|
Contents
Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Chapter
XII
Socialism
1. SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
Theory of Class Struggle
Socialism in One Country
2. THE SOCIALIST STATE
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The People’s Democratic Dictatorship
3. SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION
The Russian Experience
Socialist Industrialisation
Collectivisation
of Agriculture
Victory of Socialism and
Preliminary Conditions for Transition to Communism
Errors in
Russian Experience
The Chinese Experience
General Line and Step-by-Step
Collectivisation
Mao’s Development of Dialectical Approach to
Socialist Construction
Great Leap Forward and
the Birth of People’s Communes
Struggle against
the Capitalist Roaders
4. THE GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Capitalist Restoration of the
Soviet Union: Historical Lessons
The Cultural Revolution: A Form Found Anew
The Targets of the Revolution
Mass-Line in the Revolution
Historical Relevance of the Cultural Revolution
1. SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
Theory of Class Struggle
"When
feudalism was overthrown, and ‘free’ capitalist society appeared on
God’s earth, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new
system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Various
socialist doctrines immediately began to arise as a reflection of and
protest against this oppression." 51
This socialism, was, "in its essence, the direct product of the
recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the
society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between
capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing
in production." 52 But it
"was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned
and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it indulged in fancies of
better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of
exploitation." 53 "To make a
science of socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis."
54
This real
basis was provided by Marx’s doctrine of the class struggle. Developing
on the description of classes and class-struggle given by bourgeois
economists and historians, Marx proved:
"1) that the
existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases
in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily
leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship
itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes
and to a classless society." 55
"From that
time forward socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or
that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between
two historically developed classes — the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society
as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession
of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity
sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions the means of ending
the conflict." 56 Socialism
became a science.
Socialism in One Country
In his
Principles of Communism, Engels replied as follows to the question
whether the proletarian revolution is possible in one country alone:
"No.
Large-scale industry, already by creating the world market, has so
linked up all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised
peoples, that each people is dependent on what happens to another.
Further, in all civilised countries large-scale industry has so levelled
social development that in all these countries the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat have become the two decisive classes of society and the
struggle between them the main struggle of the day. The communist
revolution will therefore be not merely national one; it will be a
revolution taking place simultaneously in all civilised countries, that
is, at least in England, America, France and Germany. In each of these
countries it will develop more quickly or more slowly according to
whether the country has a more developed industry, more wealth, and a
more considerable mass of productive forces." 61
This
understanding was modified to some extent in later years when Marx and
Engels referred to the possibility of victory of the revolution first in
one or a few countries and even the necessity of ‘the victorious
proletariat’ having to fight ‘defensive wars’ 62
against the bourgeoisie of other countries. However the general view was
that victory in one country was not possible.
It was only
under the new conditions of imperialism that Lenin made a clear
revaluation of the earlier understanding. "The development of capitalism
proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be
otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably
that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries.
It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the
others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois."
63
Stalin
summarised the Leninist understanding in this way:
"Formerly,
the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible,
on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the
proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries
to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no
longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility
of such a victory; for the uneven and spasmodic character of the
development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of
imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic
contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the
revolutionary movement in all countries of the world–all this leads, not
only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the
proletariat in individual countries. ....
"After
consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the
proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist
society." 64
Thus it was
asserted that it was possible for the proletariat to make revolution,
consolidate its power, and build socialism in a single country.
"But," Stalin
goes on, "does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and
final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of
only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully
guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also
against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the
revolution in at least several countries is needed."
64
Further, it
was assessed, revolution in the era of imperialism would not necessarily
break out first in the most advanced countries; "the chain of the
imperialist front must, as a rule, break where the links are weaker and,
at all events, not necessarily where capitalism is more developed, where
there is such and such a percentage of proletarians and such and such a
percentage of peasants, and so on." 65
This was the
actual process of history and the proletariat was successful in some of
the relatively more backward countries of the world. Thus this was also
where the principles of socialist construction had to be worked out in
practice
2. THE SOCIALIST STATE
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The
conception of the proletariat organised as a ruling class with its
State, was given at the time of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ itself. Marx
and Engels then said,
"..the first
step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat
to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy."
"The
proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of
production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised
as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as
rapidly as possible." 66
Marx, while
analysing the class struggles in France of 1848-50, clarified that the
essence of the proletarian state was the dictatorship of the
proletariat. In his ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’ he asserted,
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to
this also a political transition period in which the state can be
nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." 67
He also pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat was an
essential aspect of his doctrine of the class struggle, which
differentiated it from the understanding of classes and class-struggle
given by bourgeois scholars.
It was on the
basis of this understanding given by Marx, that Lenin gave his famous
definition of a Marxist:
"Those who
recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be
found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois
politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means
curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable
to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of
the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound distinction
between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.
This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition
of Marxism should be tested." 68
This
definition of a Marxist starts basically from the Marxist understanding
of the state;
"According to
Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression
of one class by another;" 69
— Lenin.
It is a
"special apparatus for the systematic application of force and the
subjugation of people by force...a special category of people who are
separated out to rule others and who, for the sake and purpose of rule,
systematically and permanently have at their disposal a certain
apparatus of coercion, an apparatus of violence, such as is represented
... by the armed detachments of troops the prisons and the other means
of subjugating the will of others by force." 70
Thus every
form of class society is a dictatorship of the ruling class. The
so-called democracy of the capitalists is actually "a dictatorship of
the bourgeoisie masked by parliamentary form." 71
It follows that all attempts to use the apparatus of the bourgeois
state, which serves to protect bourgeois rights, for the purpose of
abolishing those rights, are doomed to failure.
Based on this
understanding Lenin further developed the understanding of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. The starting point in this
understanding is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is above all
the instrument of the proletarian revolution. "The revolution can defeat
the bourgeoisie, can overthrow its power, even without the dictatorship
of the proletariat. But the revolution will be unable to crush the
resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push
forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in
its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay."
72 Thus the proletarian
dictatorship is absolutely essential to complete the three main tasks
that face the revolution immediately after victory: breaking the
resistance of the old ruling classes, commencing socialist construction,
and arming the revolution against the external imperialist enemy.
The second
fundamental aspect of the Leninist understanding of the dictatorship is
as the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. From this arise two
conclusions:
First, "Under
the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is proletarian democracy,
the democracy of the exploited majority, based on the restriction of the
rights of the exploiting minority and directed against this minority.
"Second
conclusion: The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the
result of the peaceful development of the bourgeois society and of
bourgeois democracy; it can arise only as the result of the smashing of
the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois
bureaucratic apparatus, the bourgeois police." 73
This second conclusion was acknowledged by Marx and Engels as a lesson
of the Paris Commune, whose experience proved that "the working class
cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it
for its own purposes" 74, it
had to smash it. But it was Lenin who time and again reminded that "the
proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of
the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a new one."
75
The third
fundamental aspect of the Leninist understanding is regarding soviet
power as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx too
had dealt with this question of the form of the proletarian state. He
analysed the Paris Commune with its characteristics as a democratic
elected organ, without any special salaries or privileges; as a working
not parliamentary body, both executive and legislature at the same time.
However it was Lenin who answered this question through the adoption of
the Soviet form thrown up first by the 1905 Russian revolution. The
soviets were all-embracing mass organisations of the workers, peasants
and soldiers, as well as the most powerful organs of the revolutionary
struggle of the masses. Their union into one common state organisation
constituted soviet power. By its very structure soviet power facilitated
the task of the proletariat leading the other sections of the oppressed
masses, of freeing the armed forces from bourgeois control and of
setting up a state organisation which could smash the bourgeois state
machine. Besides the soviet form of proletarian state power also had all
the positive features of the Paris commune. Thus, "the Paris Commune was
the embryo of this form; Soviet power is its development and
culmination." 76
The People’s Democratic Dictatorship
Basing
himself on the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the state and the
dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao elaborated the theory regarding the
form of the state in the revolutions in the colonial countries. On the
basis of the theory of New Democracy, he formulated the understanding of
the new- democratic republic.
"This
new-democratic republic will be different from the old European-American
form of capitalist republic under bourgeois dictatorship which is the
old democratic form and already out of date. On the other hand, it will
also be different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under
the dictatorship of the proletariat which is already flourishing in the
U.S.S.R., and which, moreover, will be established in all the capitalist
countries and will undoubtedly become the dominant form of state and
governmental structure in all the industrially advanced countries.
However, for a certain historical period, this form is not suitable for
the revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. During this
period, therefore, a third form of state must be adopted in the
revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries, namely, the
new-democratic republic. This form suits a certain historical period and
is therefore transitional; nevertheless, it is a form which is necessary
and cannot be dispensed with."
"Thus the
numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three
basic kinds according to the class character of their political power:
(1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship; (2) republics under the
dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint
dictatorship of several revolutionary classes. .."
"The third
kind is the transitional form of state to be adopted in the revolutions
of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Each of these revolutions
will necessarily have specific characteristics of its own, but these
will be minor variations on a general theme. So long as they are
revolutions in colonial and semi-colonial countries, their state and
governmental structure will of necessity be basically the same, i.e., a
new-democratic state under the joint dictatorship of several
anti-imperialist classes." 77
This state
was finally established in the form of the People’s Democratic
Dictatorship. On the eve of victory of the Chinese revolution, Mao
explained the essence of the people’s democratic dictatorship in the
following manner:
"Who are the
people? At the present stage in China, they are the working class, the
peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie..
These classes, led by the working class and the Communist Party, unite
to form their own state and elect their own government; they enforce
their dictatorship over the running dogs of imperialism — the landlord
class and bureaucrat-bourgeoisie, as well as the representatives of
those classes, the Kuomintang reactionaries and their accomplices —
suppress them, allow them only to behave themselves and not to be unruly
in word or deed, if they speak or act in an unruly way, they will be
promptly stopped and punished. Democracy is practised within the ranks
of the people, who enjoy the rights of freedom of speech, assembly,
association and so on. The right to vote belongs only to the people, not
to the reactionaries. The combination of these two aspects, democracy
for the people and dictatorship over the reactionaries, is the people’s
democratic dictatorship." 78
Regarding the
relationship between the various classes among the people, Mao
elaborated as follows,
"The people’s
democratic dictatorship, led by the proletariat and based on the
worker-peasant alliance, requires that our Party conscientiously unite
the entire working class, the entire peasantry and the broad masses of
revolutionary intellectuals; these are the leading and basic forces of
the dictatorship. Without this unity, the dictatorship cannot be
consolidated. It is also required that our Party unite with as many as
possible of the representatives of the urban petty bourgeoisie and
national bourgeoisie who can co-operate with us and with their
intellectuals and political groups, so that, during the revolutionary
period, we can isolate the counter-revolutionary forces and completely
overthrow both the counter-revolutionary and imperialist forces in China
and so that, after the victory of the revolution, we can speedily
restore and develop production, cope with foreign imperialism, steadily
transform China from an agricultural into an industrial country and
build China into a great socialist state." 79
3. SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION
The Russian Experience
Around the
time of the October Revolution there were two types of pseudo-Marxist
views with regard to the building of socialism.
One was the
view represented by the Mensheviks and others that since capitalism had
not advanced sufficiently and concentrated the means of production,
particularly in agriculture, the proletariat should not capture power,
but wait till capitalism had created the conditions for the simultaneous
socialisation of all the means of production.
The other
view represented by the ‘Left’ Communists and others was that power
should be captured and all the means of production immediately
socialised even by means of expropriating the small and medium
producers.
Lenin, in a
struggle against these two trends, drew up the correct path for
socialist construction. Stalin, in 1952, summarised it as follows:
"Lenin’s
answer may be briefly summed up as follows:
a )
Favourable conditions for the assumption of power should not be
missed—the proletariat should assume power without waiting until
capitalism succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium
individual producers.
b) The means
of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into
public property;
c) As to the
small and medium individual producers, they should be gradually united
in producers’ co-operatives, i.e., in large agricultural enterprises,
collective farms;
d) Industry
should be developed to the utmost and the collective farms should be
placed on the modern technical basis of large-scale production, not
expropriating them, but on the contrary generously supplying them with
first-class tractors and other machines;
e) In order
to ensure an economic bond between town and country, between industry
and agriculture, commodity production (exchange through purchase and
sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of
economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants,
and Soviet trade — state, co-operative, and collective-farm — should be
developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions
ousted from trading activity.
"The history
of socialist construction in our country has shown that this path of
development, mapped out by Lenin, has fully justified itself."
80
Though the
first two steps, the seizure of power and the ‘expropriation of the
expropriators’, was completed in the first few months itself, the
process of socialist construction could not be taken up immediately
because of the extremely difficult conditions of all-sided enemy attack
faced by the first proletarian state. It had to go through a process of
emergency measures called ‘War Communism’ during the civil war, up to
1920. After victory in the civil war, there was a period of economic
restoration, during which concessions were given to certain sections
under the New Economic Policy (NEP). Thus this period from the
revolution up to 1925 was mainly a period of consolidation and
preparation.
The
History of the CPSU(B) describes the political essence of this
period as follows:
"In October
1917 the working class had vanquished capitalism politically, by
establishing its own political dictatorship. Since then the Soviet
Government had been taking every measure to shatter the economic power
of capitalism and to create conditions for the building of a Socialist
economic system. These measures were : the expropriation of the
capitalists and landlords; the conversion of the land, factories, mills,
railways and the banks into public property; the adoption of the New
Economic Policy ; the building up of a state-owned Socialist industry;
and the application of Lenin’s co-operative plan. Now the main task was
to proceed to build a new, Socialist economic system all over the
country and thus smash capitalism economically as well."
81
Socialist Industrialisation:
The Soviet Union was at that time still a relatively backward
agrarian country with two-thirds of the total production coming from
agriculture and only one-third from industry. Further being the first
socialist state, the question of being economically independent of
imperialism was of central importance. Therefore the path of socialist
construction had to firstly concentrate on socialist industrialisation.
In Stalin’s words, "The conversion of our country from an agrarian into
an industrial country able to produce the machinery it needs by its own
efforts—that is the essence, the basis of our general line."
82 Thus the main focus was on heavy
industry which would produce machines for other industries and for
agriculture.
This policy
was a major success and built a strong industrial base independent of
imperialism. It also enabled the defence of the socialist base in the
world war II. Also industry expanded at a pace several times faster than
the most advanced imperialist countries thus proving the immense
superiority of the socialist system.
However, "due
to special emphasis on priority development of heavy industry,
agriculture was neglected in the plans." 83
Thus just before the World War II, industrial production was 908.8% of
the industrial production just before the World War I. However the
corresponding figure for grain production was only 118.6%. This showed a
retarded growth of agriculture as compared to industry. Similarly,
"between 1925 and 1958 production of the means of production in the
Soviet Union increased 103 times, while consumer goods increased 15.6
times."83 Mao, in his
Critique of Soviet Economics, criticised this emphasis and called
for concurrent promotion of industry and agriculture as well as light
and heavy industry.
Collectivisation of Agriculture:
The preliminary step in this process was taken in the restoration
period itself with the initiation of co-operatives among small and
medium peasants. However due to the resistance of the kulaks (rich
farmers) there was not much advancement in this process. Further the
kulaks had taken a position of active opposition and sabotage of the
socialist construction process. "They refused en masse to sell to the
Soviet state their grain surpluses, of which they had considerable
hoards. They resorted to terrorism against the collective farmers,
against Party workers and government officials in the countryside, and
burned down collective farms and state granaries" 84
In 1927, due to this sabotage, the marketed share of the harvest was
only 37% of the pre-war figure. Thus the Party, in that year took the
decision to launch an offensive to break the resistance of the kulaks.
Relying on the poor peasants and allying with the middle peasants, the
Party was able to achieve success in grain-purchasing and take ahead the
collectivisation process. However the major advance came from the end of
1929.
It is
described in the History of the CPSU(B) in the following manner:
"Prior to
1929, the Soviet Government had pursued a policy of restricting the
kulaks. .... The effect of this policy was to arrest the growth of the
kulak class, some sections of which, unable to withstand the pressure of
these restrictions, were forced out of business and ruined. But this
policy did not destroy the economic foundations of the kulaks as a
class, nor did it tend to eliminate them. This policy was essential up
to a certain time, that is, as long as the collective farms and state
farms were still weak and unable to replace the kulaks in the production
of grain."
"At the end
of 1929, with the growth of the collective farms and the state farms,
the Soviet Government turned sharply from this policy to the policy of
eliminating the kulaks, of destroying them as a class. It repealed the
laws on the renting of land and the hiring of labour, thus depriving the
kulaks both of land and of hired labourers. It lifted the ban on the
expropriation of the kulaks. It permitted the peasants to confiscate
cattle, machines and other farm property from the kulaks for the benefit
of the collective farms. The kulaks were expropriated. They were
expropriated just as the capitalists had been expropriated in the sphere
of industry in 1918, with this difference, however, that the kulaks’
means of production did not pass into the hands of the state, but into
the hands of the peasants united in the collective farms."
"This was a
profound revolution,...."
"This
revolution, at one blow, solved three fundamental problems of Socialist
construction:
a) It
eliminated the most numerous class of exploiters in our country, the
kulak class, the mainstay of capitalist restoration;
b) It
transferred the most numerous labouring class in our country, the
peasant class, from the path of individual farming, which breeds
capitalism, to the path of co-operative, collective, Socialist farming;
c) It
furnished the Soviet regime with a Socialist base in agriculture— the
most extensive and vitally necessary, yet least developed, branch of
national economy." 85
This
step-by-step plan was adopted for the implementation of this policy.
Depending on the conditions in various regions different rates of
collectivisation were established and the targeted year for completion
of the collectivisation was fixed. The production of tractors,
harvesters and other agricultural machinery was increased manifold.
State loans to collective farms were doubled in the first year itself.
The process of collectivisation despite some errors, advanced rapidly
towards success.
Victory of Socialism and
Preliminary Conditions for Transition to Communism:
With the
victory of the collectivisation movement, the Party announced the
victory of socialism. In January 1933, Stalin announced that, "The
victory of Socialism in all branches of the national economy had
abolished the exploitation of man by man." 86
In January 1934, the 17th Party Congress Report
declared that, "the socialist form of social and economic structure–now
holds undivided sway and is the sole commanding force in the whole
national economy." 87 The
absence of any antagonistic classes was later repeatedly stressed while
presenting the Constitution in 1936 and in later Political Reports.
In his
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Stalin further asserted
that, the antithesis between town and country, and between mental and
physical labour, that Marx and Engels had talked about, had been
abolished, and that, the antagonism of interests between them had
disappeared.
What remained
however was the need to eliminate the essential distinction between
agriculture and industry— i.e., to abolish "the fact that whereas in
industry we have public ownership of the means of production and the
product of industry, in agriculture we have not public, but group,
collective-farm ownership" 88
; and the need to eliminate the essential distinction between mental and
physical labour— i.e., to raise "the cultural and technical level of the
workers to that of the technical personnel"88.
In the same
work he made the important formulation as to the basic condition
necessary for advancing towards communism:
"In order to
pave the way for a real, and not declaratory transition to communism, at
least three basic preliminary conditions have to be satisfied.
1. It is
necessary, in the first place, definitely to ensure, .. a continuous
expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of
expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively
higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is
necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its
own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but
also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether
impossible without it.
2. It is
necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried
out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all
society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public
property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace
commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the
central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control
the whole product of social production in the interests of society. ...
3. It is
necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of
society as will secure for all members of society the all-round
development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members
of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to
enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position
freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives,
owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation. ...
"These are
the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to
communism." 89
Errors in Russian Experience:
The Russian experience in socialist construction was of central
importance to the international proletariat, and particularly to all
countries where the proletariat seized power. Mao made an analysis of
the Russian experience and pointed certain errors in the practice, as
well as in Stalin’s formulations.
Mao pointed
out the following principal errors in the Russian experience:
1) Not giving
due importance to the contradiction between the production relations and
productive forces. Mao pointed out that even "Stalin said that the
socialist society’s production relations completely conformed to the
development of the production forces; he negated contradictions."
90 Though Stalin corrected this
understanding before his death, it was reflected in the prolonged
coexistence of two types of ownership. Thus Mao showed that "prolonged
coexistence of ownership by the whole people with ownership by the
collectives is bound to become less and less adaptable to the
development of the productive forces...The contradiction between the
productive forces and the production relations unfold without
interruption." 91 Mao also
felt that though he recognised this problem, "Essentially, Stalin did
not discover a way to make the transition from collective to public
ownership." 92
2) Not giving
importance to the mass-line during socialist construction. Mao pointed
out that in the earlier period mass-line was adopted, but "afterward,
when they [Stalin and the Party] had realised some gains this way, they
became less reliant on the masses." 93
"Stalin emphasised only technology, technical cadre. He wanted nothing
but technology, nothing but cadre; no politics, no masses."
94
3) Neglecting
the class struggle. "When discussing the socialist economy, Stalin said
the post-revolutionary reform was a peaceful reform proceeding from the
top to the bottom levels. He did not undertake the class struggle from
the bottom to the top, but introduced peaceful land reform in Eastern
Europe and North Korea, without struggling against the landowners or the
rightists, only proceeding from the top to the bottom and struggling
against the capitalists. We proceed from the top to the bottom, but we
also add the class struggle from the bottom to the top, settling the
roots and linking together." 90
4) Imbalance
in the relation between heavy industry on one side and light industry
and agriculture on the other. Also failing to find the principal
contradiction within heavy industry.
5) "Mistrust
of the peasants." 92
Besides
drawing these lessons from Stalin and the Russian experience, Mao learnt
from the Chinese experience. He thus made immense progress in the
Marxist theory of socialist construction.
The Chinese Experience
The
implementation of the new democratic economic programme started even
before nation-wide victory of the revolution. Thus in his report The
Present Situation and Our Tasks, of December 1947, when the People’s
Liberation Army had gone on the offensive, Mao outlined the economic
tasks for that period. "Confiscate the land of the feudal class and turn
it over to the peasants. Confiscate monopoly capital, headed by Chiang
Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H.H.Kung and Chen Li-fu, and turn it over to the
new-democratic state, Protect the industry and commerce of the national
bourgeoisie. These are the three major economic policies of the
new-democratic revolution." 95
These policies were immediately taken up for
implementation in the vast areas of Northern China which were under
revolutionary control and the agrarian reform was completed there by
mid-1950. Subsequently the agrarian reform programme was completed in
the remainder of the country.
General Line and Step-by-Step
Collectivisation: In 1951, the party adopted what came to
be known as the general line for socialist construction. It was
formulated as follows:
"The general
line of the Chinese Communist Party for the period of transition from
capitalism to socialism is basically to accomplish the industrialisation
of China together with the socialist transformation of agriculture,
handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. This transition
period will cover roughly eighteen years, that is, the three years of
rehabilitation plus the span of three five-year plans."
96
In accordance
with this general line, a ‘step-by-step’ plan was drawn up for the
socialist transformation of agriculture. "The first step was to call on
the peasants, in accordance with the principles of voluntary
participation and mutual benefit, to organise agricultural producers’
mutual-aid teams, which had only certain rudiments of socialism and
comprised only a few to a dozen or so households each. The second step
has been to call on the peasants, likewise in accordance with the
principles of voluntary participation and mutual benefit, to organise
small agricultural producers" co-operatives on the basis of these
mutual-aid teams, co-operatives which are semi-socialist in nature and
are characterised by the pooling of land as shares and by unified
management. Then the third step will be to call on the peasants, in
accordance with the same principles, to combine further on the basis of
these small semi-socialist co-operatives and organise large fully
socialist agricultural producers’ cooperatives."
97
The first
step of mutual-aid teams had started in the revolutionary bases before
the nation-wide victory itself. The second step towards elementary
co-operatives took place in the years 1953-55. The third step of
transition to advanced co-operatives came about in 1956. There was a
literal upsurge of socialist transformation in the countryside.
Simultaneously, in the early months of 1956, a related movement rapidly
completed the transfer to by the whole people of China’s industry and
commerce far ahead of schedule.
Mao’s Development of
Dialectical Approach to Socialist Construction: The
general line was basically reliant on the Soviet model of socialist
construction. The emphasis on industry and particularly on heavy
industry was the central direction of the First Five Year Plan of
1953-57. Further there was a tendency to uncritically adopt all Soviet
policies. With the rise of modern revisionism in the CPSU, the
revisionist tendencies in the CPC were immediately strengthened and in
1956 a campaign was started from within the party to ‘oppose rash
advances’— i.e., to stall the process of socialisation. At the same time
the revisionist theory of productive forces gained ascendancy within the
party, with the prime representative being the party general secretary,
Liu Shao-chi. The representatives of this trend too upheld the
Khrushchevites, negated the class struggle and concentrated attention
towards building modern productive forces, primarily through heavy
industry.
Realising the
revisionist danger Mao immediately launched a struggle to defeat these
trends which at that time controlled the party. His first step in this
struggle was his speech of April 1956, ‘On the Ten Major Relationships’.
In this speech, Mao for the first time made a clear-cut critique of the
Soviet pattern of socialist economic construction. While referring to
the relationship between heavy industry on the one hand and light
industry and agriculture on the other, Mao stressed that "We have done
better than the Soviet Union and a number of East European countries.
...Their lop-sided stress on heavy industry to the neglect of
agriculture and light industry results in a shortage of goods on the
market and an unstable currency." 98
Similarly he criticised the Soviet policy of ‘squeezing the peasants too
hard’. He also attacked the dogmatists within the CPC who "copy
everything indiscriminately and transplant mechanically" while "learning
from the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries."99
He also criticised those who were following the example of Khrushchev in
indiscriminately criticising Stalin. He upheld Stalin as a great Marxist
with 70% achievements. Thus through this extensive critique of the
Soviet revisionists and the mistakes in Soviet socialist construction,
Mao led the struggle against the then dominant revisionist line of
productive forces within the CPC.
However the
biggest contribution of Mao’s speech was its major advancement of the
understanding of the process of socialist construction and socialist
planning. By presenting the problems of socialist construction as ten
major relationships, Mao brought dialectics and contradictions to the
centre of the process of building socialist society. He showed how
socialist construction involved not merely the mechanical implementation
of targets of production and distribution, but a dialectical
understanding of the main contradictions in the process, and the
mobilising of all the positive forces to achieve socialism. Thus he
said, "It is to focus on one basic policy that these ten problems are
being raised, the basic policy of mobilising all positive factors,
internal and external, to serve the cause of socialism."
100 "These ten relationships are
all contradictions. The world consists of contradictions. Without
contradictions the world would cease to exist. Our task is to handle
these contradictions correctly." 101
Mao followed
it up the next year with his work ‘On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions Among the People’. In it he continued the development of
the dialectical understanding of the process of socialist construction.
Primarily he also placed the class struggle at the very core of the
process. He asserted that the "class struggle is by no means over.. the
question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is not really
settled yet." 102 This
marked the beginning of a nation-wide Rectification Movement, the
Anti-Rightist Movement.
Great Leap Forward and the Birth
of People’s Communes:
With the
progress of the rectification movement, the rightists in the party were
thrown on the defensive. This led, in 1958, to a rectification of the
erroneous "productive forces theory" which had dominated the Eighth
Party Congress in1956. The prime mover of this theory, Liu Shao-chi, was
forced to admit at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress in
May 1958, that,
"The
experience of the rectification campaign and the anti-rightist struggle
once again shows that throughout the transition period, that is, before
completion of the building of a socialist society, the main
contradiction inside our country is and remains that between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
between the socialist road and the capitalist road...
"The spring
of 1958 witnessed the beginning of a leap forward on every front in our
socialist construction. Industry, agriculture and all other fields of
activity are registering greater and more rapid growth." 103
Aside from
rapid growth however, the Great Leap Forward was a major change in the
priorities of the earlier plans and general line. The industrial policy
of "walking on two legs" was introduced. Through implementation of this
policy it was tried to change the soviet model of over dependence on big
industrial projects and to bring about a dialectical balance between
heavy and light industries encouraging simultaneous development of
agriculture, heavy and light industry. It aimed at reducing the gap
between town and countryside, between worker and peasant, and between
worker and peasant on the one hand and the intellectual and manager on
the other hand. It aimed at not merely a economic revolution but a
technological, political, social and cultural revolution to transform
the city and countryside.
In 1958
started the building of the people’s communes. "They were formed by the
amalgamation of neighbouring co-operatives in order to undertake
large-scale projects such as flood control, water conservancy,
afforestation, fisheries, and transport. In addition, many communes set
up their own factories for making tractors, chemical fertilisers, and
other means of production." 104
The movement to set up people’s communes grew very
rapidly. The CC of the CPC announced in its famous Wuhan Resolution of
December, 1958 that "Within a few months starting in the summer of 1958,
all of the more than 740,000 agricultural producers’ co-operatives in
the country, in response to the enthusiastic demand of the mass of
peasants, reorganised themselves into over 26,000 people’s communes.
Over 120 million households, or more than 99 percent of all China’a
peasant households of various nationalities, have joined the people’s
communes." 105 Summing up
the political essence, the CC went on to say:
"The people’s
commune is the basic unit of the socialist social structure of our
country, combining industry, agriculture, trade, education, and military
affairs; at the same time it is the basic organisation of the socialist
state power. Marxist-Leninist theory and the initial experience of the
people’s communes in our country enable us to foresee now that the
people’s communes will quicken the tempo of our socialist construction
and constitute the best form for realising, in our country, the
following two transitions.
"Firstly, the
transition from collective ownership to ownership by the whole people in
the countryside; and,
"Secondly,
the transition from socialist to communist society. It can also be
foreseen that in the future communist society, the people’s commune will
remain the basic unit of our social structure."
105
Thus the
commune movement represented a tremendous advance which basically
completed the process of collectivisation of agriculture. However the
expectation of the commune taking ahead the process of the transition to
full public ownership and communism could not be fulfilled to that
extent. Also attempts at setting up urban communes could not be
consolidated.
In the
earliest period of the commune movement during the Great Leap, there
were certain ‘left’ errors. Thus in February 1959, Mao’s speech at
Cheng-chow, pointed out, "After the communes were set up in the autumn
of 1958, for a while there blew up a ‘communist wind’. It consisted
mainly of three elements: the first was the levelling of the poor and
the rich brigades, the second was that capital accumulation by the
commune was too great and the commune’s demand for labour without
compensation was too great and the third was the ‘communisation’ of all
kinds ‘property’." 106 These
errors were soon corrected. The production brigade (former advanced
co-operative), was kept as the basic accounting unit, and in 1962, this
was brought to an even lower level, that of the production team. Though
the perspective remained always of raising the level of ownership and
accounting to higher levels, as a process of greater socialisation and
transition towards communism, this did not achieve success. The basic
accounting and ownership unit continued till 1976, to remain at this
lowest level – the production team.
Struggle against the Capitalist Roaders:
Though the
‘left’ errors were soon corrected, the hold of the capitalist roaders,
led by Liu Shao-chi, remained strong within the party’s higher levels.
The two-line struggle was represented in direct and indirect ways. In
July 1959, Peng Teh-huai, then Defence Minister, launched a direct
attack on the Great Leap Forward, criticising what he called its
"petty-bourgeois fanaticism" and desire "to enter into communism at one
step" 107 Mao repulsed these
attacks and defended the politics of the Great Leap. However, though
Peng was defeated, the other capitalist roaders continued their attacks
through indirect means.
One method
was through veiled defence of Peng and attacks on Mao in the media. This
was through articles and also through plays and cultural performances
intending to show how Peng was an upright comrade who had been
victimised.
The other
method was to stall or divert the implementation of key policies decided
at the highest levels. A principal example was sabotage of the programme
of socialist education and the decision to launch a Cultural Revolution,
taken by the Tenth Plenum of the CC in 1962. Though this was formally
agreed to by the capitalist roaders, they ensured through their control
within the party structure, to ensure that there was no mass
mobilisation. They "sought to orient the Cultural Revolution in the
direction of academic and ideological debate rather than class struggle"
108
Mao,
throughout this period (1959-60), fought the battle at various levels.
He realised on the basis of the Russian experience, the very real danger
of the restoration of capitalism. He, therefore, on the basis of a major
study of the politics and economics of Khrushchevite revisionism, drew
the theoretical lessons of this experience for the education of the
Chinese and the international proletariat. Through a Critique of
Soviet Economics and an analysis of Khrushchev’s Phoney Communism
and its Historical Lessons for the World, he tried to inculcate in
the party cadre the theoretical foundations for a fight against
revisionism and restoration.
However he
mainly tried to draw the masses into the struggle to defend and develop
socialism and prevent restoration of capitalism. Besides his earlier
mentioned programme for socialist education, he also gave slogans for
socialist emulation of the Tachai and Tach’ing experiences as model
experiences in building socialism. But when all attempts to mobilise the
masses were diverted by the party bureaucracy, Mao succeeded after
tremendous efforts in unleashing the energies of the masses through the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It was the culmination in
practice of Mao’s development of the Marxist principles of socialist
construction.
4. THE GREAT PROLETARIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Capitalist Restoration in the Soviet Union: Historical
Lessons
The Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the answer of Marxism to the
obstacles and sabotage of the process of socialist construction created
by the Khrushchevites and the capitalist roaders. While drawing the
historical lessons from Khrushchev’s phoney communism, the CPC under
Mao, had stressed certain ‘theories and policies’ on the question of
prevention of the restoration of capitalism. Among other points, the CPC
had emphasised the following :
"apply the
Marxist-Leninist law of the unity of opposites to the study of socialist
society";
"socialist
revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of
production) is insufficient by itself and cannot be consolidated. There
must be a thorough socialist revolution on the political and ideological
fronts...During the historical period of socialism it is necessary to
maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and carry the socialist
revolution through to the end if the restoration of capitalism is to be
prevented, socialist construction carried forward and the conditions
created for the transition to communism" ;
"in both
socialist revolution and socialist construction it is necessary to
adhere to the mass line, boldly to arouse the masses and to unfold mass
movements on a large scale";
"whether in
socialist revolution or in socialist construction, . ..the proletariat
and its vanguard must ...rely on the truly dependable forces that firmly
take the socialist road, win over all allies that can be won over, and
unite with the masses of the people, who constitute 95 per cent of the
population, in a common struggle against the enemies of socialism.";
"it is
necessary to conduct extensive socialist education movements repeatedly
in the cities and the countryside. In these continuous movements for
educating the people we must be good at organising the revolutionary
class forces, ....it is necessary to wage a sharp, tit-for-tat struggle
against the anti-socialist, capitalist and feudal forces." 109
The Cultural Revolution: A Form Found Anew
These
‘theories and policies’ formed the theoretical basis of the great
struggles of the Cultural Revolution. As Mao further analysed the
experiences of socialist construction both in the Soviet Union and in
China, it became clear that the capitalist roaders within the party
itself were the most dangerous source of the restoration of capitalism.
It was also clear that ideological struggle confined within the party
would not settle the issue unless taken to the masses. The questions of
who were the friends and enemies of the revolution were clear; the
question was of the form, the method.
The Ninth
Party Congress of 1969 described this question in the following manner:
"As Chairman
Mao pointed out in his talk in February 1967: ‘In the past we have waged
struggles in rural areas, in factories, in the cultural field, and we
carried out the socialist education movement. But all this failed to
solve the problem, because we did not find a form, a method, to arouse
the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way,
and from below.’
"Now we have
found this form— it is the great proletarian cultural revolution. It is
only by arousing the masses in their hundreds of millions to air their
views freely, write big-character posters, and hold great debates, that
the renegades, enemy agents, and capitalist-roaders in power, who have
wormed their way into the Party, can be exposed and their plots to
restore capitalism smashed." 110
The Targets of the Revolution
Thus from the
very beginning, Mao directed the struggle against the capitalist roader
headquarters within the party. Thus ‘the signal for the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution’ was given by Yao Wen-yuan’s article,
which Mao had to get published from Shanghai, because the party
authorities in Peking would not allow its publication as it was critical
of those in control. As the movement started building up Mao gave clear
direction through the CC circular of May 16th 1966, which he personally
initiated. The direction was clearly against the bourgeoisie within the
party. It stated :
"There are a
number of these representatives of the bourgeoisie in the Central
Committee and in the Party, government and other departments at the
central as well as the provincial, municipal, and autonomous-region
level.
"Those
representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the
government, the army, and various cultural circles are a bunch of
counter-revolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will
seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into
a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Some of them we have already seen
through, others we have not. Some are still trusted by us and are being
trained as our successors, persons like Khrushchev, for example, who are
still nestling beside us. Party committees at all levels must pay full
attention to this matter." 111
This was
repeated again in the Eleventh Plenum ‘Decision of the Central Committee
of the CPC concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution’ :
"The main
target of the present movement is those within the party who are in
authority and are taking the capitalist road." 112
Mass Line in the Revolution
The other
important aspect of the Cultural Revolution was the advancement and
practical implementation of Mao’s mass line. It was aimed, not merely at
eliminating the elements hostile to socialism, but to enable the working
class to ‘exercise leadership in everything’, to ‘place politics in
command of administration’, and to ensure that everyone serving as an
official should ‘remain one of the common people’. In order to achieve
these aims it was necessary to launch an all-out offensive against
bourgeois ideology in such a way that the masses would be actively
involved.
Thus, the
Eleventh Plenum resolution instructed,
"In the great
proletarian Cultural Revolution, the only method is for the masses to
liberate themselves, and any method of doing things on their behalf must
not be used.
"Trust the
masses, rely on them and respect their initiative. Cast out fear. Don’t
be afraid of disorder. .... Let the masses educate themselves in this
great revolution and learn to distinguish right and wrong and between
correct and incorrect ways of doing things." 113
As the masses
entered in full strength in the revolution they even created a new
organisational form– the revolutionary committee. It was based on the
‘three-in-one’ combination : that is, its members, who were elected,
subject to recall, and directly responsible to the people, were drawn
from the Party, the People’s Liberation Army, and the mass organisations.
They sprung up at all levels, from the factory or commune to the organs
of provincial and regional government, and their function was to provide
the link through which the masses could participate directly in the
running of the country.
Mao said,
"This great Cultural Revolution, using the great democratic methods of
the proletarian dictatorship, has mobilised the masses from below. At
the same time, it puts into practice the grand alliance of the
proletarian revolutionaries, the three-way alliance between the
revolutionary masses, the PLA, and the revolutionary cadres."
114
This
three-in-one organ of power enabled proletarian political power to
strike deep roots among the masses. Direct participation by the
revolutionary masses in the running of the country and the enforcement
of revolutionary supervision from below over the organs of political
power at various levels played a very important role in ensuring that
leading groups at all levels adhered to the mass line. Thus this
strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was also the most
extensive and deepest exercise in proletarian democracy yet achieved in
the world.
Historical Relevance of the Cultural Revolution
Under the
initial sweep of the Cultural Revolution, the bourgeois headquarters
within the Party was effectively smashed, and most of the leading
capitalist roaders like Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping and their
supporters were stripped off their party posts and forced to do
self-criticism before the masses. It was a great victory which not only
inspired the Chinese masses, but also created a wave of revolutionary
enthusiasm among communist revolutionaries throughout the world. After
the setback of Khrushchevite modern revisionism, Maoism had proved the
vitality of Marxism and its ability to find the answers to the new
challenges being faced by the international proletariat. The Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution had shown that Marxism had an answer to
the enemy, i.e., capitalist restoration. This advance in Marxism, led to
the consolidation of numerous revolutionary groups and parties
throughout the world on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and the
launching of revolutionary struggles under their leadership.
However Mao
warned, "The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the
first; there will inevitably be many more in the future. The issue of
who will win in the revolution can only be settled over a long
historical period. If things are not properly handled, it is possible
for a capitalist restoration to take place at any time in the future."
115
Further he
reminded the Ninth Party Congress in 1969, "We have won a great victory.
But the defeated class will continue to struggle. Its members are still
about and it still exists, therefore we cannot speak of the final
victory, not for decades. We must not lose our vigilance. From the
Leninist point of view, the final victory in one socialist country not
only requires the efforts of the proletariat and the broad masses at
home, but also depends on the victory of the world revolution and the
abolition of the system of exploitation of man by man on this earth so
that all mankind will be emancipated. Consequently, it is wrong to talk
about the final victory of the revolution in our country
light-heartedly; it runs counter to Leninism and does not conform to
facts." 115
Mao’s words
proved true within a short time. First in 1971 Lin Piao, then
vice-chairman, conspired to seize power through assassinating Mao and
staging a military coup. This was foiled through the alertness of the
revolutionaries in the party. Later however, arch revisionists like Teng
were rehabilitated back to high positions within the party and state
apparatus during the later years of the Cultural Revolution. It was
these renegades who engineered the coup to take over the party and lead
it on the path of capitalist restoration immediately after the death of
Mao. It was they who sabotaged and then formally announced the end of
the Cultural Revolution.
This coup and
capitalist restoration however cannot repudiate the validity of the
truth of the Cultural Revolution. Rather it, in a way, confirms Mao’s
theses on the nature of socialist society and the need to continue the
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Cultural
Revolution is a scientific tool developed in the struggle against
capitalist restoration and in the theoretical struggle to develop
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Its scientific validity has been established in
the crucible of the practice of the Chinese Revolution. Its efficacy as
a weapon to mobilise the vast masses in the struggle against the danger
of capitalist restoration in a socialist country has also been proved.
However, as Mao himself pointed out, no weapon can provide a guarantee
of final victory. Thus, the fact that the capitalist roaders have
achieved a temporary victory does not in any way diminish the objective
truth of the necessity and effectivity of this weapon in the fight for
socialist construction and the defence of socialism.
The Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution is one of the foremost contributions of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the arsenal of the international proletariat.
It represents the implementation in practice of Mao’s greatest
contribution to Marxism— the theory of continuing revolution under the
dictatorship of the proletariat to consolidate socialism, combat modern
revisionism and prevent the restoration of capitalism. Its significance
for the international proletariat is immeasurable in today’s world where
all the socialist bases have been lost due to the machinations of the
bourgeoisie within the communist party itself. Therefore the time has
come to revise Lenin’s definition of a Marxist. Today,
"Those who
recognise only the class struggle and the dictatorship of the
proletariat are not yet Marxists......only he is a Marxist who extends
the recognition of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the
proletariat to the recognition of the continuous revolution in the super
structure keeping the aim of the consummation of the world revolution
and building communist society as early as possible."
116 |
