Retreat of Revolution and the Tasks of the Communist and Workers’ Movement was held in Coventry, England on January 2-3, 1994. Hardial Bains, leader of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) presented two papers to the seminar and answered questions. Discussion is presenting A Thematic Report based on the important themes raised during this seminar. All the views in the Thematic Report were put forward by Hardial Bains unless otherwise specified.
1. On the Retreat of Revolution
One of the overall themes running throughout the seminar was The Retreat of Revolution. It was noted that the world is passing through the “present times… (that) in a way can be called special times.” The word “special” is not used here in the sense that the character of our epoch has changed, that it is no longer the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. These times “are unique and distinct from the previous times” only in the sense that in this period revolution is in ebb.
One of the features of this period is that the working class is being isolated and pushed away from the centre-stage of history. The destruction of the Soviet Union and eastern bloc and the collapse of the revisionist and social democratic parties was bound to have this effect. Every effort is being made by these parties to ensure that the international proletariat becomes the reserve of the international bourgeoisie. In this respect, the petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie have also gone over to the bourgeoisie for the time being. However, this is only a temporary phenomenon. The international proletariat cannot be pushed away from the centre-stage of present-day developments. By grasping that this is a period in which the revolution is in ebb, the proletariat prepares within these conditions to takeover its legitimate place in history as the builder of socialism. The proletariat has entered into combat with the bourgeoisie on this question of cardinal importance and the Communist Parties are fighting to ensure that the proletariat is at the centre of all developments. More than ever before, there is a need to win over the intermediate strata to the side of the proletariat. More than ever before, there is a need for the Communist Party to win over all the revolutionary elements during this period of retreat of revolution.
It was stressed that “1994 was ushered in yesterday, but it was ushered in with a perspective as if the working class no longer has any interest of its own in the present-day developments.” An impression has been created as if the working class has actually gone over to the side of imperialism and world reaction, and a superficial assessment is made of the developments in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The working class was manipulated both by the world bourgeoisie and internal reaction and was totally confused as to which way to go. The working class in those countries has been saddled with the classical capitalist system as part of imperialism and is beginning to open its eyes about what has happened to it. From this, however, it cannot be concluded that the proletariat is no longer at the centre of modern-day developments.
“The working class has been pushed to the side, not by the objective situation but by the circumstances as they have developed” is a result of the counter-revolutionary role of the revisionist and social democratic parties who were the rulers or were in the opposition both in the east and west. In the same fashion, the national liberation movement as part of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat has been truncated and put onto the side as if it were irrelevant to the present-day developments.
“Having gone through a period of revolutionary class wars for well over seven decades from the 1905 period,” it looks as if the world is passing through a period which is unique and distinct from the previous one. However, to draw this conclusion would be a mistake. There have been periods during the past seven decades as well when the revolution was in ebb. The present ebb in revolution does not signal the end “of revolutionary class wars”. On the contrary, the ebb in revolution is a period of preparation for the coming revolutionary class wars.
“It is over 75 years since the earth-shaking events of the October Revolution took place. This revolution brought liberation to one sixth of the world and was central to all the developments which took place from then on. Whether it was a question of the resolution of the problems posed by fascism or the problems posed in the post-Second World War period, the great revolution of the international proletariat was at the centre of all the solutions. The Second World War was the first important world conflagration which was resolved in favour of the proletariat and peoples of the world. It led to deep-going transformations internationally and it can be said that the world never remained the same as a result of this.
“…it so appears that if one looks at the world these days, one may come to the conclusion that the world as it existed during the post-Second World War period does not exist anymore. All the problems these days are being resolved against the interests of the proletariat and peoples. All the forces which are for retrogression are on the offensive, with counter-revolution and an offensive against communism as their instruments.” But this does not change the objective reality or the contradictions inherent to the present-day developments.
On the other side, looking at “the objective situation, one finds that the international social, economic developments actually point to something else, that is, the deepest crisis which is taking place in the economic, social and political spheres. It has to be recognized that on the one hand there are features of world capitalism which are appearing which are once again showing that it has no future, that it will be overthrown. At the same time, the revolution is in retreat.”
It was stressed that “when the situation changes so drastically, it requires courage of conviction to recognize the situation as it is. The situation demands of the communists that they must not substitute the concrete analysis of the situation with some intentions, having gone through a period of revolutionary class wars for well over 75 years.” It was pointed out that “the ebb of revolution does not mean the end of revolution” or the “end of taking revolutionary stands”
As the seminar proceeded, this theme of the ebb of revolution was dealt with several times. It was repeated many times that “as far as the nature of this era goes, it has not changed. This stage of capitalism remains the last, parasitic and moribund stage of capitalism. It is over-ripe for proletarian revolution. Socialism remains the next stage of present-day social developments… What has changed is that in this period the revolution is in ebb, not in flow. One of the features of this ebb is that there is an offensive against communism in which a lot of counter-revolutionary theories” are being promoted in order to befuddle the proletariat. “Liberal thought presents itself as the most humane, as the last word in the construction of human societies.”
Two things stand out in this regard; 1. Communists must recognize that this is the period of preparation and thus their tactics have to be consistent with the present situation; 2. In the ideological sphere, they must wage a stern struggle against so-called liberal ideology, on the basis of modern definitions. Communist theory must be brought to a par with the demands of revolutionary practice during this period of preparation.
2. Objective Contradictions
Along with the discussion of the retreat of revolution, the question naturally arose as to whether there are “any changes in terms of the contradictions that existed before, in this period.” Besides stressing again that this remains the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, it was elaborated that there exist “three main contradictions. One is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” in the advanced capitalist countries; the second is the inter-monopoly and inter-imperialist contradiction; the third is “between imperialism and the peoples,” that is, between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples.
It was specifically underlined that as long as this epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution remains, “the fundamental contradiction of this period is the contradiction between the socialist system and the capitalist system. Can one say that this system, that is this last stage of capitalism, is not over-ripe for its overthrow? The answer is: this is the last stage of capitalism. It is a parasitic and moribund stage in which capitalism is ripe for its overthrow and to be replaced by its antithesis, a new and socialist society.” It can be observed that the objective material preparations “for a new society, that is socialist society,” already exist. In sum, objective conditions are over-ripe for the creation of the new society, socialist society. The subjective conditions within this new period, the period of retreat of revolution, have to be created.
There is a link between the three main contradictions and the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and socialism; that is, the resolution of all these contradictions taken together or individually leads to the creation of socialism. None of these contradictions can be really resolved without the victory of socialism.
It was further discussed that “the issue is how these main contradictions present themselves? … If the contradiction between imperialism and the peoples has the same sharpness as during the previous period, can we say this is the period of retreat? If, say, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is sharp, then in the same fashion, what conclusion can be drawn? It is the same with the question of the inter-imperialist and interm-onopoly contradictions. The fundamental contradiction of this period remains that… between the socialist system and capitalist system.
“To what extent, then, have these contradictions sharpened? There are also other contradictions which are not fundamental; for example, the contradiction which is taking place in Europe; the contradiction in South Asia; the contradiction in terms of China and the U.S. There is a new situation, but the fundamental contradiction that this system is ripe for socialism, over-ripe for socialism, is the contradiction which is guiding the resolution of all the other contradictions. At the same time, these other contradictions exist. Imperialism, especially the U.S., as well as the EC countries, is trying to create the impression that now the contradictions can be sorted out peacefully, without violence, through negotiations, and that development can be peaceful. What is happening in Yugoslavia or what is happening in Georgia or Armenia, Azerbaijan and some other countries proves that this is not the case; that the inter-imperialist, inter-monopoly contradictions will not be sorted out in the manner which is being suggested. The U.S. has already come out openly with its ‘carrot and stick’ policy in order to dictate to the world. The U.S. has also declared that it would act in its interests whether the UN or other bodies approve of it or not.
“This is not a period of peace, a period of negotiations, a period of the end of aggression, a period during which people can just sit in the Security Council or General Assembly and sort out the problems which exist. This is the impression that they are trying to create, but this is not that kind of a period. At the same time, there is a suggestion that the contradiction between imperialism and the peoples is very, very sharp. This is not the case either for the time being. Nonetheless, this period may not last very long.
“The contradictions between various states are sharpening, their aims are clashing with one another. Take, in this respect, the ambitions of the Russian Federation… In his New Year’s message, Boris Yeltsin specifically addressed his Russian brethren in other countries. He said, ‘I will not leave you alone, I will not let you go. We will defend you, Russia will be standing with her Russian brothers.’ In other words, Yeltsin is not speaking about a peaceful world either.
“As far as the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in various countries is concerned, it erupts on various questions. But it cannot be said it is so sharp. Can we say that because this is a period of retreat, the possibilities of revolution breaking out anywhere are finished? This would be an unwarranted conclusion. Far from it, because the revolution is in ebb, the possibilities for the situation to dramatically change are far greater. This is why the communist parties have to prepare themselves, and they have to deal with these questions of preparation.
“When will the situation change? It could change tomorrow, or the period could last five to ten years. This period is not going to go on forever. It is not going to become the fundamental feature of our epoch. Finally, the resolution of these contradictions is bound to give rise to revolution. However, war can be another possibility. The world is in a state of disequilibrium; the situation can go any way. As you know, Lenin’s view on the law of uneven economic and political development actually shows that the break in the chain of imperialism could take place at any point.
“The only contradiction which has disappeared… is between the socialist camp and capitalist camp as there is no socialist camp in the world at this time. At its Sixth Congress, CPC(M-L) adopted a formulation… that there is an alternative to capitalism and it is socialism. In other words, this is the overriding contradiction. At the same time, to say that there is no contradiction between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp should not mean that the underlying contradiction between socialism and capitalism has disappeared. Some people try to equate that fourth contradiction between the socialist and capitalist camps with the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and socialism, and try to suggest that this contradiction between socialism and capitalism has disappeared. In our estimation, this is not the case.
“In terms of predicting the direction in which the contradictions will develop, one can be right, one can be wrong. But the most important developments are to take place in all the countries where the bourgeoisie has been pushing the program of privatization, fiscal restraint, shock therapy, promising the people that this new magic is going to solve the problems. In these countries the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is going to become extremely sharp.
“Internationally the bourgeoisie is promising that the problems between the imperialist countries and the monopolies can be sorted out peacefully. The rise of the economic blocs, the GATT agreement, NAFTA and others is an indication of the intensification of competition, not its elimination, and it is wrong to suggest that imperialism from now on is going to sort out issues peacefully.
“Finally, the contradictions between imperialism and the oppressed states or oppressed peoples and imperialism are going to become sharper. As you know, the issue of Iraq is a very important one, as is the issue of pressure against North Korea and the blockade against Cuba. Where a break will take place I don’t know, but all three contradictions could become very, very sharp within a matter of one year, two years, three years. I don’t think this period is going to last very long. This is why we never agreed with anybody who told us we should change our name and take up some different socialism, or that communism is discredited. This is how we look at the existence of these contradictions.”
3. The Role of Communist Parties
In the notes circulated amongst the fraternal parties and some others present at the seminar, the question was raised: How should the communist parties deal with the post-Great October Revolution period? What must the general line be for this period? What attitude should be taken towards the communist movement of the earlier period?
“While the basic doctrine of communism remains the same, it is quite clear that the communist movement has a lot of work to do in terms of elaborating a theory and line based on the circumstances within which each party finds itself. It has to be understood that while the communist movement has historically been guided by the doctrine of communism of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in its general form, the working class has always had to work out the particularities based on the specifics of its own situation. Today too, that content and form which are particular to the present period have to be made available to the communist and workers’ movements, and the movement will have to provide itself with this. The movement will have to bide its time and wait till the conditions are most favourable. At the same time, it cannot sit by idly but has to prepare itself for the right moment when it will be in a position to turn the situation around.
“The economic and other difficulties which the countries of western and eastern Europe face, and which exist throughout the world point to the urgency of finding a way out of the capitalist crisis. The productive forces are being destroyed on an unprecedented scale, causing untold misery for the people. Can capitalism transform itself into a system without crisis? Or is there a need for another system? The challenge is for the communist parties to provide an answer, not on the basis of reiterating the principles of Marxism-Leninism over and over again, but by developing their content consistent with the requirements of the present period. Only then will it be possible to free the productive forces from the clutches of the most stagnant and rigid relations of production. Similarly, the entire economic, political and philosophical basis for a new system has to be elaborated as an integral part of the workers’ movement. The modern proletariat needs its consciousness and the communist parties have to be in a position to provide it.”
In response to a question posed during the seminar about which conditions would lead to a change from the ebb of revolution to its flow, it was stressed that the condition is mainly objective but also subjective. “If it was possible to… force the ebb into flow, it would be simple. We could convene a world conference and decide how to force this change. You must have seen what the moon does on earth to the sea water. During particular stages, the moon causes the tides to ebb and flow. In the social side, a similar phenomenon takes place.
“As we discussed, there are definite indications, based on the inherent contradictions, that the situation is going to change. But will we be ready for that? Will a communist party be ready to take advantage of the situation? That is the problem which we are addressing. Lenin says that when the time comes for decisive actions, it is not the time to go to books; it is not the time to think about developing the theory required. These decisive actions are not taking place at this time, so we have to prepare. But even if the revolution were in flow, it would not mean that revolution would take place simultaneously in every single country. In Canada, the objective conditions of capitalism at its last stage have existed for some time. But can we say that conditions are ripe for revolution at this time, in the immediate sense? No. But there are other countries in the world which cannot carry on within the present situation. Look at the Balkans. All the big powers are involved there. A terrible situation has been created, and a scenario exists for a Balkan war. How are the people there going to get out of that situation? Or just take, purely from an economic point of view, the situation of Africa. Famine is stalking large parts of Africa, and a terrible economic situation exists with terrible indebtedness. What is the way out of the situation for the Africans? The point is, even when the revolution is in flow, where the chain will break is not a foregone conclusion. This means that whether the revolution is in ebb or flow, preparation remains constant. We must carry that out, so that if in flow and the time comes for decisive actions, we are ready to whatever extent we have prepared.
“The issue is what approach parties take, what is their attitude? We have seen some parties saying that communism is discredited. Communism may be discredited, but the problems in the world have not disappeared and imperialism has not changed its basic character. We cannot say that it has a future or that we should withdraw the analysis that imperialism is the last stage of capitalism, its moribund stage, and that society is ready for its next stage, which is socialism. That is the central issue.”
4. Productive Forces
There are not a few who insist that the present system is the most humane and that it represents the final stage of human development. In spite of the general crisis and the recurrence of crises of overproduction, in spite of the anarchy, chaos, violence and the reactionary wars of division of the world into zones of influence and counter-revolutionary wars, there are people who are very adamant in saying that capitalism is the only system possible. While there is a need to point out that they are mistaken in their assessment of this system, it is more important to elaborate what is actually happening at this time in society. Communist parties must emerge as the leaders in this respect, the wielders of the most advanced social science of this epoch.
When the bourgeoisie speaks of the end of history, we know that it is trying to cover up an important theoretical question. The question of the “end of history” cannot be looked at purely as an abstract problem of which “ism” won out over the other. This question is directly tied up with the factor of the productive forces. Can it be said that there is no need for the productive forces to advance by revolutionizing the relations of production? Every mode of production has to be judged both in terms of its relevance to the present and in terms of its prospects for the future. A revolutionary period only arises when the productive forces consistent with it have been developed. Is the existing mode of production spurring the productive forces or retarding them? This is the litmus test of whether a system is consistent with the present and will exist in the future or not. If, on the basis of the study of available data, it is established that a system is destroying the productive forces and obstructing their further development, this would mean the time has come for its overthrow. History, then, would set the task of establishing a system consistent with the requirements of the productive forces within that period. In modern society, it is the proletariat and the toiling masses which constitute the most decisive productive force and the most important problem is to devise and build an economic, social and political system which favours the harmonious and uninterrupted development of the productive forces. Only this can furnish the material basis for society to discharge its obligations towards all its members.
5. Soviet Socialism
It is a matter of historical record that socialism in the USSR, in the final analysis, did not provide society with the harmonious and uninterrupted development of the productive forces. This was the principle reason for its downfall. However, can it be concluded from this downfall that capitalism is the best system or that socialism is not the future of humankind?
In the course of the evolution of the Soviet Union, there appeared, in the latter part of the 1950s, serious signs of crisis in one branch of the Soviet economy — agriculture. By that time, when COMECON was established, its development had already assumed a form by which it dominated and exploited the economies of other countries. A number of reforms of a capitalist character further aggravated this crisis. The decades of the sixties and seventies witnessed the crisis spreading to all spheres of the economy. Military-industrial production completely took over the economy and determined the course of the development of the productive forces, especially with regard to its technology and investment priorities. In sectors where compelling military or geo-strategic reasons for development existed, huge investments were made in terms of productive capacity and research and development. In contrast, little attention was paid to the “day-to-day” needs of the population, resulting in economic hardship and a whole variety of social, cultural and political problems. Rather than the conditions being created for the uninterrupted and harmonious development of the productive forces, the opposite began to happen.
From the time of Khrushchev, anarchy, arbitrariness and liberalism gradually supplanted the role of planning and democracy. This trend reached its apotheosis during the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev. Instead of precisely establishing what was the problem with the base of society, Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika opened the path for the further destruction of the productive forces. By the late 1980s, the uninterrupted, chaotic and violent destruction of the productive forces which had been under way for over thirty years had been taken to new extremes. This ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet state. Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, is witnessing the drive towards the complete restoration of capitalism and this is putting even greater pressure on both the human and material productive forces.
The Russian experience is but an example of one of the most pronounced tendencies of capitalism at its final, most parasitic stage: the destruction of the productive forces and the block to their growth in the absolute sense, while the renewal of the productive forces and their growth only takes place in the relative sense. Present day capitalism subjects the productive forces to the destructive power of the capitalist relations of production, forcing them to restructure according to the dictate of profit maximization.
6. Claims on Society
The easiest way of establishing whether a mode of production and its stage of development are spurring the productive forces or retarding them is the extent to which society satisfies the claims of its members. Does society see the task of developing the productive forces as a necessary precondition to fulfilling the claims of its members upon it? Is society at this time organized to do this? As the experience with privatization, “shock therapy,” “fiscal restraint,” and so forth, shows, the negation of an individual’s claims upon society always goes hand in hand with the destruction of the productive faxes.
The colossal destruction of the productive forces can be seen from the negative performance of just five indices of the economic system: unemployment, the annual bankruptcy rate of enterprises, the capacity utilization rate, the deficit and national debt and fie level of impoverishment. To this may be added the huge state expenditures on armaments. If the entire militarized sector of the economy is taken into consideration, the drain from what amounts to strictly unproductive expenditure and investment is really colossal. Can such negative trends be eliminated without society fulfilling its obligation towards its members? Can society really deal with the economic problems of its system without making this obligation the main motive force of production?
Fiscal conservatives claim that society must first de-recognize the claims that people have upon it, as the prelude to the solution of the economic problems, especially those concerning the size of the budget deficit and the level of indebtedness. How can a society throw millions of its own people onto the streets and condemn millions of others to perpetual impoverishment under the pretext that it is solving economic problems? Present-day societies — from Russia, India, Canada, to Britain, Germany and Japan — are doing precisely this. Fiscal conservatives have a plan to hasten the rate of the destruction of the productive forces as a solution to the economic problems! What should the response of the proletariat be to such a plan?
“Looking back on the concrete experience of socialist revolution and the construction of socialism during the past seventy-five years, one is confronted with the example of a society which had accepted its obligations towards its members. It is legitimate to ask what went wrong with such a society? Why did it finally abdicate its responsibilities towards its members? Besides anything else, the explanation can only be that the state which came into being did not extend the recognition of the rights of all peoples on a continuous basis. Certain fundamental rights of working people were recognized by dint of their being the producers of wealth, but recognition was not extended to the principle that all people have rights by dint of their being human. In other words, while the proletarian state was able to expropriate the capitalists and defend the rights of the proletariat and working masses, it was unable to reach a stage where the levers of political power directly passed into the hands of the people.
“There is an organic link between the harmonious and uninterrupted development of the productive forces, on the one hand, and the recognition by society that all people have claims upon it by dint of being human. The socialist society in the Soviet Union did not develop this far. On the contrary, by the mid-fifties it began to retard the development of the productive forces and proved incapable of successively extending the recognition of rights. Most importantly, it did not create the conditions for people to have the decisive say in the governance of the country. Khrushchev could declare that the Soviet state was a ‘state of the whole people’ but, in the absence of enabling legislation to make it so, such declarations remained a dead letter. He raised the slogan of ‘burying capitalism’ as a pretext for depriving people of their rights by dint of being human. This was also the case with all those who followed him. Leonid Brezhnev justified the arms race under this pretext, as well as the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when he gave the thesis of ‘limited sovereignty.’ At one point in the 1970s, a Soviet version of the ‘end of history’ thesis was given on the basis of the slogan ‘Developed Socialism.’”
7. Burning Question of the Day
It was stressed repeatedly throughout the two-day seminar that all the communist parties “will have to prepare their next step. They will have to pay attention to the international situation and the situation in which every party finds itself in its own country. What should be their response under the present circumstances…?” What should be the general line and “…how will the general line protect the interests of the world proletariat and fulfil its historic role as the builder of socialism…?” It was highlighted that the immediate question is not merely one of a tactical character but is one of closely looking both at the objective situation and the kind of subjective force which is needed, especially the kind of Party. This is the way the burning question of the day was posed.
It was pointed out that under “the circumstances in which Karl Marx and Frederick Engels lived, there existed one kind of party.” It was mainly a parliamentary party. “Under the circumstances of Lenin and Stalin there came into being another kind of party. It was a revolutionary party. Under both circumstances the program of the Party remained socialist and communist.” Of course, what was common between the parties of the time of Marx and Engels and of Lenin and Stalin was the strategic aim of the working class, the aim of transforming the world from capitalism to socialism and communism through revolution. Circumstances again have changed. What kind of party is necessary at this time?
This question must be answered by keeping as a constant that it will be a communist party, it will be revolutionary and it will be based on democratic centralism. The modern feature which will be added in a demonstrative way is that it will not come to power itself or as the representative of the working class. It will be the instrument of bringing the working class into power to lead the people to establish the broadest possible democracy. Can it be said that the addition of this modern feature will not change anything in terms of form and content? No, it cannot be said. Such changes have to be brought about by the parties themselves according to their circumstances. At the same time, the features of revolutionary communism, democratic centralism and proletarian internationalism will not only remain the same but will be further enhanced.
For the communist movement and the world proletariat, there is this special period, a new period. It can be said that this period came into being with the collapse of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. This period can be called a post-Great October Revolution period, a period of ebb of revolution. Everywhere, whether internationally or nationally, there is a need to look at the situation according to a modern definition of things, according to the way circumstances present themselves, while keeping the aim of social transformation through revolution constant.
We are living through circumstances in which, in all the advanced capitalist countries, the working class, as a result of the manipulation of the labour aristocracy and the influence of the bourgeoisie, has actually gone onto the side of the bourgeoisie. There is no opposition emerging in the name of the working class, to what the bourgeoisie is carrying out under the present circumstances in Britain, in the USA, in Canada, France, Germany or elsewhere. Organizations with the aim of socialism and communism, organizations with the explicit aim of defending revolutionary theory, are reluctant to enter a direct combat with the bourgeoisie, to smash the stranglehold of the labour aristocracy on the working class. In other words, they are reluctant to develop the leading role of the proletariat. In a manner of speaking, they are sidelined by the circumstances. They are quite happy with their phrases and the situation in which they are called fringe parties. Under these circumstances, betrayal and perfidy in the name of the doctrine of communism and socialism are the order of the day. In countries like the USA, which has the world’s largest proletariat, one cannot see a sizeable communist party, one cannot see a sizeable contest of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, even billionaires like Ross Perot, who take up causes which seem to attract the working class, appear to have greater appeal to the working class and others than those who present themselves as the representatives of the working class, as the representatives of communism. Should the communist parties not examine why this is the case? Perhaps there is something lacking in their work, in the character of their parties? The class struggle has not died down, and the working class is not finished. The sharpest class struggle is taking place on the question of what kind of democracy and what kind of system should be established in various countries. Is there a party which can exploit this situation in favour of the working class and open the path to the progress of the society? What kind of Party will that be?
8. Need for Theory
It was pointed out during the seminar that “…in the circumstances in which Marx and Engels found themselves and in which Lenin and Stalin found themselves, the elaboration of a theory which could guide the economic and political transformations, as well as the elaboration of a philosophy which could guide the waging of the sternest possible ideological struggle,” in sum, a guide to deep-going revolutionary transformations were central to the developments. Such a theory assumes its final form, according to Lenin, in the course of a really revolutionary and a really mass movement. Lenin also pointed out, when speaking of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, that their work revolutionized social science, but it was not a sideline work. It was work on the high road of civilization, work which the humanity of that time was concerned about, In the sphere of the economy, what was the source of wealth, or, to put it another way, how exploitation takes place, was a problem put in front of all for elaboration and solution, be they bourgeois or proletarian, whether they belonged to the middle strata or any other. On these questions, all classes deliberated. There you find the rendering of this problem by the bourgeoisie who got extremely panic-stricken by the developments of the 19th century.
This development was such that for the first time the class struggle became simplified between the two most powerful classes, the bourgeoisie and the working class. At the same time, the working class appeared on the scene as the grave-digger of the bourgeoisie, in the words of Karl Marx. For the first time in history, there arose human beings who declared that they had rights by virtue of being workers, and workers not in the sense that they work, but workers in the sense that they were the product of modern industry; they were proletarians, and they demanded that all conditions of wage slavery must be eliminated. They had the theory of Karl Marx on their side. From then on, in the history of social science, in the history of the revolutionary movement, in the history of the working class movement for emancipation, there has always been a contention between those who look at the doctrine of socialism and communism as isolated, marginal, special, separated from the preoccupations of the society at large, so to speak, and those who look at it as integral to the high road of civilization and seek solutions to these problems as an inseparable part of the motion of society.
Exceptionalism,… the presentation of issues in a manner which becomes a sort of a sect, which may not be the concern of the society but only of some individuals in society, became one of the greatest diversions and provocations of the times. The 20th century is filled with such things. Such provocations were posed by people such as Bakunin of Russia and, in the 20th century, by Trotskyites and others. Most importantly, in the 20th century, especially since the mid-50s, in those countries where the working class had power, where socialism was constructed, especially in the Soviet Union, the preoccupation of the official social science was not the preoccupation of the entire world. Egged on by the same kind of scholarship in the U.S., if it can be called scholarship, the elaboration of theory was officially declared to be a pursuit which should not be followed and the problems were reduced to self-serving propaganda against communism, taking up the Hitlerite method of lies, subterfuges, confusion and so on. In this context, the USA presented communism in the worst light possible.
If you look at the achievements of social science, whether in the Soviet Union since the mid-50s or in the USA, you will find that none of the problems which were posed by the social systems as they developed have been addressed. In the sphere of political theory, for instance, the earth-shaking revolution in Russia had, for the first time, put the question of political power in the hands of the masses as an immediate item on the agenda. As you know, historically all exploiting classes speak of the rule of the multitude, of the masses, as rule of anarchy and disorder. If such a thing as the rule of the multitude is possible, then, according to them, it will be a rule of anarchy and disorder. Otherwise they claim it is not possible. For the first time, with the power of the working class and peasantry rising in Russia, people were recognized by dint of being citizens of that country. Working people were recognized by dint of being workers, and so on. The fundamental law of the land was declared explicitly to serve the needs and requirements of that society which would be the condition for the emancipation of the working class.
In the initial sense the working class was emancipated, the exploiting classes were eliminated and socialism did win victory. Social science, within those circumstances, presented the next challenge. In political theory, the achievements of the Soviet Union compelled every capitalist country to adopt a universal franchise as the basic requirement of democracy. For the first time, in all these countries, working people forced the bourgeoisie to provide rights to women and to provide rights on the basis of being citizens with no other consideration. All over the world, after the Second World War, no constitution, generally speaking, which did not recognize a universal franchise as the fundamental condition for the existence of a democracy, was recognized as such. But a universal franchise was not enough. Social science was presented with a new problem: the problem of people exercising power. In other words, the recognition that it is the right of all members of society to govern their own society and that this is a basic human right, that is a right which belongs to all people by dint of being human. Only the proletariat had the interest, will and capacity to provide that right.
However in none of these countries, including the Soviet Union, were such problems of political theory sorted out. On the contrary, the role of the party as the sole dictator in the society was enshrined. The state acted as an instrument of the party, instead of the party acting as an instrument of the state. In these countries, party secretaries from the highest to the lowest level became the final word in determining all economic, social and other affairs. Such a right actually belonged to the people of these countries. Communist parties, from being the organizers and the vanguard of the proletariat, became instruments in the hands of various cliques. The results of all this can be seen today. Today it is not a matter of debating whether this or that clique has evil motives or intentions. Everybody’s motives have been explained and made clear for all to see.
It was further highlighted that “…in Britain, as well as in Canada, the U.S., France and other countries, the arch-reactionary right wing is trying to present itself as the reformer. It is trying to capture the space of discontent of the people with this political system. Within these circumstances, one can see the bankruptcy of that political force which acts in the name of socialism and communism, but which is reluctant even to speak of elaborating modern theory for the modern circumstances. It is quite satisfied with what may or may not have taken place in the 1930s and with arguing whether the tactics of the United Front of the 30s were right or wrong.
Every issue becomes the most important one for them to elaborate, except the issue which, objectively, has become the most important for social science: that without the elaboration of political theory, it is not possible to bring about political changes. What Lenin said has been proven right over and over again — that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. If you look at the elaborations which came out of the Soviet Union, a superpower, the greatest economic and political power along with the U.S., you will see what state this political theory has been reduced to.
“In China, an effort was made in various ways to put forward a political theory. But the Chinese could not accomplish this because they were infected with the very serious illness of exceptionalism. China refused to participate in actual debate of a character which all modern social scientists participate in, that is, in the elaboration and elucidation of problems which each branch of science faces. Today too, on the centenary of the birth of Mao Zedong which was celebrated on December 26, this can be seen. The occasion was not celebrated as the birth of one of the greatest revolutionaries of our time, an anti-imperialist fighter who belongs to the whole world, but as the birth of an exceptional and unique personality of China. Things were attributed to him which never belonged to him, and there was no effort made to put the personality of Mao Zedong where it properly belongs within the annals of world revolution, and to let every serious revolutionary assess it and deliberate on it.
“The Chinese have been pre-eminent in promoting this theory of exceptionalism. Since China is one of the most important countries and once again the contradiction between China and the U.S. is flaring up, it is quite possible that in China power will exist in the hands of those who want to defend the independence of China.” It is quite possible that the very conditions of social development in China will force the elaboration of theory consistent with modern times.
“However, the main danger of exceptionalism comes from Euro-centrism which denies the possibility of theory ever developing in the conditions of the countries of other continents, thus contributing to one modern social science. American exceptionalism is another which opposes the development of revolutionary social science. Even though communists have no power in the U.S. at this time, still some continue to follow the theory of exceptionalism. They carry out a program which is unique to the United States and counter to revolution. They are not in step with the requirements of social science.”
It was further stressed: “In the sphere of the economy, after the initial victory of the construction of socialism, there arose various problems. The problem of socialism is not merely the problem of central planning, as some people suggest. In the final analysis, the question arises: Who is to determine what happens to the social product? Social planning merely pertains to the field of analyzing and establishing guidelines about which sectors of the economy should develop and to what extent. Of course, in this respect all the working people have to participate in determining this as well. But a society does not only have its general interests. There also exists an interest which appears because of the sector of the economy one works in. This refers to the broad sectors of the economy such as agriculture, heavy and light industries, the service sector, and so forth.
What should be the relationship between these sections? How does one evaluate the work of one in relationship to the other and in relationship to the general interests of the society? What should be the relationship between the countryside and the cities?
“In the Soviet Union, after Nikita Khrushchev came to power, this problem was aggravated, as also happened in eastern Europe. Taking advantage of this, the extreme right-wing came back with old 18th century economic theories to justify the worst kind of medievalism, according to which the only real producer is one who participates in agricultural production. The urban proletariat is merely a parasite and the communists were subsidizing the urban proletariat in order to maintain their rule. The first principle of the counter-revolution in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries, including Russia, was that such a thing should be reversed. Under the name of ‘shock therapy,’ they ‘freed prices.’ They began to shift the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers under the new conditions by eliminating subsidies. Where is the work of the socialists and communists to resolve these problems of economic theory? Theory stagnated on this question as well. In the case of political theory, the problem arises that an individual member of society cannot give away his/her rights to a ’representative.’ It is not possible to advance from this stage of society to the next, that is from capitalism to socialism, on the basis of what is called representative democracy. In the same fashion, in the sphere of the economy, collectives have a right to determine their worth. They have a right to determine the price of their product and the remuneration they should receive for their work, that is, their salaries.
“Individuals also have the right to decide the worth of their work. This contradiction between the general and the collective and the individual interests — whether in the fields of the economy or politics or any other — has to be resolved in favour of opening the path for the progress of society, where social production has arrived at a point that such a resolution has become a permanent demand.”
The seminar also addressed problems of philosophy. Besides opposing the theory of exceptionalism, Euro-centrism and other such schools, it was pointed out that “in the sphere of philosophy, it is generally the prevailing idea in socialist and communist circles that these problems were sorted out by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin” and that no problems remain to be dealt with. According to this view, the only thing that remains is to issue calls to everyone to adhere to this philosophy. It was stressed that “this is where the real face of marginalization of such communists can be seen, as well as their bankruptcy. Frederick Engels, who was so excited by the achievements of science, pointed out not once but several times that with the new achievements in the natural sciences, our theory of dialectical and historical materialism will be reworked, new features will arise, a new content will be given, and additions will be made along with the new discoveries. To be content with philosophy merely as a pedantic exercise will not do. The issue is to show how dialectics, in terms of relations between peoples in a human society, are playing themselves out, as well as the dialectics between society and nature, and how dialectical and historical materialism itself becomes more relevant and more profound as it is increasingly put in the service of deep-going revolutionary transformations in society.” The rich experience of the twentieth century in the profound socialist revolution and construction should amount to something! It should contribute to the development of theory, as theory does, indeed, lag behind practice.
9. Modern Definitions
To conclude this aspect of the discussion during the seminar, it was pointed out that “if our movement does not take up these questions and does not excel in terms of giving rise to scientists, to those who contribute to the solution of such problems, it is not possible, as Lenin pointed out, to have a revolutionary movement, because this is what revolutionary theory is. What has happened during this period is that, with the revolution in retreat, the content and form of ideological struggle has also changed. Today the struggle has to be directed against all the theories of the liberal bourgeoisie, all of whom are essentially tories. It has to be directed against those who want to divert the communist movement and working class movement away from its task. All parties have to, within their conditions, work extremely hard to extricate themselves from that narrowmindedness, that myopia, which has been imposed as a way of life. They have to present themselves as having relevance to modern society. There is a space for communism. The thesis which is presented about the collapse of socialism as a system and doctrine gives the most poisonous and pernicious message to the working class, that there is no hope, that there is no system which will work. It looks very logical and rational but, excuse me for saying so, only the most backward worker would believe such a thing, because the question is that the proletariat has to open a path to progress.
“The proletariat cannot simply beg in history and say give us an ‘ism’ for our liberation. As the vanguard of the class, a communist party cannot repeat endlessly that socialism works. It has to elaborate that theory of liberation in the economic, political and philosophical spheres, in the course of carrying out the class struggle against the class enemy. There is a difference there…”
Revisionists and all sorts of opportunists present themselves as the saviours of the proletariat. On this basis, they eliminate the leading role of the proletariat and give that leading role to themselves. On the other hand, Marxist-Leninists do not look at the proletariat as an insipid, useless class, as merely a productive force. For a communist party which is guided by Marxist-Leninist theory, such problems as substituting the party for the proletariat do not arise. The party has its own work as the vanguard of the class. The proletariat has its own work as the builder of socialism, as the class leading the emancipation of entire humanity. The proletariat has to rise to the occasion and the vanguard has to make it conscious. This relationship was turned around under the various revisionist and opportunist influences.
A question was raised as to whether the effort by the powers-that-be to marginalize, isolate and belittle the doctrine of communism is deliberate. Is it a deliberate effort on the part of those who have now fully restored capitalism in various countries, to downgrade and eliminate the relevance of Marxist-Leninist theory, and to suggest that it is only useful for small groups operating in isolation from the problems which society faces? It was said that “In my opinion… it is a deliberate effort.” It was pointed out that there are also not a few people in the world “who believe that Marxism-Leninism is ipso facto the most advanced theory. They do not have to lift a finger to do anything. They do not have to provide any content. But Marxism-Leninism did not fall from the skies. This was not a content which was inherent in the heads of some individuals. It was the work of very definite individuals working in very definite conditions. In this context, many are overawed by the work of Karl Marx, but they do not want to correlate that Marxism will be useless unless this theory is made operational by work. At this time, unless minds like Marx, so to speak, exist who revolutionize social science within the present circumstances, who are travelling on the high road of civilization, there will be no revolutionary movement. Such a role belongs at this time to political parties and not to individuals alone.”
It can be seen that “it is not incidental that when a communist party makes a contribution, even though it may be small, but nonetheless poses a challenge to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie does not recognize it. You may agree or disagree with the work of CPC(M-L) in the sphere of political theory, but in terms of the space of reform, the communist party is the one in Canada which is awakening the people to launch their attacks against the system there. Of course, bigots, who exist both in the bourgeoisie and in the so-called communist movement, think that it is totally irrelevant to take up the democratic renewal of the political process. On the contrary, they highlight and spread the views of those who say we need ‘accountability.’ This means that representative democracy will remain the same, but they will have more ‘consultations’ with the people before the decisions are made. They want to have what they call Recall, but only on the basis of representative democracy. They want the right of the people to initiate legislation recognized as well. Such things already exist by law in several states in the U.S. and in certain countries. These are not profound reforms. In themselves they can merely strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie.
“In Britain where the greatest crisis in political theory exists, the bourgeoisie will not want to see and will not respond to those who would want to establish a democratic society in modern terms… A communist party cannot remain aloof from waging the most vigorous struggle to isolate the bourgeoisie. What we find is that all the revisionist trickery, that is people talking about John Major being the enemy, the Conservatives being the enemy, and so on, diverts as much as possible from the real issues. ‘Wipe out the tories’ was raised in Canada or is raised in Britain. Well, they were totally wiped out in Canada for the time being. What comes next?
“Is this the sum total of communism, its total content? Can this be given the dignity and honour of a line? Any backward worker can see that when an attack takes place in the sphere of the economy in Britain, Major is responsible, before him Thatcher, and so on. They will say, ‘Down with the Tories, Down with Major!’ The same backward worker also yells ‘Down with communism’… Reducing the class to this level will not bring it honour. On the basis of such things, the class will not be able to create a new condition for society to escape from the disaster of capitalism, which brought two world wars in the 20th century and literally set the world ablaze.”
It was further stressed that “this period of ebb is not something new in the annals of revolution. Right after the First World War, after the victory of the Great October Revolution, which was an earth-shaking victory, the revolution failed in Germany, and this put revolution in retreat. There are many instances which can be given. But from modern history from our direct experience, let me illustrate something to refresh your mind about some events.
“One of the greatest events of the 20th century was the victory of the Indo-Chinese people over the U.S. Did this give rise to social transformations in world? Did it give rise to changes in the advanced capitalist countries? Today U.S. imperialism is making movies about how humanitarian it was in Vietnam. Today various apologists of imperialism are trying to suggest that maybe they were wrong in terms of their approach to support for the people of Indo-China, that at least they should have been neutral and just demanded peace. The revolution of the Sandinistas was not a small achievement either. Nor was the revolution of the Iranian people. What did they give rise to? Should we not draw some conclusions from this?” Should there be no theory which sheds light on the present to guide the working class movement for emancipation?
10. Major Problems of Our Time
The following questions were crystallized during the seminar as the most important facing the communist and workers’ movement in the sphere of theory today: What kind of society should exist at this time? What are society’s obligations to its members? What political and economic theory and philosophy will guide such a society? What kind of party?
Some of the important themes discussed at the seminar which are of great interest are reproduced below in the form in which they were raised.
11. Who Is to Blame for the Destruction of Socialism in the Soviet Union?
Question: In your excellent opening paper, you raised the question of the very real challenges which the communist movement throughout the world faces and almost invited us to be brave, to be able so leave our prejudices aside and really engage in theoretical discussion in a way we have never done before, because if we do not do this, our movement will be, it is in retreat anyway. In the spirit of trying to get to a truly scientific and a truly objective understanding,… by the 50s, with the emergence of the Khrushchev gang, really everything went wrong just there, just at that particular point, everything began to go wrong. We can study the scholars themselves, the reforms that they had begun to make, some key questions, and so on.
Answer: Excuse me for interrupting you, but you said that you want to leave the prejudices behind, so why don’t you do that, because you are trying to debate with me when these problems started. Do you recognise that this problem exists? It does not matter when it started. I am saying it is totally irrelevant to determine when this problem started. The issue is, does this problem exist or not?
Question: The question then is, you are presenting to us, the international Marxist-Leninist movement, that maybe things began to go wrong in a very profound way from Khrushchev onwards. O.K. We are dialecticians, materialists, and we see history moving in contradiction… and we see there must have been a force at play before that historical point. You can answer the question if you wish, my own personal view is that they did not actually begin with Khrushchev, it happened before then. Ask yourselves, the communists in this country, Britain, their own accommodation with the bourgeoisie happened before 1950. The Italians were also doing this. The key question is now, at the moment there are many communist parties around the world that are gathering together, and you could say, well, why are we discussing the so-called intricacies of whether Stalin said this or that. The point is in Sao Paulo recently, we still have the perpetuation of a Popular Front, which means we are subsuming our politics, our differences in an accommodation with the bourgeoisie… [asked to state the question]. The question is, can you honestly expect our communist movement to accept that internationally that this began in 1950, and it is actually happening now, the South African Communist Party, the ANC, are still living with those illusions, so those illusions have had tragic outcomes in various countries.
Answer: If I mention to you that the problems started with Adam and Eve, you will be very unhappy as well. In dialectics, we determine the character of the thing by its dominant features at a particular time. We do not look at the secondary tendencies. We do not look at what else must be existing which could at some later time cause problems. The dominant feature of the Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev period is the attack on communism, the restoration of capitalism. These are facts which are undeniable. The dominant feature before was the victory of socialism, laying down the material, technical base of socialism in the Soviet Union, the victory over fascism and so on. These are facts which are also undeniable. When we say that no work was done and point to the lack of political theory and all this, it is not some complaint against Khrushchev or Gorbachev or anyone else. We are posing this as a problem for ourselves. We are not posing the problem from the angle of determining who was wrong or who started all this. We are posing the problem that here and now we must develop and provide ourselves with new content, modern definitions. In other words, we must elaborate economic, political, philosophical theory within these conditions. If you were to say that Stalin was responsible for all this, I would not spend even a second to consider it, because all idealist schools take up a secondary aspect and try to present it as the main one. For instance, there is such a thing as human nature, that is, the way within very definite systems people look at things, their gravitations in a spontaneous manner. But we cannot blame the problems which exist in, say, capitalist society, or socialist society, on human nature. These are not the main things which characterize a society. Similarly, it is of no consequence to us whether somebody says Stalin was responsible for this or that, because we are here not because of this or that name. We are interested in the development of theory the way I have mentioned, the way I am going to speak about later on as well.
You have brought all sorts of things from here and there and put them together. You say Sao Paulo is following the line of popular front politics. If you are right in this respect, it makes me extremely happy. I wish that popular front tactics had won when the man from the Workers’ Party was put forward as a candidate for President of Brazil. If he had won two years ago, this would have been a great block to what is called “neo-liberalism”, privatization, and so on, in the sense that these people are committed to opposing the neo-liberal policy. This would not have meant the development of socialism there, or deep-going transformations. If you mean by this that there are some people who believe that on some political points it is possible to defeat the bourgeoisie so as to open up various things, I am very enthusiastic, very much in agreement with that. As I said before, if any country takes a just stand in political terms and it helps, then we will politically support that. If, for instance, China’s stand today helps defeat the American policy on Korea, I am with the Chinese in political terms. You are trying to connect something here which makes your claim that you want to leave your prejudices behind hollow. That is, you are trying to link the disasters taking place at this time with the name of Stalin. This is something which is not going to develop any theory. It is not going to make any contribution. You can do it, but I will not be the person who will reply to you. You can carry on writing about it anywhere, you can marginalize yourself to the extreme. Do you know in the objective sense what the bourgeoisie says about Stalin? Stalin, they say, was a ruthless killer. Do you believe that? This is very important for you to understand, because by saying he is a ruthless killer they are trying to deny that there was socialist construction, that this socialist construction was an inevitable stage in historical development. They want to divert attention from the necessity for socialism. In the same fashion, it seems to me, that you agree to leave prejudices behind… but in what you are saying in this respect, to raise the level of theory, to give it the grandeur it should have so that it is away from the hands of these pin-pricks and others who merely want to say, Stalin was wrong. It does not impress me in any shape or form. It does not help anybody to say Stalin was wrong. Most probably certain sections of the bourgeoisie get very excited about this.
It was repeated throughout the seminar that the fact socialism was not destroyed during the time of Stalin means that he cannot be accused of preparing the conditions for its destruction. It was also emphasized regarding the policy of united front which led to the victory over fascism. Things have to be looked at in their actual existence, that is, in their objective life, and not in terms of some categories of ideas.
12. Science and Exceptionalism
Question: The Communist Party of China exceptionalist? In this country, the contribution of Mao as greatest revolutionary was either too emotionally followed and never criticized, or now it has come in the form of a program about character assassination. They never portray a revolutionary as a comprehensive revolutionary figure, trying to assassinate his character as they did with Stalin. Especially they prepared it for his centenary. This has created a lot of confusion. Small groups, mostly Trotskyites, lump 10 or 20 questions together, confusing the layman as an intellectual outpouring. I would like to see you elaborate the term “exceptionalism” or we would be just guessing what you mean. I would like to see it made clear that we should also try to analyze, whither China? It seems to me that China is becoming like a superpower, doing all that superpowers did, though occasionally they will take a stand, say with Korea, but most of the time they keep quiet. It is the duty of the communist party to give a content above that. We don’t generalize a big state like China, but analyze. It is going off the rails, no longer a socialist country. Would you elaborate, please.
Answer: These days there is a modern version of exceptionalism in philosophy. It is called deconstructionism. It is not philosophy in the strict sense, but they preach this. The central argument in deconstructionism is that, say you are of Indian origin living in Britain, only you can understand what problems a person of Indian origin living in Britain has. Nobody else can understand. In Canada there is such a thing called “elite accommodation” on the basis of categorizing people. For instance, if women’s oppression can only be understood by women, some women then are given a position to speak on women’s issues. That is called “elite accommodation.’’ Otherwise they will not be able to speak. The same thing with national minorities, the native people, and so on.
Exceptionalism appears in natural science in the 19th century, especially when general theories were being evolved. For example, when discoveries in chemistry, physics, the work of Darwin and others, were showing an interconnection between everything, and showing that these phenomena could be explained by observing them in their change, development and motion, in themselves and in their relationships. According to the exceptionalist theory, which they teach in Britain and other countries, it comes up in one form according to which a thing will be determined by the kind of instrument you use. So, say if you have a very good microscope you will be able to look at the tiniest of things. They deny that matter is in motion, and it can only be studied in its motion, in its change and development and not just because of the instrumentality. The instrument is in the service of your work, but not the main thing. Mao Zedong advocated that China will liberate itself by giving Marxism “an indubitably Chinese character.’’ That became the instrumentality in the hands of the Chinese communists… How does one give Marxism a Chinese character? In natural science, if the Chinese are giving the law of gravity a Chinese character, what will that be? By doing this they stop the discussion on most important questions. What appears is that their anti-revisionism was simply defence of the interests of China, a form of national chauvinism. They fought the Soviet Union only from the point of view of their own national interests. In the communist movement, Earl Browder presented U.S. capitalism in this spirit of exceptionalism. Far from showing that capitalism is overripe for its overthrow, he called it young capitalism, and so on… The theory of exceptionalism is a broad theory used in natural science to stop the development of science, to finally prove that God exists. In social science it is used to stop the development of the revolutionization of social science.
Question: But in Marxism-Leninism we say it should be applied to the concrete conditions of a particular country. Did they go beyond that?
Answer: What Engels has said was that Marxism is a guide to action, not a dogma. In other words, we have to, by using it as a guide, elaborate theory from the conditions of one’s own country and internationally. We cannot just repeat that dogma. That was the point there. Concrete analysis of concrete conditions means that we should not substitute dogma for analysis… One of the very important issues at this time on which the international climate is very volatile and dangerous is that within these conditions we must take political stands which help the situation. For instance, any stand which helps to reduce tension on the Korean peninsula should not be looked at as manoeuvring. In an objective sense, the U.S. must be forced to take nuclear weapons out of the peninsula and not be allowed to interfere in Korea’s internal affairs. When Boutros Ghali met with Kim Il Sung and other officials in Pyongyang in December, the Koreans raised one very important issue. They asked that the United Nations stop maintaining the division of the country. Boutros-Ghali said he too stood for the reunification of Korea. It is not broadly discussed that way. But things are being turned around on that. If China plays a role, and the U.S. is forced not to have their nuclear weapons in their ships and go around wherever they wish, and the U.N. is forced to pay attention to the aspirations of the people, in an objective sense it helps. I do not know if you have seen an article I wrote on Mao Zedong on the occasion of the centenary of his birth. [See the text of the article given at the end of this answer.] It is possible I am the only person from the communist movement who actually sat down on December 26. Our Party celebrated the birth of one of the greatest revolutionaries… We say: when it comes to ideological matters, there is nothing sacred, and there should not be, because in front of natural science, social science, facts are what one goes by, how the thing changes, develops and moves. We are not in any way in agreement with the things they say about Mao Zedong, that he further developed Marxism and raised it to a higher level. The second issue is that today to raise the issue that China is not socialist is to go back to the old period. Today whether they are socialist or not is irrelevant. The Chinese should, like other countries, behave in this and this way. For example, they should base themselves on modern definitions. They should support the rights of people in every country, which belong to them by dint of the fact that they are human and a whole lot of things. If we keep the debate on whether they are socialist or not, no headway will be made… Somebody asked me, will you say Cuba is socialist? I said, sure I will say that, because whether they are or not, it is not for me to judge. But the U.S. seems to think that their socialism must be destroyed, so there must be something there. That which the Americans want to destroy, that socialism must be defended. What is that? The pride and dignity of the people to be independent. That is a socialist principle which the bourgeoisie has thrown into the mud. Number two, they have the right to determine their system, the kind of system they want to have. It is not merely a political point. It goes much deeper than that, that for us to have proletarian internationalism, that is to create one human race, the precondition is the development of the thinking of all people within their national milieu. It is not according to the melting pot theory of the bourgeoisie that this will be achieved. The development of the character of the Cubans, their thinking, their way of looking at things are very important things today in terms of socialism. Some people say that Cuba was with the Soviet Union. But they will also have to say that Castro was the first who told Gorbachev to his face that he would not go along with his perestroika and glasnost. But when we say that we want one human race, then each and every people must be able to exercise the right to their own thinking, to the development of their culture, their life. Its development naturally leads to the creation of one human race. Let us take the issue of the national minorities. I am in that situation in Canada. You are here. First, for us to be able to exercise our rights as citizens in the polity necessarily means that as a national minority we must develop our thinking, we must develop our culture, we must have a flourishing community, if we want to use these words. The British people cannot make headway through the melting pot theory, through suppressing these or those people. It failed in the past. It will fail in the future as well. So what we are saying is that things should be defended on the basis of modern definitions. When we give modern definitions — somebody asked, what are your modern definitions. I said, in a manner of speaking anything that does not help the bourgeoisie. These things I am saying about Cuba do not help the American imperialists. Just to have a debate about whether they are socialist or not, which is an entirely different matter, even about Cuba, when it comes to political theory, the ideological sphere, we will speak openly. For instance, they have developed some political theory in terms of the democracy, in terms of how elections are conducted, etc. There are some positive developments we recognize. There is much that needs to be done in this field, and they are doing it. So what I am saying is, in my view, let us forget about whether a country is socialist or not…
In terms of their actual assessment, give them their due. For instance, the liberation of China in 1949 was a great anti-imperialist victory. We cannot take it away by saying Mao Zedong was not a Marxist. He was a Marxist. He tried to build socialism. He tried to stop the spread of revisionism. He failed on all counts. He was not the kind of internationalist in the sense you and I understand it to mean, but the Chinese revolution remains a great contribution to the world revolution. The issue is that he was one of the greatest revolutionary personalities of the 20th century. This they do not want the world to recognize.
Centenary of the Birth of Mao Zedong
Today (December 26, 1993) marks the centenary of the birth of Mao Zedong. The government of the People’s Republic of China is celebrating this centenary with a number of initiatives including the unveiling of statues, etc. However, there are few, if any, celebrations abroad considering that Mao Zedong commanded broad respect amongst the Marxist-Leninists on the world scale.
Mao Zedong remains one of the great revolutionary figures of the 20th century. The People’s Republic of China was created under his leadership. At the same time, he was one of the important figures of the 20th century who was unable to construct socialism in the PRC due to a number of mistakes of a fundamental character. He was unable to deal with vital problems of socialist economy and politics.
Mao Zedong came into prominence and caught the attention of the world with his long revolutionary wars which culminated with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. There was a great interest amongst the working class and people that the PRC under the leadership of Mao Zedong would stop the retrogressive forces at work in the Soviet Union. However, by the time he died in September 1978, his Thought was already rejected by various Marxist-Leninist Parties including the Party of Labour of Albania and Enver Hoxha. Mao Zedong Thought, the banner under which the Communist Party of China was to create a new world equilibrium with its special product of the “theory of three worlds,” came tumbling down.
The new leaders of the PRC, naturally, needed Mao Zedong, especially the personality of a legendary leader but not his authority. They also needed Mao Zedong Thought not as a theory but as a justification for their policy. Thus the thought of Mao Zedong and the personality of Mao Zedong, even though they no longer had influence in the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, were indispensable to the new leaders to justify their stands. They accepted Mao Zedong with what they called his contribution, giving Marxism “an indubitably Chinese character,” while they rejected what they called his mistakes. While internationally, adherents of Mao Zedong Thought tried to reproduce the results he achieved during the revolutionary wars.
One of the most important features of Mao Zedong Thought and the thinking of the new leaders of China is their complete separation from the problems posed by revolutionary theory internationally. One of the crucial problems of the theory was closing the path to capitalist restoration. Posing themselves as rivals, the leaders of China introduced those things to theory which, according to them, “favoured” the PRC. Apparently, giving Marxism “an indubitably Chinese character” favoured the PRC. The test of theory was put as what assisted the PRC and what did not, reducing theory to merely a phrase for the justification of their policy.
The period of revolutionary wars and the post-liberation period, that is from the time the Communist Party of China was founded in 1926 to the time the People’s Republic was declared in 1949 and from 1949 to 1978 when Mao Zedong died, go down in history as most important periods. Internationally, from 1926 to 1936 socialism was constructed in the Soviet Union and by 1945 the nazis were defeated and the world faced the U.S. international gendarme with its policy for the “Containment of Communism.” From 1949 to 1978 there was the vigorous development of the national liberation movement, while the threat of revisionism began starting from J.B. Tito of Yugoslavia. Mao Zedong was one of the most important personalities of the later period as he posed the problem of blocking capitalist restoration.
Mao Zedong could not block the restoration of capitalism since he was not able to pay attention to the doctrine of communism as a doctrine which is valid for all countries and that for this doctrine to develop it must be based on the experience of the working class movement of the entire world, taken in its general form. An illusion was created that there was something specific and peculiar about the PRC for which reason a peculiar theory, a line of exceptionalism, was needed as a vehicle for abandoning responsibility for the solution of the problems posed by international revolutionary theory. This attitude of exceptionalism also reflected itself in the political policy whereby the PRC could ally with the U.S. against the Soviet Union or with the Soviet Union against the U.S. or forge any other links so long as they suited the PRC.
The centenary of Mao Zedong comes at a time when revolution is in retreat. The Soviet Union and the regimes in eastern Europe including socialist Albania have collapsed and the greatest pressure is being brought to bear on the entire communist and workers’ movement. The PRC, however, carries on with its attitude of exceptionalism, promoting economic liberalization and political control as a particular method for protecting its interests. Internationally, it is the rule without any exception that those who control the economy also control politics. Apparently, such a rule does not apply to the PRC. The personality of Mao Zedong is extremely necessary for the present leaders to justify their national and international policy as Mao Zedong Thought is indispensable for its justification. Such an attitude of exceptionalism is bound to express itself one day in the demand that the entire world should follow the path taken by the PRC.
Mao Zedong did not participate in world political affairs as a world leader and statesman. He participated in these affairs as a Chinese leader. He is accredited with formulating a policy of a unique path for socialist construction as distinct from that of the Soviet Union. This policy is applauded by the present leaders who, at the same time, attribute to Mao Zedong a number of mistakes, including the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which was designed to stop capitalist restoration. Such a stand in itself juxtaposes the policy followed by the leaders of the PRC to the needs of the international working class movement. There is a great underestimation of the role of the world proletariat and the victory of the national liberation movement in the construction of socialism. The Communist Party of China and the PRC are yet going to further develop this unique path and begin to gather international admirers for it.
Mao Zedong Thought has very little relevance to the world proletariat as it is a doctrine of Chinese exceptionalism, which highlights China’s unique position in the world. The Chinese proletariat has a place in Mao Zedong Thought but merely as a phrase and not as an integral part of the world proletariat. The vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, the Communist Party of China, does not have the same positions and preoccupations as the vanguards of the proletariat of other countries. For example, one of the problems posed by revolutionary theory is the empowerment of the people under the present-day world conditions. It is a problem directly linked with the question of political power, of who should wield this power, and of the relationship of the party to the state. According to Mao Zedong Thought, the only problem which remains after the seizure of power by the people’s forces is the unity of the people against capitalist-roaders. This does not answer the question of how to ensure the people’s empowerment. From this point of view too, Mao Zedong Thought falls short as a modern doctrine for the deep-going transformation of the world.
Mao Zedong Thought as a doctrine does not pertain to the conditions for the complete emancipation of the working class. It falls short of proclaiming itself as such since it has at its centre the glorification of China. In a way, it is a reaction against Euro-centrism, but not a theory which can demolish it. Caught in this way with the spirit of Sinocentrism, Mao Zedong Thought could not possibly assume that internationalist character which could provide it with the status of a doctrine of the world proletariat. In this respect, it is worthless as a doctrine of communism both for the proletarians in China and of all lands. The only use it has is for the leaders of the PRC who can do whatever they wish by justifying it in the name of Mao Zedong. Philosophically, it falls into the category of one of the variants of deconstructionism because of its insistence on being a Chinese doctrine. A strong impression is created that to really appreciate the significance of Mao Zedong Thought, it is necessary to be Chinese; just as today it is implied that to really appreciate the present course of the PRC, you have to be Chinese.
The revolution led by Mao Zedong had an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal character. The victory of this revolution spelled the end of feudalism and imperialist interference and domination in China. Some of the deep-going transformations which came about as a result of the liberation of the Chinese people and the declaration of the People’s Republic created the conditions for the building of socialism. Socialism is the logical conclusion to the strivings of the people against feudalism and imperialism. Such a socialism has to emerge according to the concrete conditions in each country and it has to develop in a planned way on a step-wise basis. Mao Zedong Thought was not adequate to make the transition even though certain changes of a socialist character were brought about. In spite of this, Mao Zedong Thought could not provide the proletariat of China with a revolutionary doctrine which could guide them in the construction of socialism. Mao Zedong Thought, which incorporated within it certain features necessary for the completion of the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution, lacked the substance, the need for the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Socialism was not constructed in the PRC and one of the main reasons for this failure was the adoption of Mao Zedong Thought. Nonetheless, the present leaders of the PRC have successfully used it for the economic liberalization of the country and for tightening even further their political control. Mao Zedong Thought contributed not only to the failure of the construction of socialism in the PRC but also to the restoration of capitalism and the rise of pseudo-socialism elsewhere.
Revolutionary theory presents to itself the main question of preparation during the period of the retreat of revolution. Theory demands that the experience of the PRC also be summed-up along with the experience of all countries, capitalist and socialist alike. Theory poses for itself the question of program, the attitude towards the demand of world capitalism that no one should have claims on society. The other question it poses for itself is one of method: how the path for the progress of society can be opened. Both these questions cannot be answered without a firm analysis of the objective conditions and the present state of consciousness. Mao Zedong Thought can only be an obstruction to the working out of the program and the adoption of those methods which would open the path for the progress of society.
Mao Zedong has gone down in history as one of the greatest revolutionary figures of the 20th century. Such an appraisal of his revolutionary work will endure the test of times. At the same time, Mao Zedong Thought has been judged in history as a doctrine that provides no clue to the construction of socialism. The revolutionary work of Mao Zedong is itself testimony to the fact that if Mao Zedong Thought was a Leninist doctrine, it would have been indispensable for the construction of socialism. It would never have been transformed into a phrase, a pretext to justify deviation from the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist path. Mao Zedong Thought as it out of the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution in China could not face the problems of the modern proletariat on this basis. Either it had to join with the international communist movement against the restoration of capitalism, or it was to do something else. Mao Zedong Thought was a course of thinking away from the problems posed during the period of bi-polar division of the world.
One of the most important problems facing the world is that of modern definitions. Things and phenomena have to be given their proper names. The PRC, with a population of over 1.2 billion people is called a socialist and communist country. The point is to appreciate the necessity of analyzing what goes on in the PRC with the same objectivity as any other country. It is necessary to appreciate what is capitalism and what is socialism, and deliberate on the basis of an actual analysis of its present conditions and its future direction. What is important is to set its position in relation to the aspirations of the world proletariat for liberation. Can the world proletariat look at China as an economic model? To a class conscious Canadian worker, China, which is learning from world capitalism and is introducing economic liberalization, looks as if its carrying out some sort of privatization program. Privatization necessarily leads to the attack on people’s claims upon society. Such is the tendency in the economic sphere in the PRC. A country which insists that it will “strengthen the party dictatorship” looks to a class conscious worker in Canada as some kind of corporate rule where those in political power can do anything they wish, irrespective of how unpopular it may be. In other words, it is hard for the world proletariat to be inspired by what is going on in the PRC at this time.
The destruction of the bi-polar division of the world has created a disequilibrium in the world. The PRC is one of the most important countries which will determine whether the new equilibrium which is established will favour the working class and people of the world or not. In other words, the Chinese working class and people have an important role to play in this regard. Can they play this role with Mao Zedong Thought as their guide? This is a situation which needs to be looked at soberly and pertinent conclusions must be drawn on this basis. The personality of Mao Zedong as one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century can be a positive factor for the Chinese working class to play its internationalist role. However, the Chinese working class will have to do away with the theory of exceptionalism advocated by Mao Zedong Thought and join with the proletarians of all countries to work out the program and the methods for opening the path for the progress of society. The Chinese working class will have to begin from home by demanding that a new economic base, consistent with the proletarian movement for emancipation, is established, and that the Party must bring the working class and people to power. In other words, deep-going revolutionary transformations must be the order of the day. The Chinese working class will have to find ways and means to set the socialist construction on course.
If the PRC were a socialist country, the socialist world would still exist, in spite of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the regimes in eastern Europe. There would be the sharpening of the contradictions inherent to the present period and there would be a general brake to the offensive of the world counter-revolution. Another period of flow of revolution would have been ushered in. As was mentioned before, the aim here is not to quibble about the name which should be given to the system which exists in the PRC at this time, but it certainly requires serious scrutiny. The PRC cannot build socialism on the basis of Mao Zedong Thought. It does not matter what revolutionary credentials anyone has in the world, the theory of scientific socialism, the law of motion of the society in general and the theory of surplus value, the law of motion of capitalist society in particular, is the mandatory guide for all who wish to embark on the road of socialist construction. The Chinese working class will have to use the same theory of scientific socialism as a guide to action.
On the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Mao Zedong, as the world’s proletariat recognizes his merit as the builder of new China, they also see that the PRC will advance only if the Chinese proletariat pursues its struggle for socialism on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, by preserving and strengthening its proletarian internationalist character.
13. Socialism and Representative Democracy
Question: You referred in your paper to representative democracy, that it is not possible to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism with representative democracy. It seems to me that the question is connected with the electorate, the working people representing themselves in the governing of the country. I am not clear on the particular significance of the transition from capitalism to socialism in this.
Answer: I only made a very peripheral comment on this question. In political theory there are two questions which are fundamental. Number one is the origin of power. Say you have power in your hands. You will have to justify where it originated from, who gave you this power. You must be quite familiar with the fact that even at the general level, whenever the question of power comes up, people will ask, “who gave you the power to do this or that?”
Let us take for example, James I, who was one of the first political theoreticians of great merit. He says, ‘‘I am the personification of this political power, and God gave me that power.” This is called absolutism, which is power established as one indivisible force, and nobody could question that. When the bourgeoisie arose, it attacked various aspects of absolutism mainly pertaining to civil rights… With the advent of the bourgeoisie in power, civil rights were provided over a period of time, and slowly and slowly the king was eliminated as the wielder of power, and this power was handed to the cabinet. But still power remained absolute, coming from God. That is why, when they take the oath of office these days — and it is not just a formality — the President of the U.S., as well as the Prime Minister of Britain, swear in the name of God. This is because that power, the way it is defined and conceived, comes from God. Under absolutism, both the powers which are defined and those which are called residual powers rest in the hands of the executive or head of state. People have no power whatsoever. Britain does not have a written constitution, and for this reason the cabinet is absolute. Residual powers which normally should belong to the people in a truly democratic setup are usurped by the executive… In the British system, it is not elections which decide who has executive power.
Elections were held in Canada on October 25, 1993. In the first week of November, the Governor General of Canada invited the leader of the party which won the majority and handed the executive power over to him. Just say the communists were to get elected. Do you think he would hand over that power to a communist leader? So power is given to one man, who then under the law hands it over to others… The point here is that the origin of that power is still justified in the name of God, and the role of political parties is to deprive the people of power…
In the 20th century, a new form of power arose. The first time it arose was in the Paris Commune in the 19th century, but it did not last. But then there arose “power as a result of the claim of a class.” The working class asserted itself, and workers declared that they must have this power for this and this reason. The origin of that power was made rational, human, a known entity, and elections were the instrument of establishing that power.
The democratic renewal which we are calling for would mean that the day the election takes place, the voters would not lose their right to govern. In order for this to be realized, the political parties must be deprived of the right to select candidates. The right to select candidates belongs to the workplaces, to educational institutions, and so on. Of course, political parties are necessary in order to defend definite interests. But still it is the people who must determine who should be selected as candidates. The reason they want selection in the hands of the political parties is that, number one, they want to give absolute power to the leader, then to the party to carry out its elite accommodation, which is to say, corruption. Corruption is fundamental to the maintenance of this rule… Through elite accommodation they deprive the people of power. The reform should be based on the premise that there should be no election without selection. Selection should be carried out in the manner mentioned before. So once selection takes place and elections take place for those who have been selected, an elected representative does not have the right to do whatever he or she wishes. Constituency committees will also have the right to carry out the same thing as the person elected. Government will be constituted not by the Queen inviting that party which gains a majority to govern, but governance will be by those who are elected and who then decide who from amongst them will constitute the executive body. And executive power will not rest in their hands. Privy councils will be eliminated. Governor Generals or Queens or others having anything to do with this power, will be eliminated.
This is still a transitional state. In terms of the working class rule, the proletariat says that the fact that we are constituting a class, the proletariat, means we have the right to lead society. In which direction will the proletariat lead? Number one, it will contest the bourgeoisie on all fundamental matters. One of those things is that the proletariat recognises the inviolable rights of all peoples by dint of being human. It will eliminate elite accommodation… Some people misunderstand. They want to eliminate the role of the proletariat, of the communist party. Only the proletarian class can bring about the changes. It is in its interest to do such a thing. The bourgeoisie will fight tooth and nail on this issue.
The conception of working class power, class power, is a real achievement of political theory. It should not be underestimated. It should not be eliminated. All kinds of bourgeois and other theoreticians are willing to accept everything, but not class power. Should the working class which participates, whose mission is to emancipate itself, appeal to somebody else and say: “Could you tell me whether I should fight against wage slavery, whether I should have revolution?” It would be ridiculous! What kind of class would that be? The Communist Party as the vanguard of the class will ensure that the power belongs to the broad section. The vanguard cannot rule without the broad section. The working class cannot rule without winning all the working people over to its side, which would mean that the broad section of the class, constituting the main force, would ensure that power rests in the hands of all working people. The role of the vanguard, in the final analysis, is to ensure this… In political theory, these are the greatest developments since Greek democracy. Greek political theory was that in a society there are citizens and there are slaves. Citizens have equal rights among themselves; slaves do not have any rights. These citizens elect who is going to wield power for a certain period of time. When they are elected, then their power cannot be contested. They are not accountable to anybody. That was the contribution of the Greeks to political theory. Then came James I. He is answer able to God. Then the bourgeoisie, being very clever, brought the first-past-the-post system, according to which accountability is that in the next election you can defeat the party, but otherwise there is no accountability… From the Greeks to James I to the working class political theory of Karl Marx, along with all the summations and contributions to that theory to date: these are the great achievements of political theory…
14. Are the Tasks of the Communist Movement Different from the Earlier Period?
Question: You said that communists should struggle against the theories of the liberal bourgeoisie. I want to refer to the question that is up there, the tasks of the communist and workers’ movement. How are the tasks now different? What is different from what we were doing before? The second question is, what is the theoretical analysis now of the workers’ movement? Marx and Engels had their analysis, under Lenin and Stalin it was given again.
Answer: First of all, as far as the nature of this era, it has not changed. This stage of capitalism remains the last stage, a stagnant and parasitic stage. It is over-ripe for proletarian revolution. Socialism remains the strategic aim and the future of human society. What has changed is that in this period the revolution is in ebb, not in flow. One of the features of this ebb is that there is an offensive against communism, especially a lot of counter-revolutionary theories are being given. Liberal thought presents itself as the most humane, as the last point in the construction of human society. There are apologists of this liberal thought in the working class movement. Zeroing in attacks on them is how you contest with the bourgeoisie. That is the main task of the parties in terms of their ideological struggle, to wage ideological struggle against the apologies for liberalism.
As far as the analysis of the working class movement is concerned, the basic analysis given by Marx that the working class is the most thorough-going revolutionary class and is the builder of socialism still stands. Nothing has changed. But at this time, the greatest pressure is being put on the working class movement to become part of the bourgeoisie against the interests of the working class itself. Very profound ideological and other struggles are in the making in order to free the working class movement from this broad assault by the bourgeoisie against it…
The proletariat by definition consists of those workers who are the product of modern industrial production. This proletariat remains the most thorough-going revolutionary class. Nothing has changed. So whether the number of people in the service industry increases, or people in manufacturing processing decreases, does not in any way change the composition and the nature of the proletariat… Furthermore, the scientific-technical revolution is affecting the industrial workers in various ways. In a relative sense, it is destroying the number of proletarians and turning them into declassed elements and non-class elements. The proletariat being the most productive class, this system does not permit its harmonious development. These theories which say that in the 1930s the proletariat was different are not based on analyzing the objective situation, which is that the proletariat is the product of modern industrial production. Just as this was the case in the 30s, so it is today. Nothing has changed. So there is no need to change tactics on account of this.
Within the countries where the number of people employed in the service industry is increasing, it has been observed that people in health care and education are becoming more active. However, these are symptoms which are totally irrelevant in terms of working out tactics for the proletariat. Depending on the circumstances, different sectors of the proletariat working in different sectors of the economy could be brought into struggle. Just take the struggle of the miners. It emerged as the most vicious protracted struggle, and it still carries on. At the same time, because there is pressure to cut funding and withdraw the claim of the people for health care and education, it is quite possible that some of these workers are going to be drawn into action as well.
But in terms of tactics, class composition, class character, it changes nothing.
Nonetheless, it was stressed during the two days of deliberations that the tactics of the proletariat during this period of ebb of revolution have to change, and this can be seen in the behaviour of its vanguard, the Communist Party. This is the period of preparation for an assault when the conditions for it exist, and in this respect, any illusion that the working class is going to win victory or the spreading of pessimism have to be opposed. Besides bringing about the strategic change that the vanguard must bring the broad section into power, the Communist Parties must bring forth modern definitions in order to ensure that the working class emerges as the leader of society. More precisely, the working class has to engage in struggles which may not be directly their own, whether in terms of education and health care or of the environment or of democratizing internal and international life. This is a change which is dependent on the actual situation in each country and internationally.
15. Revolution and War
Question: Imperialism can only resolve its crisis and contradictions through war, as in the case of the First and Second World Wars. You have said we are heading for a third world war. This raises the question in the communist movement, how we see war. History moving forward through barbaric war, subsequent wars since 1945: that is how history moves. Not in spirit interested in refined mechanisms of bourgeoisie democracy. We offer proletarian democracy, which we wrest through revolution.
Second question, in some sense must go back to see how we organize the relations of production.
Answer: It will be useful if we could have one question at a time, because one’s brain is limited.
The issue is that the first comment you made is a very, very dangerous comment. Marxist-Leninists, communists, never believe that war is inevitable and that society can only develop through war. Revolution can eliminate war, avert its possibilities. Even though, under imperialism, the danger of war exists, the danger of war cannot be translated into asserting that war will actually take place, that it is inevitable…
It is a theoretically wrong proposition to suggest that society will only develop through a war. The second thing you said, that proletarian democracy is the best in the world, is devoid of any content. It is meaningless. Because today we are talking about proletarian democracy, not as an abstraction, but as the summation of what has happened in the 20th century, that is, the discussion of modern democracy: what is the bourgeoisie offering, what is the proletariat leading society towards? Merely to say proletarian democracy is best is like saying truth is the best thing to have. One is no closer to understanding what is meant.
Finally, this question, you keep on going back in history. Don’t feel that I am going to give you a lecture now on dialectical and historical materialism, but in historicism, the first thing is that you begin from the present. The second thing is that from that you project what the future course is going to be. The third thing you do is bring some analysis or summation from the past, but only in the course of developments, not as a substitute to the analysis of the present, not by saying, “historicism does not develop.” There is another historicism which is drawn from Edmund Burke and others. In that historicism they consider what they call “naturally developed institutions” as final. That material becomes a topic of discussion. We Marxist-Leninists believe in the development of new features, in invoking new content, that is why our historicism is called forward-looking. We never simply say, “I am now going to stand here and just keep on looking back, and one day when I have looked back enough, I will be able to tell what I should be doing in the present.’’ You are very mistaken in this regard. On the question of theory, historicism does not forgive a person who carries on like this. The reason it does not forgive is that historicism is linked directly with the human instrument of thinking, which is called the brain. The brain is the instrument of thinking, and this instrument only works in the objective sense, in real life. It cannot be taken away from real-life problems, and put back somewhere. Take, for example, Karl Marx’s work on historicism. The New Hegelians were his contemporaries. In criticising the New Hegelians, he opens a path, not for the purpose of condemning the New Hegelians as evil. Far from it. He takes what is healthy, positive, from all different schools. He had the highest of praise for Hegel, and on the basis of that he solves the problems of philosophy of that time. He does the same thing in terms of economy and in terms of political affairs. Starting from the present looking towards the future; starting from the past and hoping that you may do something in the present and never looking towards the future: these are, you can say, opposite points of view. For instance, I have had the pleasure of talking to you in various ways, especially being confronted with some of your questions. It usually occurs to me, why do you want to ask these questions? Why? Because these are not the things I am preoccupied with. If I was preoccupied with these things, I should be able to help you whatever your preoccupation is. At the same time, the preoccupation which I am presenting, you seem to disregard. You see, your historicism and mine clash. Nobody can get me to discuss the past in that way. Proletarian democracy to us appears not as some kind of pessimistic, unattainable idea. It appears as an idea which is the order of the day. Our slogan for this period of democratic renewal is the greatest negation of what the bourgeoisie is offering in concrete terms. It has a space in society; it awakens people. At the same time, this is not all we do. This is not the be-all and end-all of our work.
In terms of a summation of what you are saying, I don’t want to make a personal statement, but you must be very scared of this world, of what is going on to say that war is inevitable, to say things about proletarian democracy without grasping that this is a practical problem taken up for solution, that it is not some debate in some parliament. In terms of historicism, the rich, profound historicism is only that which starts from the present, which looks towards the future and never leaves the present. And in terms of what we call the classics of Marxism-Leninism, the profound work lies ahead of us, and I am not pessimistic about this. I can even tell you this much: the bourgeoisie has lost each war it has started. The First World War gave rise to the Great October Revolution. The Second World War was another big debacle for those who sought to redivide the world in their favour. And I am certain that if they impose a third world war, this will be the end of the bourgeoisie. But the proletariat does not think that way. The proletariat’s thinking is towards revolution, and it seeks to eliminate any possibilities of disasters like this.
16. What Kind of a Communist Party?
Question: (…) One of the issues that I would really like to be addressed is the question of, what is the modern definition of democracy we are fighting for. You were speaking about the society we want to see established in the future. What does that society look like? What is the role of the communists today, now, in 1994, in working to bring that about?
Answer: As far as the tasks of the communist movement and communist parties go, I just want to make one point at this time. This is just a repetition. Lenin said repeatedly, “Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” One cannot say that just because the classics exist, just because there is a guide to action, that we have revolutionary theory. Because Lenin also says revolutionary theory assumes its final form or final shape in the course of a genuinely revolutionary and genuinely mass movement. Our suggestion is that a communist should take initiative, occupy the space of theory in that sense, so that as the revolutionary movement assumes a mass character, these questions become the burning questions of the movement, and the communist parties can be at the head. Starting from there, we develop the role of the communist party. For this, the communist party must strictly be the party of the working class and not the party of any other classes. It must be the party of the class and not of a clique and it must always strive to transform itself into a mass communist party. This is a very, very important issue…
Such a communist party must seek political unity of the people all the time, the form and content of such a unity depending on very definite circumstances (…) but this should not mean that the communist party merges with that political unity, becomes indistinguishable from that and starts losing its character as the party of the working class, the party of the proletariat, and start creating illusions, as if this united front, this coalition, this association is the vanguard leading society. Another important question is that the party must not substitute itself for the working class. The party must see, analyze in an objective sense that where the proletariat is coming into clash with the bourgeoisie, it must find the ways and means to put the proletariat into action. And it must, on this question, make concessions, compromises. It must work with everybody and must not isolate itself on the basis of what is called a “correct political line”. A communist party must not create any pretence about what kind of system it wants to create. It wants to overthrow the bourgeoisie; it wants to do it through violence; it wants to eliminate exploitation of persons by persons; and it wants to create a socialist and a communist society. It must speak like that. For instance, Yeltsin used violence against the Russian Congress… This proved, once again, how violent the bourgeoisie is. If it uses violence to come to power will it not use violence to stay in power? Yes, it will do so as it has done in the past. No illusion can be created about it. In fact, if the bourgeoisie can justify the smashing of a Congress of People’s Deputies and the use of the army to do so, the working class is very much justified in using violence to open the path for the progress of society. (…)
A party must pay attention to what are its possibilities within this period; it must occupy the space of these modern definitions. The party must seek political unity with all forces in order to sort out the problem of the times, but it must not merge with any. The party must develop the independent role of the proletariat and must not create pacifist or parliamentary illusions that the bourgeoisie is going to hand over power peacefully…
Communists must not carry the baggage of the earlier period. They must not agree with what they call polemicizing or ideological struggle of the old kind. A communist party must set as its ongoing task contesting all the claims of the bourgeoisie; that is, it must attack and expose its apologists. It must concentrate on that and at the same time, while it does not share its ideology with anyone, it must not be afraid to seek political unity with anyone who comes along. For instance, at this time the bourgeoisie says that it has a solution to economic problems; fiscal restraint, for example, is presented as the most important panacea for solving these problems, at least in the advanced capitalist countries. What is fiscal restraint? Should we not fight for, as an immediate task, a moratorium on debt servicing? Should we not ask various countries in the world to get together… and give the call for a moratorium on debt servicing? (…) There is a link between a moratorium on debt servicing within the capitalist countries and the problem which various oppressed countries or independent or semi-independent countries face. (…)
The point is that communists must be active, they must be in the van of society, people must look to them, as those who are providing solutions to the problems which the people face. A communist party, if it cannot carry this program by organizing in the working class, will lose its proletarian character, it will start organizing people’s coalitions and will dissolve in them. So for the communist party it is fundamental to build the basic organizations in the class, especially in the factories, and to carry out politics. We know the history of the parties of the advanced capitalist countries and the causes of their degeneration. By keeping politics general, by inviting discussion in an intellectualist and pedantic way, they were able to break from the proletariat and turn the communist parties into organizations which look morally very sound, and on this basis they tried to get support from the people. These parties even lost their moral soundness, in the sense that they got exposed to the worst elements which society could give rise to. So to work to establish the basic organizations in the factories, in the workplaces, in the educational institutions, to carry forward politics on this basis, is key. The Party must wage a profound theoretical struggle. (…)
Problems of theory must not be reduced to some fights about this or that definition of communism or some discussion about the past. A communist must deal with theoretical problems as they are posed at this time in history. Political theory, economic theory, theory of natural science: that theoretical work has to be raised to the level which behooves it, the highest level of elaboration and explanation of the key problems which society faces. For instance, a problem posed by theory is whether society should demand that everyone should fend for themselves. It is not just a problem of practice, it is also a problem of theory. The bourgeoisie says, look at socialism, because they provided for everybody, people became lazy; they didn’t care, they didn’t work and they went down. What is the issue there? The issue is this: that society cannot leave the question of the development of the productive forces to chance. To say you should fend for yourself is to leave the question of the development of the productive forces to chance, What does it mean? Fending for yourself, say in Coventry, means what? A person who wants to fend for him or herself carries out activities which are damaging to the economy, which are damaging to the productive forces, like the opening of casinos, the militarization of the economy, and so on. This is, according to them, to be engaged in good business. But what does it do to society? The issue does not appear in this way in essence, that whether the individual should fend for him or herself. It starts from there and it ends up with what attitude society should have towards the development of the productive forces. The productive forces constitute two very important aspects. One is the human productive force, that is, the proletariat and other working people. The other is the instruments and means of production. Alongside with this is the issue of the relations of society to nature, the problems of the environment… It is quite dear that only on the basis of the scientific and technical revolution is it possible to satisfy the claims of the people on society and establish harmonious relations between society and nature. However, this can be done only under socialism as under capitalism the scientific and technical revolution is in the service of making the maximum capitalist profit. The communist party should take up these questions from the point of view of a practical movement, from the point of view of establishing political unity; that is, carry out theoretical work in order to serve revolutionary practice…
Lastly, the communist party must fight, in full view of the people, against the communist party itself coming to power. It is not true, which many people believe, that the classics advocate that parties should come to power. A party dictatorship and proletarian dictatorship are in contradiction with one another. There is a fundamental theoretical point, which is that for the working class, for the proletariat to exercise its leadership, it must rise at the head of the awakened and conscious people who want to establish a new democracy, and not to mirror what bourgeois democracy is, where the different political parties vie for power, and themselves come to power, on the one hand, to safeguard the bourgeois power from the assault by the people and, on the other, to profit their own clique during the period when power belongs to them. This whole field, the question of class power, the tactics of revolution, how to associate in terms of proletarian internationalism, unity of the communist movement: all these questions are relevant in terms of the tasks of the party at this time… The party must work very, very hard to eliminate the reformist illusions from the working class movement. (…)”
This important question of the role of the communist party was further elaborated in the course of discussion.
“One cannot say that these parliamentary parties, that they are the main factors in stopping the rise of revolutionary class consciousness in the working class. The greatest factor which is stopping this rise is the absence of a modern communist party, a party which is capable of finding a space for itself, that room which is reserved to the vanguard of the class, that room which people in whose interests it is to have social revolution, have reserved for a communist party. It is altogether wrong to suggest that communists are discredited, people no longer respond to the communists, to what they say. But if communism is going to merely hanker for the past, if communism is merely going to be refurbished and recirculate the lies and apologies of the modern revisionist systems from the past, such a communism is doomed. (…)
A modern communist party should not be sectarian. It should not seek unity on the basis of just going into an individual or group’s past but more importantly it should seek unity of everyone on the basis of modern definitions, on the basis of enlightened opinions, so that we can have communism taking its proper place in society, the place of that force towards which everybody gravitates. For this, very hard work needs to be done, and just to translate what we say, that it is merely a question of developing theory, it is not just that question, it is a question of carrying out our practice in such a way that it revolutionizes; the revolutionary process does not begin the day insurrection begins. The formation of the communist party is one of the most important events in the development of the revolutionary process. Some people raised the issue of whether we are restarting. Right in our Congress, somebody said that all the things we were doing in the past, the old slogans, are no longer valid, and that we are doing something new. We do not look at the past in this way. Those days were also glorious, but if anyone asks if we are beginning anew: yes! We are starting anew, as parties do. They start anew as the circumstances change. They have to change alongside the circumstances. This is why we say that our doctrine of Marxism-Leninism is ever young and it does not become stale; it is applicable in all conditions. So to say that it is merely in a narrow sense that we develop theory, this is not right.
I will be amiss if I did not point out that the cutting edge of the program of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) at this time is to have a contest with the bourgeoisie on many important fronts. First, we carried out a very large amount of work and we have had success on the question of the renewal of the democratic process. As a result of it, the bourgeoisie could not present right-wingers as being for reform, as if they are going to create a new situation. The right wing was checked on this, they are defensive on this question.
In the same fashion, CPC(M-L) participated in other aspects of the economic and political life of the country. The Finance Minister of Canada is going to issue a budget. In order to placate public opinion, he says he is going to have a pre-budget consultation process. We said, very good, we will also write to you, we will also tell you what you should be doing. We know very well that they are not going to listen to us, but as we did in 1990, when we presented a brief to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, so too we are going to present a brief this time. They did not listen to us then but after three years literally hundreds and thousands of people are standing up and saying that this is the way the renewal of the democratic process should take place. That battle has not finished, it is just beginning and it could not have been waged if the weight of our theory was not behind it. If there is no practice, what will that theory be? This will merely be the pursuit of some lost souls who want to find themselves. Well, communist parties do not consist of lost souls. They are not trying to find themselves; they are the vanguard of the class.
In the same way that the party put itself at the head of the movement for democratic renewal, so too we are striving very hard to put ourselves at the head of the changes in the economy as well. The Party has worked out and may further sharpen the demand that, one, there should be a moratorium on debt servicing, and, two, there should be an increase in investments in education, health care and social welfare. We are fighting against the notion that these things should be considered wasteful expenditures. They are in fact investments necessary for the development of society. Finally, three, there should be a referendum on the economy to decide the direction of the economy. The question should be raised about whether the claims of the moneylenders should take priority over the claims of the Canadian people in settling the direction of the economy. (…) Our Party dealt with the question of the Constitution, with why there is a need for a new Constitution in Canada, why the Constitution should be drafted by the people. What we raised was not merely a question about a change in form, but the demand that sovereignty should rest with the people. People would express their sovereignty by laying down the fundamental law of the land. (…)
It was also made clear during the seminar that this kind of work of the Communist Parties “is not a work in itself, it is in the service of developing our class struggle to prepare ourselves for the time when the situation will be favourable to remove from the positions of leadership in the social organisations those who are blocking the path to this preparation, who are introducing disorganisation, paralysis, pessimism in the working class, in the petty bourgeoisie, amongst other social strata.
Of course, on the question of what kind of party, as soon as you say to somebody that the party should not come to power, all of a sudden the roof falls. What are you saying? It is very interesting that during the elections, in one of the debates between various parties a man actually got up and said, this is bolshevism. But when you come to Bolsheviks, and raise the same question, they immediately say that this is abandoning bolshevism. As soon as you raise this issue, right away it is considered scandalous that a communist party should say such a thing. To refresh your memory about the thinking of Lenin on this question, as presented by Stalin in Foundations of Leninism, he says that the party is the instrument of establishing proletarian power where it does not exist, and the instrument of consolidating and expanding it where it does exist. Stalin does not say that the political power, that is the state, is actually the instrument of the party to push its interests. He says the dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of deepening, broadening, carrying through the proletarian revolution to its completion. If the state is not the instrument of the party, then how can the party come into power? The party can only come into power only if it replaces the state, substitutes itself for the state, as happened in the Soviet Union. Such a thing also happened in Albania, which was generally called a “party state”. Political power was described as party-state power. When the bourgeoisie describes its parties, their role is to be gatekeepers, like St. Peter who guards the gate to heaven. Heaven is their executive power; political power and the role of political parties is to guard executive power from the people taking that power over. Can we say that the communist party should be a red St. Peter? That is, that it should stop the working class from taking power? These questions require very serious thought. Some may ask, if a political party is not going for power, then what is the role of a political party, what is its use? Modern life, the consciousness of various classes, is connected with the rise of modern political parties. One cannot go backwards. It is not enough to have spontaneous consciousness in order to have a planned and organized society. One has to have those who are dedicated, organized representatives of the class to carry out its mission. There is no reason whatsoever to change the definition given by Lenin of the communist party. But once that definition is acknowledged, then it has to be given a modern rendering.
I am quite serious when I say that a communist should be a red St. Peter, in the sense that he or she should protect proletarian power from being usurped by the bourgeoisie. But if the working class is actually not in power, if the selection of candidates and elections do not take place with the actual composition being from the working class and playing the leading role on the bodies of power, it cannot be said that there is working class power. Working class power should not be confused with the essence of power, that is with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat can exist without actually having workers in power. In advanced capitalist countries, such a power will not be able to sustain itself without the working people actually becoming the rulers. What is needed in the advanced capitalist countries is a situation where dictatorship of the proletariat actually means that in composition; that is, it is the working class in power, it is working people in power, with the workplace being the most important lever of that power and not a trade union, not this conception of a transmission belt which was developed under very definite circumstances. It had its role, a very important role, but in the advanced capitalist countries such conceptions have to be given a modern rendering. For example, when Lenin was dealing with the question of bringing consciousness to the working class, at that time workers were mostly illiterate, not just in Russia but on the world scale. Consciousness had to be brought from without. Today the working class is educated. It is the product of modern production in the advanced capitalist countries. It is educated, as is also the case in other countries which have modern production. Workers have a certain level of education. This conception has to be used consciously. In other words, we must not look just towards the intelligentsia for organizational and political work. The workers cannot be reduced to just listening to the intelligentsia. We have to have the workers themselves taking up these responsibilities.
In the same way, the workers should not look to the trade unions, which are a lever of the communist party, to perform the same function in the state organisation. It should not be the case that the workers, because this lever exists, do not directly participate in governance. All workers, whether they are members of a trade union or not, all the working people, all other people, unless their rights have been withdrawn by law, exercise the right to participate in selection, in election in order to carry out all these activities.
The party should be an instrument of the class which fights for this to happens, which puts the workers in power. In that kind of power there will be many communists who actually will be empowered (…) The communist party should not be permitted to field its candidates based on the decision of the communists at any level. They must undergo selection like anybody else. At the same time, communists have the right to build their organizations in the factories, to have their militants demanding that communist militants should be selected by other workers, and they must fight for that power every few years so that there is no routine established, false confidence that you are going to get elected anyway. At the same time, the state must be strictly one unitarian state, with single power, indivisible, with no division between the legislative and executive power. Where the sovereignty rests, and which way, and so on, must be defined in a clear way.
Besides this question, it is very important that by law the proletariat should be armed. The armed power of the proletariat should be far greater than that of the standing armies. There will be a problem, but problems will be sorted out on the basis that all the officers of the standing army must face election like anybody else. This is a complex issue. No standing army should be given the power of decision making, and capital punishment should be reserved for anybody who uses the army like Yeltsin and others have used it in order to decide questions of politics in the manner they have done. In other words, the working class should be educated not to submit to pacifist illusions, not to think that there is somebody else, some state somewhere which will establish order. They will have to establish order themselves. They have to have their representatives who are most skilful in state affairs and deal with these questions.
How is it possible that a communist party worthy of the name can degenerate into merely a governing party? Governing is only one aspect of leading, and it should belong to all working people. Having studied the Stalin Constitution of 1936 very carefully, I think that, in terms of political theory it is the most advanced document. There has been some contribution made by the Albanians which brings it forward. Nonetheless, did the existence of that constitution stop the rise of revisionism? Did it stop the restoration of capitalism? What happened? Experience shows that a new constitution was needed. Further development was needed. Instead of ensuring that those developments took place, the Khrushchevites gave outlandish statements about “a party of the whole people,” and so on. Yes, a party of the whole people was needed, a party of the best elements of all working people. This should have been a party which was waging the class struggle against the restoration of capitalism, against imperialism, against counter-revolution and for the victory of revolution on the world scale. It does not matter whether the composition of the classes had changed, the aim of the party did not change. And so, both in the sphere of theory as well as in the sphere of practice, one should be very careful on these questions. Some people say the communists had their army in Albania, why didn’t they use it? Is this what communism is? Is this the way issues should be settled? Who were the ones the army should be used against? Those who are asking that economic conditions should be improved, those who are asking for civil rights and the right to speak? Who? When these questions are raised, one should keep in mind the kind of power a party secretary wielded under the old system. Should we have the party secretaries wielding such power? In my view, no. It should not be. For this reason, our Party has eliminated the Political Bureau. If any decision to establish policy has to be made, it has to be made by the Central Committee. Then if it is an important decision, it has to be made by an enlarged session. And if some fundamental things have to be changed, a Congress has to be called. These days, we hear from a lot of quarters that we should eliminate democratic centralism. If we are advocating that the working class have power and carry this out, we are also very stern about removing anti-working class elements, that lower bodies have to come under the discipline of the higher bodies, that the majority has to govern. So we do not raise this merely as a question of form. It is a question of content.
The question of whether a political party should come to power or not is a very serious question. For instance, it is said that if all sorts of people get elected, how will you have policy, because these days party whips dictate the policy which should be followed. There are all kinds of naive people who think that if there is no party whip, a bad decision will necessarily be taken. But the issue is, where is the agenda set? The agenda is set by the Cabinet. The Cabinet may call a meeting of the House of Commons, or simply issue a directive. They don’t have to get anyone’s approval. Most of the time in various countries, the agenda is set not even by Cabinet but by an Inner-Cabinet. These practices have to be ended. The modern proletariat does not have anything to fear but its own shadow, which they call this old communism, which is based on all kinds of rotten Bonapartist, militarist views. (…) If anybody tries to organize any physical or other kind of violence, and tries to condemn people because of political differences, we will oppose them. Under the law, anybody who tries to persecute people for holding different political opinions should be prosecuted. (…) But in the political sense, each political party has the right to establish its ideology, its constitution, its norms. If somebody disagrees or refuses to abide by the rules of the organization, they could be expelled. But then if somebody commits a crime, they have to be tried according to the laws of the state and not because somebody politically or ideologically disagrees. We do not agree with giving secretaries or the Party such powers. (…)
Communists have to set an example and speak openly that we need the dictatorship of the proletariat, we need democratic centralism, we do not need liberalization in the bourgeois sense. We should explain this with the force of logic. People will see the truth of what we say — that this is the most democratic setup. At the same time, we must not agree with things such as that whatever the General Secretary decides, or such and such a person or body decides, is law. Communist parties have to present themselves with that content and form consistent with the times.
The theory of “advanced socialism” is also not acceptable. Either you have communism, in the sense of no state, or if the state still exists, it means you have class society. This means there is still a need for political parties. You cannot start speaking nonsense that just because everyone is a working person now, the party has lost its class character. It cannot be. Stalin said that by the end of the 1930s there were only friendly classes. This is true in the general objective sense. But he was also quick to add that class struggle becomes acute as society approaches communism…
As long as there is a party, it will have a class character. When parties do not exist, it means society will be communist and there will be no need for parties. When parties do not have a class character, there will be no need for parties. Either a party has a class character, or there will be no parties. In this period in which the demand is for democratic renewal, we know various people who are speaking about democratic renewal from the angle that it merely means a populist upsurge of the masses. That is not the case. Democratic renewal can only be led by the party, by the proletariat. Of course, some forms of a temporary character may have to be used. These forms come into being, and they pass away. But to think that populism can give rise to the renewal of anything is wrong, because populism itself is the oldest ideology. In rural areas, one of the forms of rural idiocy is to spontaneously form a secret club, a group, and then give abstract notions.
17. The Scientific and Technical Revolution and Revisionism
Question: You said in your speech that it is a very difficult period for the communist and workers movement, a period where revolution is in retreat, which calls for new analysis of the present situation facing the people and putting forward a solution to their problems, where communists call for a new offensive. Marxist-Leninists foresaw the overthrow of revisionism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and openly told the people that it was hindering the cause of revolution. It was Marxist-Leninists who taught that the overthrow of revisionism would be replaced by real socialism in these countries. As it happened, the overthrow of revisionism was not replaced by socialism. Instead, open restoration of capitalism has taken place, they have established free markets. While all these things happened, the bourgeoisie all over the world did large-scale propaganda saying socialism does not work, that communist theory is OK only on paper. Workers no longer see communism as a theory which will emancipate them, so there is a big problem in the communist and workers’ movement of how to explain all this to the workers’. The new definitions should be developed. Could you explain what these definitions are which should be developed?… Cars can be manufactured in small garages, so there is no need for big factories. What will be the course of the workers’ struggles in the future?
Answer: Just to comment on a previous point. This is not the first time in history the scientific-technical revolution, technological change, has taken place. It is not going to be the last time either. To say that because of this, the struggle of the workers is going to qualitatively change is wrong. One has to appreciate fully that a society has an aim. Society is not aimless. If the bourgeois society presents society with the aim of maximizing capitalist profit, its antithesis will arise. On the basis of this aim, the production base becomes very narrow, is narrow, and gives rise to the crises of overproduction, as well as general crises. These days, in Canada and the U.S., they are talking about a recovery from recession, but unemployment has not gone down. What is their definition of recovery? In other words, they are in continuous crisis on this. If the aim is given to society that everybody has to submit to the needs of maximum capitalist profit, this itself will become an extenuating circumstance which would trigger a revolt of the people. These days you can see this fight in the making. The question of fiscal restraint is the question of indebtedness, and so on. The capitalist class does not want to admit that the aim of society is to provide for the people. This point about the technical-scientific revolution, according to which it will terminate the workers’ struggles, is not valid.
The other issue which you raised which is very interesting is that the overthrow of revisionism did not lead to the building of socialism. But where was revisionism overthrown? They degenerated into social democracy. To overthrow revisionism means to overthrow their doctrine. In which country was it overthrown? It is the revisionist parties, as in Poland, called the ex-communists, who are the openly social democratic parties. The Albanian party openly became a social democratic party. To overthrow something means to enact a conscious, explicit aim, saying we overthrow the doctrine of modern revisionism. Nowhere did it take place. If it had taken place that way, there would have been socialism. I felt you were very pessimistic about the situation, but the situation is not so bad! In the sense that while we have to recognise that this is not the flow of revolution but its ebb, the path is open and we have a lot of work to do within this situation. As I said before, an ebb does not mean that we have no revolutionary work to do. An ebb does not mean that we can no longer be communist revolutionaries. Some people suggest this. This is not the case.
There is a small problem when you use the term “new definitions.” We don’t use that word. We say modern definitions. The reason I want to emphasize that is that we are advancing no definition which departs from the classics. So in that way there is no new definition. For instance, what is the modern definition of political power? Can we say that the modern definition of political power is that it is not a class power? If we said that, we would be departing from Marxism-Leninism. By modern definitions, we simply mean that the doctrine of communism has to find itself, has to adapt itself as a doctrine without being emasculated or revised within the modern conditions. There is no suggestion of something new, no suggestion that any principles have become antiquated and have to be eliminated. To provide modern definitions means to provide a modern rendering of these problems. Let me explain to you by giving an example. When the united front against fascism took place in the 1930s, the greatest slogan of that period was “Make the Rich Pay!”; that is, make the exploiters and profiteers pay. This slogan has also appeared from time to time since then. It appeared in the 60s and 70s. At this time, if it were said that to make the rich pay is a solution to the crisis, I don’t think it would have special appeal anywhere. If you say a modern definition means there should be a moratorium on debt, that there should be more investments in such and such sector, that there should be a referendum on the direction of the economy, it points to the same thing. And slowly one can extend one’s demands. Modern definitions should not be considered as new definitions. The idea of modern definitions is to bring the content into clear focus in an elaborated, broader form, so that the consciousness of the people is far greater. To say today that proletarian democracy is the best in the world and to then leave the issue there is not adequate. At one time, to say that there are two types of democracy was an advance, just to say that. Now to give a content, that what is it and to elaborate on these matters, that is what it means to provide modern definitions. Unless we work in that way, people will not accept us. The issue here is that I am not going to change my colour and call myself an ex-communist and find new definitions. The point is that objectively there is a space for communists in which they must operate. At the same time, they must be very vigilant because it is the same epoch, the same fundamental contradictions. Imperialism is overripe, ready for socialism. Never forget that part. Only the proletariat can be the leader of such a transition, no other class. It is not a coalition of classes. When we talk about even those countries which are agrarian, where the united front of the proletariat and peasantry is required, the leading role belongs to the proletariat. It is not just an equal coalition. Many times I have noticed some people say that because the Soviet Union collapsed, the so-called socialist camp collapsed and now there is no socialism. That is foolish. There was a contradiction between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp that does not exist anymore. But the fundamental contradiction of our epoch is between socialism and capitalism. That is why we say this is an era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Anybody who deviates from that is going to make a very serious error. At the same time, for parties to prepare themselves to participate in this struggle, they have to recognise that during this period the revolution is in ebb, not flow. (…)
18. Division of the World Into Two Camps
Question: You said something about the socialist camp and the imperialist camp — that it does not exist. You were quite firm that it would not arise in the future. Can you explain, because if revolution breaks out tomorrow, surely the world would be divided again into two camps.
Answer: Are you suggesting that there would be the rise of big powers, big blocs? I don’t think so. The whole theory of two camps in that particular form, the way it existed, was concocted in 1947. It is a very doubtful theory. It was concocted in Warsaw when what was called the Cominform was formed. To present this in a simplistic way: that the world is divided into two, was later used by Khrushchev in order to declare this so-called socialist camp as the zone of influence of the Soviet Union. The invasion of Czechoslovakia took place under the slogan of the “defence of the socialist camp.” I can assure you, just from our point of view, if Canada has a socialist revolution, we will not join the socialist camp, even if there are 101 countries or 175 which are socialist. We will fight anybody else who has these camps. We are against any blocs. This does not mean that we will not sympathize and support socialist countries. We do not agree with this theory of blocs. It is a reactionary theory. It is a theory which cannot be accepted. It is chauvinist.
I don’t think you look in a profound way at what it did. Say, you are resident here and somebody asks you, who do you support the Soviet Union or not? If you were serious you would say, what is the issue here, what is your problem, what problem are you dealing with when you are raising this issue? It was very convenient for these social-chauvinists in the Soviet Union to divide the whole world on the basis of who favoured them and who opposed them. Then, on the basis of that, they justified capitulation to imperialism, that they could sacrifice this or that country to avert war. This is how they traded their silence on Nicaragua for U.S. silence on Afghanistan, and so on. The whole justification of capitulation to imperialism was that: oh, we are defending the socialist camp. How about the problems of everybody else? This theory of blocs is not a Leninist theory. It is not a theory which will defend socialism and create the possibilities of expansion. What is the experience of these blocs? The Soviet Union dominated the ex-socialist or people’s democratic countries. How come? A socialist bloc should not mean that one country is dominating others. If it was serious, if it was really proletarian internationalism, then it would not lead to these kind of blocs. The other very important thing is that a proletarian policy internationally is in defence of socialism, to encourage the development of socialism, and against capitalism. It does not go in the name of defending socialism in this or that country, and that for this reason we are going to capitulate in this or that way. If you go into the depth of it, you will see that this is wrong. Some people say that because we have common ideology, each one of us should give up our own thinking. Who will it help to give up our own thinking? There has been big pressure that all parties should coordinate themselves in this way, by having a common general line and so on. But how do you do it? The communist international was established like that on the basis of a document. What were the consequences? The communist movement expanded, went through a big development. What happened afterwards? When the time came for all these parties to stand on their own feet, blocs were formed, various parties became gramophones of other parties. A big debacle took place. Why go on this road by having such things?
Blocs may still form, but I am against the formation of blocs. I think it is a retrogressive step. Similarly we are against forming blocs of parties. This is also retrogressive. Strengthening unity between parties, mutual support, building real working relations with each other, is very, very important. But the way the communist movement is and has been, everybody says that they want to build this unity, and few do. In my experience, communists feel stranger to each other than they feel towards others. This situation has to change and will change. On the basis of their own experiences, on the basis of the experiences of other parties, they will see the necessity of meeting with each other as their work develops. But forming blocs is not going to help the situation. The issue is very complex, in the sense that can one suggest that the world economy will be divided between a socialist and a capitalist economy? What will that be? Internationally, to isolate various countries in this way is not at all helpful. One of the reasons Albania did not have anywhere to go was their total dependence on barter, and so on. Cuba had the same problem. Why should this be done? Why could the socialist countries not deal with these capitalist countries? The reason is that these capitalist countries had their agents with the leftist phrases who wanted these countries to be isolated. The capitalist countries would not transact normal relations with them unless they capitulated. Instead of having a fight there, it looks like an easy solution to form blocs. I don’t think that is the solution.
19. Imperialism and Disequilibrium
Question: You mentioned that imperialism will inevitably move into a period of destabilisation. Can you speculate a bit on the character of our epoch, on this disequilibrium period and the challenges it places on ourselves, the sheer scale?
Answer: Imperialism, in terms of a world system of states at this time, is already in disequilibrium as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the bi-polar division of the world. That is why there is a danger of war, in the sense that to establish a new equilibrium they will try to establish new zones of influence. The situation today is not one of equilibrium. The equilibrium which existed at the time the world was divided between the spheres of influence of the two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, was such that they had established a modus vivendi and carried out various methods of operation as well. That was the international order at that time. After the Iraq war, various people thought that the U.S. had now established a new world order, which is not the case. The situation is in disequilibrium. Everybody is fighting to establish a new order, a new equilibrium in their own favour. This situation we are in is actually favourable for the proletariat and peoples to make their advance.
20. What Kind of Society?
The theme What Kind of Society?, along with the theme What Kind of Party?, was extensively dealt with during the seminar. Providing a general historical perspective to this question, it was stated:
One of the most important issues which has been raised in the past few years has been about the character of a system and of the society based on it. As you know, all the propaganda of the world bourgeoisie and reaction is centred on the view that the systems in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were destructive, number one, to the economy and number two, that they were totalitarian; they deprived the people of their civil rights, of their freedoms, and thirdly, that they created broadscale dislocation of the peoples and destroyed the natural environment. For the bourgeoisie to say such things is quite astounding or horrendous because this actually describes how the capitalist system operates. If we are to speak of such problems existing in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, we have to look at these economic and other difficulties from the standpoint that something capitalistic must have happened there. It is not possible to look at these problems in the way they are proposing, which is merely a superficial recognition that something happened. Just to observe that something has fallen or something is having difficulties cannot be called analysis. One has to go further. One has to go deeply into this question and only on this basis one can draw these conclusions.
The most important ingredients for the creation of society is the development of a mode of production, a way, a mechanism or a system through which two of the most important human activities can be realised. One is the relationship which human beings enter into with one another; that is, in the objective sense, how they interact objectively with one another. The second is what relationship they establish with nature. Without such a relationship existing, coming into being in an objective sense, it is not possible to speak about the development of society or the existence of societies. Sometimes it is said that honeybees are very successful in creating a society. They speak of that system, but they forget that such a society revolves around production. And of course in relationship to bees it is easy, in the sense that it is spontaneous, it has been part of evolution, and bees carry on their life on the basis of an instinct.
Human society came into being not on the basis of instinct, not on the basis of spontaneity. Any society which is based on instinct and spontaneity cannot be called a human society. By definition, human society begins on the basis of the act of the humanization of the natural environment by homo sapiens. The central thing in this act of humanization is to force nature to yield what human beings want. For human beings to make nature submit to what they want is not only to humanize nature but to humanize themselves, to part from the state of being an animal to become a human being. In this development, human society has gone through many stages. Each stage of social development is known by the extent to which the social productive forces in society have been developed or created. It is not possible to judge a society by any other means.
In very brief: human beings faced a contradiction at the start of human society caused by the increase in populations and gradual or constant decrease in the availability of food. Because of this situation, either populations were to disappear or new food sources had to be found. So we have in history different kinds of societies, for instance, gathering societies. But the main mechanism was to go around looking for food which was spontaneously available, and once that food source was no longer available they would be forced to move on and go somewhere else. The resolution of this contradiction — that is increasing populations and decreasing availability of food — is what spurs the development of the productive forces. The development of the productive forces and productive force necessarily have two crucial or decisive elements in it: one is human beings, the other is nature. The application of human creative power on nature gives rise to instruments and means of production. Instruments and means of production did not arise spontaneously, to the extent that even the ability to use one’s hands as an instrument, as a great weapon in the hands of human beings, was created over a period of time. A brain of a particular capability and dimension had to evolve as the pre-condition for this. There arises of course in the development of the productive forces a time when the availability of food in the actual and potential sense far exceeded the populations. Class society arose when a section of the population began to expropriate that surplus production which was available as a result of the development of productive forces. This expropriation of that production is the beginning of class society which we are still passing through. In this expropriation, relations of production developed whose content has basically remained the same.
At this time, when the world bourgeoisie and reaction are carrying out broadscale propaganda against the Soviet system and socialism, one of the most important questions which they dodge is that they are promoting a society which by definition will not provide for the people. As a motive of production, as a reason to carry out production, bourgeois society does not accept that its only aim is to provide for the people. They are willing to accept any other aim but not this one. For instance, when they speak about highest levels of indebtedness, this fiscal and budgetary policy, these deficits, they do not speak of eliminating these things for the benefit of society, for the purpose of providing for the people. They do so for the purpose of making the maximum profits for the capitalists. They say so explicitly as they recognize no other aim for production than the profit motive. They do so for the purpose of providing a section of the society the greatest life. This question has become, you can say, fundamental.
When the motive of production is to provide for the people, then there are a number of policies which human beings have to follow. If that motive is eliminated, then something else is carried out. What the advocates of the modern capitalist system are proposing is that we should have a free market system. They claim that a free market system has something inherent to it, a feature which will somehow be able to regulate the economy. The economy will be able to establish its equilibrium and in this way human beings will be able to carry on the uninterrupted development of the productive forces. However, this hidden hand has actually never regulated the capitalist economy. In the 19th century, there was one form of crisis. Capitalist development took place through periodic crises of overproduction. The productive forces developed following a period of their massive destruction. But in the 20th century, especially at this time, the nature of crises has changed. If you look at some of the facts, for instance in Canada, the current recession started around 1990. Then, according to official sources, the recovery started in 1991-1992. In the past, periods of recession would mean an increase in unemployment, while periods of upturn would bring unemployment down. This is no longer happening. Today, unemployment levels are not going down during the period of recovery. What does this show?
We have statistics available on the job patterns. Very detailed information is available from the time of the Second World War. I am quite sure that what Canada has gone through is not much different to the experience in other advanced capitalist countries. There may be some differences, but not significant ones. In the period from 1971 to 1981, more than 800,000 jobs of different kinds were eliminated in Canada, either through technological improvements in the work places to increase labour productivity, or through the general technical-scientific revolution in society that made certain commodities obsolete. Just imagine what this does to human beings. During the same period, the increase in demand for goods and services called for the creation of 2.9 million jobs, with the result that employment in Canada grew by 2.1 million during this period. But with the deepening crisis in the 1980s and the 1990s, the Gross Domestic Product is not growing so rapidly, and the number of new jobs called for to fulfil this demand is not so high. At the same time, the intensified competition amongst the capitalists has forced them to intensify the introduction of new technology and the rationalization of production so that an even greater numbers of jobs are eliminated. This is the way the pattern has developed, so that now the number of old jobs destroyed far exceeds the number of new jobs created. As a result, while there is a return to profitability, in the sectors of the economy where there is still production going on and capacity utilisation is increasing, the employment has either remained at the same level or is decreasing even in recovery. This has given rise to what they refer to as “a jobless recovery.”
The unemployment level in Canada is officially over 11%, even though they say recovery has been under way for over a year. This is higher than it has ever been since the 1930s when Canada went through depression. Within this situation where the new jobs are being created at a lower speed than the old jobs are being destroyed, a feature of capitalism has become evident that was predicted by Marx; that is, that capitalism cannot develop the productive forces on an interrupted basis. It especially cannot use the technical and scientific revolution for the benefit of society. At a certain stage, the same technical and scientific revolution which spurred the development of capitalism will actually become a factor in the destruction of capitalist society. In the past, as in the example of the development of Britain, the industrial revolution, that is, the technical-scientific revolution or the rise of the use of modern machines, opened a path for progress. Now is not the time to discuss how this happened, but for the first time there arose a need on a broad scale for modern production to utilize those who were capable of carrying out modern production. As a result the conception slowly arose that the entire population should be provided with education, and providing public education became an obligation of society. In the same fashion, the question of health care and other questions which come in the sphere of social welfare, whether we speak of unemployment insurance or old-age pensions, and so on, came to the fore on the basis of the developments which followed the use of modern means of production.
Then society comes to a stage when the same means of production do the opposite. For instance, as you know, in all countries of the world… they are saying that there is a need for a new kind of education at this time. What kind of education is that? This new kind of education has to be geared very particularly to serve the new demands of the economy. What is the new demand? They do not speak about what the new demand is, but vague references are made to it. There is a reference to computerization, to the rise of the service industry, to increasing international competition and to the necessity for rationalization and so on. But all these references miss a very important point, which is how this eduction will help the development of the productive forces? How will it benefit society? The development of capitalism proceeds with the destruction of the productive forces, in a violent way. Can it be concluded from this that destruction and violence benefit society? Productive forces include, as I mentioned very briefly at the outset, the human productive force. In this modern society we are not speaking of any kind of human beings. We are speaking of the product of modern production, that is, proletarians. There are others who also constitute the productive force in terms of human beings, but here the most important productive force are the proletarians. Is this education they are speaking about going to help the proletarians? Secondly, there is the question of the development of the instruments and means of production. Are the changes in education they are speaking about going to help the development of the instruments and means of production? If you look in concrete terms at what they are proposing in education, both in relationship to the human productive force and to the instruments and means of production, it is not for the benefit of society.
Let us just take the issue of international competition. There is very big pressure from all quarters that every country should produce for the international market, that production for the international market is the most important, most profitable, and that to be competitive in the international market is the only way to survive. Why is that? You will not find a sound reason. Where are these people internationally for whom you are producing? Who are they? It is the same people of the world. So the British, if they produce for the international market, who are they producing for? If Brazilians produce for the international market, who are they producing for? Who is producing for the British and the Brazilians? What is this thing called production for the international market? If what lies behind this is not elucidated, then of course it seems very reasonable and rational that, yes, now we have computers and education should be shifted towards training proletarians in computers and the use of computers should be considered as part of getting basic education, and so on. Let us take the example of some of the most “successful countries” they speak of, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and so on. In which way are these success stories? If you look at what each of these countries has in common it is that capital is accumulated internationally and deployed in these places. Then you bring the rest of the world as a market to exploit… With this mechanism in place, world production has actually been falling. So in terms of the world economy, this is not a success story. This success story of the “five tigers”, or the shock therapy in eastern Europe and elsewhere does not increase production on the world scale. What kind of success story is it?
When the bourgeoisie speaks about the hidden hand of the free market which will regulate production and consumption and ensure the harmonious development of the economy, it is merely telling a lie, in the sense that there is no hidden hand. What you find is that these capitalists do not want production to be organized for the benefit of society. They want production strictly for their benefit, and those people in alliance with themselves; that is, a monopoly or an oligopoly, within whose ranks there also exists fierce competition which has become extremely acute. It is these symptoms which then point to the essence of the system at its last stage, that whereby primitive production was carried out for the benefit of society, for the benefit of the people, now the demand is that even those benefits which have been accorded over a period of time should be withdrawn, and the slogan is everyone must fend for him or herself.
In Canada the government has coined a phrase these days that “everybody has to share the pain.” I don’t know how some people are going to share the pain. I don’t want to offend anybody’s sensibilities talking about the head of state of Britain, but the same person seems to be the head of state of Canada. I cannot see how sitting in London she is sharing the pain of her subjects in Canada. This pain has now entered the middle strata for the first time in the history of Canada. Even well educated people are becoming impoverished, going on social welfare and looking for the most menial jobs. Besides the fact that the fisheries are basically completely out of the picture, whole communities have been devastated, agriculture is under increasing pressure, and so on. At the same time, various governments do not speak about the economy in the same fashion as ordinary mortals speak. They speak about the economy in terms of reducing deficits or creating jobs. The definition of the economy is the creation of a system or a mechanism or various ways which will provide for you, and which will facilitate production. So if, say, somebody says that he or she will bring prosperity to your region by opening a casino, and then a huge amount of propaganda is carried out that the opening of this casino is going to create jobs, how would you feel? In the same way when expenditures are made on militarization or opening armed camps, and so on, they speak about them in terms of creating jobs. Some people have started saying that somehow capitalism has regained its youth. Some people are even suggesting that capitalism has arrived at a new stage. Far from it, the thesis I would like to present is that capitalism is showing signs of its disintegration at a very rapid rate. That sign is that the technical-scientific revolution today, or its application in various spheres, is devastating the economy at a very rapid rate. It proves that this mode of production can no longer spur the development of the productive forces, whether in human terms or in terms of instruments and means of production, and that this development can only be judged on the basis of whether it benefits society or works against society. As I mentioned before, the statistical information is available which shows that the massive destruction of old jobs is occurring at a faster rate than new jobs are being created. Just think of the economy as different spheres of production, whether we speak of agriculture or processing or mining, or in terms of the manufacturing of light industry, consumer products, or in terms of the production of the means of production, and so on. Why can a human society not be planned to have these things constant, and in this way provide for the society?; that is, different sectors of the economy as constant, and their development in technological and scientific terms of course, on an uninterrupted basis, so as to increase labour productivity, to have more and more modern means of production, and so on; at the same time to develop the human productive force and establish this for the benefit of society. Why can such a thing not be done?
Various arguments of course are given by analysts, and the most important seem to be that if the economy is planned, then freedom will be lost. But what is that freedom? If society develops on the basis of extended reproduction, if it is to be able to develop the productive forces on an uninterrupted, harmonious basis, then that equation of freedom will be that human beings will be far better off, because once the necessities of life are met on an uninterrupted basis, then people would be free to do whatever they wished: free to innovate, free to participate in whatever they like in terms of their hobbies and social, political and cultural life. There you will see, in the true sense of the word, free people. Freedom is the recognition of necessity. For the first time a human history will begin to form and develop. It will be a period of human history unfettered by any of these spontaneous factors.
The other objection the bourgeoisie presents is that socialism has failed, the doctrine of communism has failed. If you go by their propaganda in the late 1950s, they said at that time that destalinization had taken place in the Soviet Union. Now in 1992-93, again destalinization has taken place. Not only has destalinization taken place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but it has also taken place in Britain, Canada and other places. The social welfare state is now being connected with the name of J.V. Stalin, and any kind of planning is being connected with the name of J.V. Stalin. In other words, Stalin must be a very fortunate man, that everything positive in society is linked with his name. It may yet happen, and history has its own cunning, that everybody in the world may become Stalinist just because of the criticism which the bourgeoisie is launching against him! The speed with which they have started advocating that we want a society which has no obligation towards its members is extraordinary. They only recognize the obligation towards those who control that society, the moneylenders, who they are demanding must be paid. Not only the moneylenders demand their pound of flesh, but they say that if they go bankrupt, they should be bailed out. In this way, the state is used to bail out big monopolies and corporations. If you want to just respond in the spirit of despondency and anger, you can say that if this society doesn’t care two hoots about me, why should I care two hoots about it? Why should anybody work for a society which says openly that it has no obligation towards anyone, except the moneybags of various kinds?
On the one hand, you have the objective side, which is that the parasitism, or the character which is inherent to the capitalist system, is acting with a vengeance and destroying the productive forces at a very rapid rate. In this, the unemployment crisis is the most prominent feature. At the same time, here has arisen a ruling class which is coming from the subjective side, from the side of policy, which says that we must organize the state as an instrument of expropriation of the whole people in society, in the service of the most powerful monopolies nationally and internationally. In other words, the state as it arose in various countries, especially say in Britain where it arose as an instrument of the industrial revolution and brought forth many things which opened the path to progress, no longer exists. The same state, under different circumstances, is closing the path to progress. It is saying that if you create a new socialist society, it will be totalitarianism, it will destroy the economy, it will be anti-democratic, and so on. The demand is that there should be no future society, only the present kind of society. Any future development should be blocked. At the same time, it says that it has no obligation to anyone in society, that a society has claims on its members but its members have no claim on society.
In the development of modern societies, in their struggle against medievalism, absolutism, and so on, the conception that every individual has a right and this right is inviolable in the form of a claim on society was given rise to. The role of the state is merely to guarantee this right, but this right cannot be withdrawn or usurped in any way. If any state does not recognize these rights or does not establish enabling legislation, does not introduce those laws required so that people can enjoy these rights, then there will be a social revolution. In the sphere of social developments, if a mode of production no longer facilitates the harmonious development of the productive forces, then that mode of production will clash with the need of society for progress at that stage, in the sphere of relations between people and in the sphere of politics. In the sphere of the state, if a state does not guarantee these rights, these claims of individuals on society, then that society itself will be destroyed, both because of the brake on the productive forces as well as the block on the path to progress.
In our opinion, objectively speaking, these features of capitalism are there if anybody wants to see them, and this society, this system, is overripe for revolution, for change, for a new system. Thus, the task during this period can only be to bring down those who are at the head of social organizations, whether of workers or others, who do not want to see these things. Those who are creating illusions that there is such a thing as a hidden hand which can regulate the economy should be brought down, along with those who are suggesting that the problem of equality is merely a question of elite accommodation, or who are saying that the question of eliminating unemployment is merely a matter of increasing investments in this or that field. In other words, a communist party must call forth those forces in whose interest it will be to bring about this social revolution.
The question What Kind of Society? itself has become the arena of the sharpest class struggle. The working class should come forward; it should say in every way possible that there is a new society, the material conditions for which have all been prepared and that the next stage of society is socialism.
21. Transition Between Capitalism and Communism
Question: I would like clarification. I understand the comrade to say that there is no stage between capitalism and socialism. Is he defining socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Answer: In political terms, the proletarian state is not an intermediary stage between economic systems, that is between the economic system of capitalism and the economic system of socialism. You cannot bring in a proletarian state which is a thing of an entirely different category, that is politics, and say, this is a transition. The proletarian state is an instrument to bring about the revolutionary transformation from capitalism to socialism. It is an instrument in the hands of the proletariat. It is the political power, not an intermediate stage. Generally speaking, in common language, it is called socialist democracy.
To answer your question in political terms, there is no intermediate stage between capitalist democracy and proletarian democracy. In the world, after the Second World War, there were various theoreticians who tried to suggest that there was another stage. Some people described it in economic terms as “non-capitalistic development.” In political terms, they tried to suggest that people’s democracy was something between proletarian power and bourgeois power. All these theories fizzled out because the tactics followed by the proletariat in one country do not fit into a category of ideas. Take, for example, a society where the agrarian issue may be the most important one, where the peasantry has a great revolutionary role in the transformation to bring about democracy. There the working class leads, but not with these liberal conceptions. It leads the democratic struggle and immediately goes to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat as the movement for democracy develops. In Russia, for instance, the period between the February Revolution and the October Revolution was only six months, and the working class never accepted the results of the February Revolution. You could not say that it was an intermediate stage.
The communist parties on the world scale have a rich experience of the humbug called intermediate stages. Some parties claimed there was a stage in which several classes shared political power. Now, in political terms, what will that be? They still think that that kind of power exists. In the final analysis, is it a bourgeois dictatorship or a proletarian dictatorship? In the Soviet Union, when the time came to further develop proletarian democracy, Khrushchev came up with his thesis of the “party of the whole people” and “state of the whole people.” This was also a humbug that there are some intermediate stages. In economic systems, there is no stage between one and the other. Either a country is going through a democratic revolution and will stop at bourgeois democracy, as many countries did, or it will go on to proletarian democracy, to socialism.
Political power is an instrument of that economic system. Political power has to be clearly wielded. If the task is to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution, then the power consistent with that is needed. But at this time, no bourgeois democratic revolution in the world is positive because it cannot be said that the bourgeoisie in any country is of the calibre which can develop a country’s independence or its system. More often than not they have 101 connections with imperialism. In other words, the democratic movement in all countries in the world, generally speaking, has to be led by the proletariat, has to be led with the aim of establishing proletarian power. Even though a country may go through several stages of revolution, the aim of the working class is to establish the socialist system.
Answering your question, I do not believe there is such a thing.
Question: You haven’t answered my question. My question was: do you identify socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat? There is no intermediate stage? In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat is established — that is socialism? Is that what you are saying?
Answer: No, we look at things in their change, development and motion. As soon as the proletarian power is established, its aim is to create a socialist society.
Question: So there is an intermediate stage then?
Answer: No, that is an eclectic rendering of this problem. The transformations take place on the basis of the new quality of the system and not in terms of intermediate stages. For example, in Canada we will socialize all the main means of production at once. We will expropriate all the monopolies. That would be called the socialist system at that time and not an intermediate stage to go to socialism. The first step that has to be taken in the development of socialism cannot be said to be some other, intermediate stage. As socialism develops, it will go through various developments leading to the creation of a communist society.
In terms of social science, socialism itself is called a transition period from capitalism to communism. There is no transition period between capitalism and socialism. Socialism is the lower stage of the development of communism. Once the proletarian power comes into being, tasks emerge both in the political sphere as well as in the economic and cultural spheres. One cannot just say that everything is settled, or that this is socialist society and that is the end.
Question: I express the question as follows: In your view, is the dictatorship of the proletariat a prerequisite for the development of socialist society towards communist society?
Answer: Are you asking me if I like this phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Yes. Is it just an issue of a phrase or an issue of content? I am trying to assess what you are getting at. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the prerequisite for deep-going social transformation. The answer to your question is yes.
Question: Yesterday you talked about the development of theory only being able to bloom when people had power. The period up to that would only be developing.
Answer: The issue here is that the operative word is “dictatorship”. For people who are in England, it should not be difficult to understand what a dictatorship is, because from the 17th to 19th centuries, generally speaking, especially in the 18th century, there was a very big debate over whether political power should be divided between various sectors in society, or should be indivisible. The answer given by Hobbes or any one of the people who dealt with these questions was that political power should be indivisible. It can only be absolute, it can only be dictatorship, otherwise there is no political power. They opposed the absolutism of medievalism in order to open the path for progress of society under capitalism, which was a positive development. But they never created such a humbug that the political power should not be absolute. They removed the power from the hands of the monarch and placed it in their own hands. They took away the royal prerogative and placed it in the hands of the Cabinet. But they did not go against absolutism. Political power without that content is a humbug.
The issue is: in whose hands should that power be. Should it be in the hands of the bourgeoisie, as exists at this time? See what is happening to society with political power in their hands. It is their dictatorship, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which prevails. When it is in the hands of the proletariat, it opens another path, but in absolute terms, not relative terms. The liberal bourgeoisie is merely a propaganda piece in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The liberal bourgeoisie does not reveal any further developments in terms of the content of political power. It is a form through which this content has gone. This absolutism can take a liberal form, or a dictatorial form in the militaristic sense, as happened in terms of Mussolini, Hitler and others, of whom Pinochet is a recent example, or the way Yeltsin did. But the power, the content, the essence, is indivisible, one and absolute. Anyone who wants to wield that power must fully appreciate that it cannot be shared; it must be wielded with the strongest possible hand, towards whatever aim may be set. For us, for instance, the power must be wielded so as to provide the broadest possible democracy for the people, for the working class, rather than creating illusions that something is wrong with what they call dictatorship. It is one of the greatest achievements in political theory to say that political power must be one and indivisible. We stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat. We, who carry out practice to change society, who put social science on a pedestal, on the highest level, cannot be afraid of some pin-pricks, some reactionaries, who say, do not like the word “dictatorship,” These are not the problems in terms of class struggle in the world. It is merely those who want to abandon social science, who want to say this system is just fine and only requires some tinkering, it is they who are afraid of basing themselves on social science. This is what the central issue is there.
We stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat. No serious social scientist will tell you that there is such a thing as a power which can be divided here and there. Either it is the power of one class, or of the other class. That absolute power may favour somebody on a temporary basis, but this does not change the character of that power. If it is changed, it will disappear, it will be overthrown, and be replaced by other absolute power. Political power without its essence is nothing.
Question: You speak about democratic renewal and at same time talk about communists standing up. If in this period of retreat of revolution, the working class is confused, it is not going to take up the issue. Are you saying we should push bourgeois democracy to its limits, and this is democratic renewal?
Answer: (…) What we are saying is that democratic renewal of the political process is a factor which will contribute to the development of social revolution. This is not a reform which will help bourgeois democracy. Far from it. The question which this other friend has raised, that is of political power and how it should be wielded, is one of the major questions of the 20th century, So too is the question of whether a political party should come to power. Every form of bourgeois ideology justifies that the state should be an instrument of a party. A whole debate took place in the 1920s between Trotskyites and opportunists. They wanted to establish party dictatorships. Stalin, who is accused of advocating a party dictatorship, fought this conception in the name of Lenin. In the 1950s, every revisionist party established party dictatorships. They are the ones who have these kinds of ideologies. They pushed this view, the phrase you used, of pushing bourgeois democracy to its limits. Far from it. We want to put forward a reform which would subvert this democracy.
The question you raise is very important. Workers in Canada also raise it. It is very legitimate in my view. They ask, how can you wear two hats? One day you have a red hat which is for socialism, the next day you have another hat which is for democracy. These are not two different hats. The only thing is that within these conditions, we must organize the working class, we must make it conscious about the need for socialism and about all this we have talked about in the sphere of theory. At the same time, we say to the working class that the bourgeoisie is most vulnerable on this question; hit it. That is what the role of democratic renewal is. Show that your representatives are the best scholars and most enlightened people in the world. They are not lazybones, empty propagandists supporting this or that sect. It is necessary to bring forward that profound enlightenment which is required to bring about these transformations. The slogan which we put forward in 1985 — Build the Movement for Enlightenment — was an answer at that time to Gorbachev who had his perestroika with its universal principles to bring the world into further darkness. Our slogan was to enhance the role of Marxism-Leninism and enhance the role of the class against the imposition of backward “universal principles.” There is such a thing as an enlightened position, as the high road of civilization. It is that work started in 1985 which naturally leads to these political demands. In democratic renewal, our immediate political demand is that there should be No Election Without Selection, which means that political parties should be deprived of the right to select candidates. That is the cutting edge on this question.
(Discussion Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1994)