The
importance of the critical assessment of the socialist construction
in the 20th century for the strengthening of the labor movement and
for an effective counter-attack.
By Aleka Papariga*.
Source: International Communist Review, Issue 2, July 2014.
When we made public the subject of our 18th
Congress, which, besides the mandatory overview of our work, included
as a special subject our conclusions from socialist construction,
several friends of the Party wondered whether it was advisable, under
the current conditions and while the signs of the economic capitalist
crisis had already become visible in the international scene, to
focus on such an important issue which, in their opinion, might not
have been at the top of the agenda.
It is not necessary, of course, to remind the
reaction raised in the bourgeois press, the ironic and bitter
comments of well-known journalists, who were annoyed by our decision
to deal with this issue as they knew beforehand why we took such a
decision. Their reaction is quite understandable from their point of
view; they have a sharp instinct, they catch everything that can give
strength and dynamic to the revolutionary movement.
From the very first moment that we realized
that the infamous course of perestroika was nothing else but the
beginning of the counterrevolution and the temporary defeat of the
socialist system, we understood that we had to bear the brunt of
giving answers to all progressive people –and to ourselves as well-
who were reasonably wondering what happened. Even more so, since it
was proved that we were not at all prepared for such a tragic
development; we had not anticipated it and, unfortunately, we did not
have the appropriate reflexes in order to react, even just before the
lowering of the red flag from the Kremlin.
Of course, our Party was not a party in power
and therefore we didn’t have any direct responsibility in socialist
construction. Nevertheless, our position that regarded our Party as
part of the problem was quite correct. Besides, the
counterrevolutionary storm affected all communist parties, causing
internal crises, splits, complete mutation of several parties,
confusion and even existential questions to some others.
During the first period that determined the
fate of socialism in the USSR, namely from 1989 until 1991, KKE
entered a deep ideological, political and organizational crisis that
led to a split, with a significant number of the members of the CC,
led by the general secretary of the CC, leaving the Party.
What they were actually supporting was the
historical condemnation of the revolutionary movement, of the course
of socialist construction and the transformation of the Party to a
left opportunist party diffused inside a left alliance, that would
restrict itself to certain reforms, to the management of the system.
The
crisis brought to the surface the existence of a strong opportunist
current in the leadership of the Party which enjoyed the approval of
the bourgeois political system. The crisis that KKE went through was
not merely an imported crisis. We have never attributed it solely to
the victory of the counterrevolution and its impact within the Party.
The international developments accelerated its outbreak, but, above
all, determined the extent of the losses incurred, in the sense that
the bitterness caused by the sudden realisation of the backsliding
made it difficult for thousands of communists to see from the very
first moment the character of the crisis in the Party and led to
their demobilization.
The members of the CC who took an active role
in the overcoming of the crisis or realised it during its course,
even in the nick of time, should never forget that we had the
obligation to have posed this problem clearly to the members of the
Party, so as to develop the inner party debate and struggle, where
all the members of the Party would be involved and form a true
majority. This was dictated by the statutes of our Party, which
establishes democratic centralism and guarantees the conditions of
inner-party democracy
When the rift in the leadership of the Party
has to do with issues of strategy, issues that literally concern the
existence of the Party, then the problem cannot be solved by the
leading body itself; it can become concealed, although it exists and
it can literally dynamite the Party.
Under such conditions, splits are inevitable. A
split is not a tragic development in a general and abstract sense. It
ultimately leads to the expulsion from the revolutionary Party of all
those forces -above all of the cadres- who have chosen the path of
compromise, who have chosen to play with the rules of the bourgeois
political system. In such cases a split leads to the necessary
purging, provided that all possibilities have been exhausted and
there’s no other option left.
If we had behaved in a such a fashion on time,
without the unjustified fear of a split (under the specific
conditions at the national and international levels) many members and
several cadres of the party would not have strayed from the right
path; they wouldn’t have been led to demobilization in such a
critical period for the popular movement in general.
Under the conditions of socialism, right-wing
opportunism once again proves itself to be a counterrevolutionary
force, a force splitting the revolutionary communist movement. If it
is not dealt with on time, if it is underestimated, then it can
strike a destructive blow and push the communist movement decades
back.
The years 1989-1991 were one of the hardest
periods of our Party, even compared with the conditions of illegality
or with the defeat in the civil war of 1946-1949. The reason is that
these previous periods were marked by the existence of the rising
communist movement, the formation of the socialist system in Europe
and the improvement in the international correlation of forces.
Therefore, the difficulties or the defeat in one country could not
create such a profound turbulence and disappointment.
KKE finally managed to find its way relatively
on time, mutatis mutandis of course; it managed to overcome the
crisis, to stand on its own feet and maintain, even during that
period that all signs were against us, a reputation and an influence
among the people.
The class enemy embraced the cadres who left
the party with all its mechanisms and in all its forms; helping them
systematically, while launching, at the same time, an open
anti-communist campaign against KKE, using all ideological and
political means, as well as the most vile slander.
The course of other fraternal communist parties
that did not bring the crisis to the surface shows that they did not
ultimately avoid adventures. Some of them chose to leave aside the
problem of the victory of the counterrevolution, due to the fear of a
possible or certain split and engaged in the daily struggle for the
immediate and vital problems, without, however, renewing their
programme after the enormous negative changes.
Irrespective
of their wishes and desires, irrespective of their intentions (of
course, in certain cases, the intentions were not at all innocent)
they had troubles in due course and they still have, as they are
exposed to significant and irreconcilable contradictions. A communist
party cannot cope with the immediate issues, let alone the
medium-term ones, if it does not chart a clear line towards
socialism. It will be a trip without prospect that will finally lead
to assimilation, to the difficulty to meet the challenges that the
daily problems pose.
Nowadays, 20 years after the split, under the
conditions of a worldwide defeat of the revolutionary movement
(temporary, but deep and with long-term consequences), KKE has
regrouped itself organisationally, ideologically and politically. It
has an increasing political influence; it plays a significant role in
the class struggle in our country, while it makes efforts for the
regroupment of the international communist movement. On the contrary,
the political organisation of opportunism, despite the support it
enjoys, has not managed to increase its political influence; it
suffers from internal disputes over its tactics, it constantly seeks
“renewal”, appealing mainly to several highly-paid segments of
the civil servants and to well-placed Intellectuals. We do not
underestimate them. Our struggle includes a firm ideological
political front against the opportunist views that, under the
conditions of imperialism, can strengthen and poison the rising
radicalism which has a dynamic tendency under the conditions of the
capitalist economic crisis. Even if it is not shaped
organisationally, due to its relationship with social democracy,
opportunism, as a branch of bourgeois ideology, is always dangerous
and corrosive, both in periods of the movement’s decline or
counterattack. It is for that reason that opportunist ideas are
acceptable among liberal and social democratic parties, even when
they criticise the political representatives of such ideas,
especially in periods that they seek open and not covert allies. When
they have to face a revolutionary communist party, they need them
either as views or as supporters of parties that serve as an obstacle
to the popular movement. Opportunists are always useful for the
system. Both the past and the recent history of the movement in
Greece offer plentiful examples.
From the very first moment that the
ideological-political unity of KKE was restored at the end of 1991,
we realised that the strengthening of KKE, its influence on
socio-political developments would be impossible unless we provided
answers regarding the objective and subjective causes for the victory
of the counterrevolution; unless we reached conclusions; unless we
answered above all to the working class of our country whether our
choice to defend socialism, the October revolution and the USSR was
correct or not.
We do not forget that thousands of Greek
communists were murdered, executed, because they chose not to save
their life by signing a statement condemning the CPSU, the USSR and
Stalin. We had to assume our responsibility to give an answer to the
thousands of questions posed by the members of the party and KNE, by
the friends and supporters of the party, but also by well-intentioned
people. We have always felt as an integral part of the international
communist movement that has a share both in the positive, as well as
in its negative aspects.
We knew that it was a difficult and responsible
task to give answers to an issue of world importance, given that it
was not possible to cooperate initially with the communist parties of
the former socialist countries since they had been dissolved or
mutated.
We established relations with new communist
parties that were founded in these countries, as well as with Marxist
scientists. We managed to collect a significant portion of the
material from the discussions held within the CPSU and the scientific
institutes, of the different views on the course of the socialist
construction, especially after World War II. At the same time, we
linked this problem to the international conditions, the
international correlation of forces, as well as the situation that
existed in the international communist movement.
Examining things nowadays, after a considerable
time interval has elapsed since 1991, we realise how beneficial and
crucial has been our choice to focus our research not merely to the
last period, but to the entire course from the very beginning, from
the victory of the October Revolution, after we had specified in our
Congress that we do not have to do with a collapse, but with a
counterrevolution that used perestroika as its vehicle.
It was really a bold decision since we knew
that it would be a gigantic task; we had to carry out a scientific
investigation, not a superficial or emotional approach, of the entire
course of socialist construction in the field of the socialist
relations of production, in the field of the economy and not merely
at the level of the political superstructure as many parties did.
We realised that we had to examine the entire
course of the unprecedented task of socialist construction, as it was
not possible for the founders of scientific socialism-communism to
predict the progress of socialist construction and the new problems
that would arise. Our decision to begin at the origin of things, our
awareness that the counterrevolution was not merely the result of
external factors, but also had roots within the very socialist
countries, did not lead us to the rejection of the socialism that was
constructed. From the very first moment we underlined its
superiority, its great, valuable, irreplaceable contribution in
international developments, in the struggle of the working class and
the peoples. Our investigation confirmed and consolidated the
contribution of the socialist system led by the country where
socialism was constructed for the first time, namely the USSR.
In 1995, after having taken into account the
opinions and the comments of the communist parties, with which we had
relations at the international level, we held a national Party
Conference (following an inner party discussion) that discussed and
voted a document with the first conclusions regarding the objective
and subjective causes of the counterrevolution.
Of course, this document left many issues about
the socialist economy and the superstructure unanswered.
Nevertheless, it provided us with an essential material that allowed
us to defend in an aggressive fashion Marxist-Leninist theory and the
theory of scientific socialism in general. We highlighted in a
critical fashion the mistakes that were made, the basis that enabled
their development, the way in which mistaken assessments and choices
paved the way for the opportunist deviation. This document was mainly
based on the material from the socialist construction in the USSR.
This does not mean that our investigation is not extended to the
other socialist countries. However, it was practically easier to
focus on the first country that provided the experience of socialist
construction.
The
1995 resolution provided us with the position that socialism had in
fact been constructed, as opposed to the view arguing that state
capitalism and workers’ bureaucracy existed in the USSR. It
provided us with the position that the counterrevolution had started
from the top, from the parties in power themselves.
We concluded that the 20th Congress of the CPSU
constituted a turning point towards the strengthening of the
counterrevolutionary forces, followed by the subsequent economic
reforms of 1965.
After 1995 we turned a new page in the deeper
study of socialist construction, using a more extended bibliography,
increasing our cooperation with communist scientists from countries
that had constructed socialism, as well as with communist parties,
organising seminars and trips, using extensive material which has
been translated with the assistance of Marxist scientists.
The CC elaborated for a long period a new more
comprehensive document that focused on the socialist relations of
production, on the field of the socialist economy and in 2008 we
formulated a draft document which was discussed two times within the
party down to the level of the Party Base Organisations and in KNE.
We collected comments, questions, even opinions
that expressed a different viewpoint and then this document became a
pre-congress document and a separate subject in the 18th Congress
that took place in February 2009. The draft text of the theses was
sent to all communist parties with which we maintain relations and we
asked for their comments and reflections.
We were conscious of the fact that such a big
issue that determines the character and the strategy of the Party
should not be merely a document of the CC, but that it should be
approved by the Congress of our Party.
The discussion within the party and KNE turned
a new page in our action; it changed to a great extent the atmosphere
within and around the party, within KNE, among the young people that
approach the Party and experience an anti-communist storm. The young
people who were born either a little before perestroika or after the
overthrow are more vulnerable to the reactionary, un-scientific
propaganda.
The pre-congress discussion created an
atmosphere of confidence that KKE is able to examine with courage and
boldness major theoretical issues, to take self-critical positions,
to level criticism without resorting to nihilism and the ad-nauseam
reference to “mistakes”, without allowing the class enemy and
opportunism to utilize this criticism at the expense of the movement.
As it is mentioned in the 18th Congress,
bourgeois polemics against the communist movement, appearing quite
often in the form of intellectual elitism, are aimed against
the revolutionary core of the working class movement. It fights in
general against the necessity of revolution and its political
product, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the
revolutionary working class state-power. In particular, it fights
against the product of the first victorious revolution, the October
Revolution in Russia, struggling with fierceness against every phase
where the Revolution exposed and combatted counter-revolutionary
activities, the opportunist supports, which ultimately, directly or
indirectly, weakened the Revolution, both at social and political
levels.
Nowadays in the modern capitalist societies, in
the societies of monopoly capitalism, the material preconditions for
the transition to socialism-communism have matured to a great extent,
namely there is concentration of production and working class.
Unevenness is definitely an important element for the designation of
strategic duties e.g. alliances, prediction of the chain that can
accelerate the intensification of the contradictions. Nevertheless,
unevenness does not justify a different strategic goal, namely a
state power different from the workers’ state power; it does not
justify an intermediate power between the capitalist and the worker’s
state power. The class character of the worker’s state power that
the communist party strives is given. Of course it will have to
pursue a policy of alliances and maneuver in order to gather and
prepare forces.
KKE expresses this position with its line for
the anti-imperialist anti-monopoly democratic front, as an alliance
of the working class with the small and medium sized farmers and the
self-employed. However, the very communist party should not confuse
the line for the gathering of forces with its strategic goal; it
should not give up its independent, ideological-political strategic
position, its independent organizational entity due to its
participation in the various forms of the organizations of the
alliance.
KKE made such mistakes in the past. We have
draw conclusions collectively that, in our opinion, are of
international importance.
Uneven development means uneven political and
social development; it means that the preconditions for the outbreak
of the revolutionary situation can emerge sooner in a country or a
group of countries, which under specific conditions may constitute
the “weakest link” in the imperialist system. This is
particularly important nowadays, that developments and reshufflings
take place in the imperialist system and the contradictions intensify
both in within the countries as well as in the imperialist system.
Thus, we consider that every Communist Party and the working class of
each country have the internationalist duty to contribute to the
international class struggle, by successfully utilizing the
nationwide crisis for the destabilization–overthrow of the
bourgeois power, for the conquest of power and the socialist
construction.
In the program of our party, which was formed
in the 15th Congress,
we state that the coming revolution in Greece will be a socialist
revolution.
Irrespective of the size of the country, its
position in the international imperialist system, irrespective of
which continent it belongs to, we consider that the new society, the
socialist relations which are formed by the revolutionary workers’
state power do have common characteristics. We do not agree with the
views arguing about different “models” of socialism and the
“national peculiarities” that negate the laws. The reality in
each society e.g. the size of the rural population, the level of the
means of production etc does not negate the general tendencies and
principles.
Another crucial issue is to form a unitary
perception on a fundamental issue, that is whether the new socialist
relations can emerge through reforms, without the profound
clash-overthrow with the bourgeois power and its bodies.
Although it has been dealt with, both
theoretically and practically, it arises again and exerts pressure on
communist parties, that often declare their faith to Marxism
Leninism. It is a fundamental issue for the strategy of the communist
movement.
In our opinion, the action of the worker’s
and people’s masses during the revolutionary situation entails the
challenging-clash with all the bodies of the bourgeoisie till their
demolition and the formation of the new organs of the worker’s
state power.
Only in that way can the bourgeoisie lose its
political power, its domination; only in that way can we beat its
resistance since it has never given up its power voluntarily. The
concept of the socialist revolution does not restrict to the
overthrow of the bourgeois power but
extends during the entire course for the
consolidation and dominance of the communist relations, till the
complete eradication of the classes.
One of the most significant conclusions is the
highlighting of the character of the socialist society as an
undeveloped form, as an initial stage of the communist society.
We saw that, although Marx, Engels and Lenin
had a clear theoretical position on the character of socialism, in
practice this position was interpreted so as to suggest a consummate
distinct society whose development would lead to communism.
Irrespective
of intentions, this arbitrary division of the communist society into
socialist and communist societies constituted the basis for the
strengthening of opportunist views, both in the field of the
socialist relations of production, as well as in the field of the
superstructure. It undermined the character of the dictatorship of
the proletariat, of nationwide planning; it undermined the character
of the Communist Party, as an ideological political vanguard of the
working class during the consolidation and the development of the new
society. It undermined the character of the central planning and
finally led to the weakening of the socialist relations of
production, instead of their reinforcement. On this basis, we can
explain the strengthening of the counterrevolutionary forces on the
political superstructure.
Our party believes that according to the theory
of Marxism Leninism as well, socialism is the immature communism,
that is the lower stage of the communist society; namely communism,
which is just coming from the bowels of capitalism and has to be
based on the economic-technical basis inherited by capitalism.
Nevertheless, the main laws of the communist
society are valid in socialism: the socialization of the concentrated
means of production, the expanded reproduction aiming at the
satisfaction of the social needs, the central planning, the workers’
control, and to some extent the distribution according to the needs
(e.g education, healthcare etc). Due to the very immature character
of socialism, a part of the social product (those destined for
individual consumption) is distributed according to the principle “to
each according to its labour”.
We take into account the theoretical struggle
in the USSR and we will continue our investigation on this issue.
However, our party believes that the perception
and the policy which regards the law of value as the basis for the
distribution of the social production constitute a violation of the
socialist relations. The specific, temporary choice to give a higher
remuneration to the specialized and managerial labour is a different
issue. In socialism the only “measure” of labour is the labour
time, that symbolizes the planned individual contribution to the
formation of the total social product. We highlight the need to
investigate further the issues that concern the wage policy followed
in the USSR and the other countries of Eastern and Central Europe.
The starting point of the socialist
construction is the immediate socialization of the concentrated means
of production. Taking into account the current dimensions of the
capitalist economy, we refer to the strategic sectors that capitalism
itself has concentrated into huge stock companies and monopoly
groups. New Economic Policy is utilised nowadays in order to justify
the extended concessions to the capitalist relations, as in China,
where they have now dominated, and in the USSR in the last years of
the 1980s.
We
believe that NEP was a specific particularity in Soviet Russia after
the civil war and the foreign intervention. Lenin regarded that NEP
had a short–term character, as a need for the transition from war
communism due to the imperialist intervention and the civil war. The
prospect of the abolition of NEP in the near future was clear for
Lenin.
The point is that the workers’ revolutionary
power must plan and act with the aim to abolish the exploitative
relation between salaried labour and capital. In that sense, we
consider impossible the long coexistence of communist and capitalist
relations in the framework of the socialist construction. As the
experience in the USSR showed, the question “who-whom” will soon
emerge in practice.
Communist production – even in its immature
stage – is directly social production: the division of labour does
not take place for exchange, it is not effected through the market,
and the products of labour that are individually consumed are not
commodities.
Commodity money relations cease to exist with
the eradication of the elements of the old system that reproduce
them. This is not realised spontaneously but consciously, through the
policy of the workers’ state power. This means that the
dictatorship of the proletariat must have a policy for the
eradication of the elements of the old society and the participation
of every individual labour to the direct social labour.
We accept the existence of commodity money
relations in the exchange of products between the socialist and
cooperative production. Nevertheless, the direction of the socialist
construction must be the eradication of the commodity-money relations
and it should be followed by the appropriate policy, namely by
measures for the acceleration of the process of merging the smallest
forms of cooperatives with bigger ones, for the development of bigger
forms of cooperatives, their maturation -from the view point of
material conditions- so as to pass to the direct social production.
We
understand that several countries as for instance Greece, which has
relatively wider strata of small commodity producers (e.g. in
agriculture), require the alliance with such strata during the
process of the socialist construction to be ensured through the
productive cooperatives that will be subjugated to the central
planning, as a transitional form aiming at the formation of the
material and subjective conditions for the substantial participation
of the self employed in the direct social production, for the
complete socialization of the means of production.
We
support the principle of the central planning in the economy,
production and the distribution of the manpower and the distribution
of the products of the socialist production and we believe that
nowadays we should investigate how the Communist party can guarantee
in each phase the timely and complete utilisation of scientific
technical achievements in the central planning, so as to express the
socialist laws as a product of the subjective factor and therefore
function effectively as regards the goals of the extended socialist
production and distribution.
From this point of view, we regard, as mistaken
the political choice, that held sway after the 20th Congress of the
CPSU and especially after 1965, regarding the utilization of the
mechanisms and the laws of the market for the correction of mistakes
and the overcoming of shortcomings in the central planning (e.g.
enterprise profits, establishment of enterprises’ self-management
etc.).
In socialism at the level of power corresponds
the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class which is a
prerequisite for the transformation of the social relations and above
all of the relations of production and the superstructure as well.
Dictatorship of the proletariat , despite the slanders of the
bourgeois and petty- bourgeois propaganda, is the very type of state
that manages to de-marginalise the proletarian masses as opposed to
the bourgeois parliamentarianism. The attraction of workers’ masses
to the organs of the state power, which are built on a productive
base, in social services etc, has to do with the ability of party and
the confirmation of its revolutionary leading role in practice. In
these organs, with the assistance of the respective party
organizations, the working class learns how to perform the three
functions of power: how to decide, how to perform and how to control.
Another special issue for the revolutionary workers’ power is to
attract the non proletarian or semi-proletarian strata to the
prospect of socialism. This entails the plan of respective organs
e.g. in the cooperatives, in the self-employed.
The Resolution of the 18th Congress on
socialism signalled the transition to a new phase of ideological and
political counterattack.
The investigation of socialist construction
helped us to enrich our perception on socialism that we had
elaborated in 1996 in the 15th Congress
of our Party.
The document on socialism does not merely help
us to answer to the class enemy. This is one aspect, but we didn’t
have only this goal. Having clarified in the collective consciousness
of the party what socialist construction is, how the problems of
socialization, of social stratification, of the class struggle that
sharpens are being solved, what happens with commodity-money
relations, with planning and programming, with worker’s control, we
can improve today our ability to link our tactics with our strategy,
to propagate to the people our alternative which is linked with the
problem of power.
When we highlight the gains that were achieved
under socialism, that despite the mistakes, the omissions and
objective obstacles due to the negative correlation of forces were
unprecedented and incomparable to those of the working people under
capitalism, we not only expose the slanders, but we also prove that
there exist possibilities to solve workers’ and people’s
problems, that there is a solution and a prospect.
We give a substantive content to our struggle
against bourgeois ideology, against reformism and opportunism.
International opportunism has regrouped itself
in Europe through the European Left Party, utilizing the victory of
the counterrevolution, the disappointment and the confusion that
followed. In other continents e.g. in America it tries to promote the
social democratic perception on socialism and to manipulate radical
progressive parties and movements that are in a process of awakening.
The Greek communists who have accumulated
experience of 92 years of continuous struggle do not have the right
to forget that the bourgeoisie supports every ideological and
political deviation from the principles and the laws of the
revolutionary movement, of the theory of scientific socialism. The
attack of the bourgeoisie focuses on the issues of “socialist
democracy” and is particularly intolerant vis-a-vis the period in
which the socialist base of the USSR was constructed, because it was
that period that determined the victory of socialism.
As it is stressed in the Resolution of the
18th Congress “We
examine things in a critical and self-critical manner so as to make
KKE, as part of the international communist movement, stronger in the
struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, for the construction of
socialism. We are studying and judging the course of socialist
construction in a self-critical manner, that is with full
consciousness that our weaknesses, theoretical shortcomings and
mistaken evaluations also constituted part of the problem.”
We move on to the further study and enrichment
of our programmatic perception on socialism, with collective spirit,
awareness of the difficulties and the shortcomings and class
determination. We accept that the future historical study by our
Party and the communist movement internationally will definitely shed
more light to the experience from the USSR and the other socialist
countries. Some of our assessments might need to be completed,
improved or deepened. Furthermore, the development of the theory of
socialism-communism is a necessity, a living process, a challenge
both for our Party and the international communist movement, nowadays
but also in the future.
*Aleka Papariga was the General Secretary of the CC of KKE from 1991 to 2013. She is currently member of the CC.