In
addition to the discussion about the PROGRAM of PPD
(To the foreign comrades)
Comrades, friends! Excuse us that we have not been participating properly
in the STACHKOM and PROLETARISM list’s discussions, though we should be
one of the activest participants of the common conversation. Is it not
there would be no these lists without us, without our ideas. There is one
reason of our "passivity": we are overburdened with affairs. If you keep
up with Russia you can see by yourself, that our situation becomes sharper
day after day. We are preparing for the serious events, which can begin
to develop at any moment. Our town’s strike committee, and it firmly becomes
a basis, a core of Russian strike committee, works literally day and night.
However we have decided that it will be quite wrong to look at your
discussion from the outside any longer. Therefore we apply to you with
more detailed explanations of our views, which are reflected in the Program
of PPD and, first of all, of maybe such a strange not Marxian statement,
that the social order, the regime in the former USSR was not socialist,
not bourgeois, namely feudal.
In the beginning here are some general explanations.
First, we want to remind, that for us socialism is primarily a firm
working authority – then everything else. In this connection here are some
words about a new term "proletarism". Proletarism is that Marx and all
of his faithful following understood by "the lowest phase" of communism
or "socialism", in other words, it is a transition of society from capitalism
to communism, from the classness of transition to classless. It seems,
all is clear... But the term "socialism" in it self does not reflect in
any way obvious class essence of the transition of society from one condition
into another, it rather even blurs over, veils the essence. It is not accidentally
that the most reactionary regimes, but not the working authority by itself,
can quietly exist under a beautiful mask of socialism.
I remember, even Hitler had not any but "a National-socialist Working
party"... Socialism is so strange thing! It will endure everything, cover
everything – hardly keep from telling: there is one step from socialisms
up to fascism.
That is I want to say, whether it is everything in order in Marxism
with such important thing as a conceptual apparatus, with terms, which
we use, even if monstrous degenerate Hitler dared to place "nazism" and
"socialism" side by side? The term "socialism" is not accurate, and not
accurate means wrong, so there is a mass of problems from here. Proletarism,
on the contrary, directly speaks, that it is not an authority of a Party
(let even three times proletarian), not an authority of the leaders (even
selflessly devoted to the proletariat), not an authority of the state,
- but an authority of the class. The authority political and economic,
authority in the center and at the local level, absolute authority, divided
with nobody. In essence, proletarism is a synonym of dictatorship of the
proletariat.
It follows from the logic of the history. When the slave-owners were
the masters of the society, it was slave-owning system, when the feudal
lords - feudalism, capitalists - capitalism, so the society was named by
the name of the master, of the ruling class. So why after the revolution,
after the taking authority by the proletariat the society, the social order
should not be named proletarian? Namely proletarian! If to sum up, "communism"
is the purpose, and "proletarism" is the road to the purpose. But what
is the purpose worth, let even great, without a right road to it? Already
Hodge Nasreddin has noticed, that you can shout as you might: "Halva-Halva"...
there will be no sweet in your mouth. If we take a right road, we shall
reach the purpose, if not - we shall be harshly plunged in the past. It,
in particular, means, that it is necessary to introduce into practice and
custom the term “proletarism” immediately and resolutely. And it is wrongly
to be afraid, that this term will distract "benighted masses", on the contrary,
we were quite convinced, that the workers quietly perceived an unusual
term as their after some explanations.
It is because this term is simple, accurate and clear. Besides, phonetics,
sounding of the new word by itself will not let anybody to forget what
authority, regime and society we have. And mainly, who is the master of
this society! And the master should be " the the proletariat, organized
in a ruling class".
(Marx).
Secondly, we consider, that the dictatorship of the proletariat in the
USSR, and all of the world was historically doomed to an unavoidable defeat,
what could not be foresaw in any way by the Marxian theory, which was existing
at that time. Could not, because this theory is a product of understanding
of revolutionary experience of the proletariat, so the son, as is known,
cannot be born before the father.
Thirdly, it is important to note, that counter-revolutionary overturn
in the USSR took place not as an unconcealed putsch or rebellion of bourgeoisie,
that could be evident and clear for everybody, but it was quiet, noiseless,
highly stretched in time, and so unexpected, that nobody had noticed it.
It is explicitly reviewed in the Second Communist Manifesto (SCM) of Raslatzkiy.
As a result even after full completion of the overturn (time of Khrushchev
government) the Soviet Union inside and outside continued to be perceived
as a socialist state, though there were no any socialist features in it,
except the name, what is explicitly spoken about in SCM. Here I’d like
to cite a quotation from the SCM concerning the question opened by me.
"Counter-revolutionary overturn took place. Under a profound capitalists
essence of the social and economic structure generated by this overturn,
form of society, it’s structure acquired very peculiar features. The relation
between Administration and workers instantly degraded to a feudal level.
Absolute power in distribution of the boons, absolute possession of all
national economy released Administration from the threat of whatever competitive
economic pressure, - and so the pursuit to maximum profit and development
of production, accompanying it, had become not necessary.
The anxiety of Administration came to so as to it’s serfs could somehow
feed themselves, provide reproduction of a labor force, and the main -
completely satisfied needs of the master - Administration.
At the same time distribution of the boons expropriated from the the
proletariat inside the apex, among the dictatorial Administration is complicated
by a heap of already meaningless formal requirement, which have remained
as a heritage from the previous stages of state development. By virtue
of it the inevitable struggle for distribution of the boons in the administrative
milieu has petty-bourgeois, hairsplitting nature, when millions and millions
are wasted for the sake of personal twopenny-halfpenny gain, just because
they are no one's and cannot turn into personal property. This unnatural
situation fraught with inevitable crises, solution of which every time
step by step conducts to detection and legalization of a capitalist essence,
i.e. to brining the form in the correspondence with the matter.
This strange, unprecedented form of capitalism misleads many people
- both in the country and abroad. This is vastly promoted by absence of
a genuine socialist pattern for comparison, by broad propagation (fully
overwhelming inside the country) of pseudomarxian theoretical deceptions
of the apex and by isolation, remoteness of the socialist world from capitalist
problems, which is interpreted as a feature of socialism, but actually
is predetermined by a feudal structure ".
This is how matters stood in 1979. By the end of the eighties general
(economic, political, social) crisis in the USSR became so acute, that
it was urgently needed to substitute feudal relations, feudal structures
of society for capitalist ones, and it was made by Gorbachev’s (bourgeois)
reconstruction. But in contrast to our communists-marxists-trozkists who
perceive the reconstruction as a REACTIONARY turnover from socialisms to
capitalism, Party of The proletariat Dictatorship considers that this reconstruction
is undoubtedly a REVOLUTIONARY turning-point from feudal relations to bourgeois.
For us the reconstruction is not a modification in the basis, that is
in productive forces and productive relations; the reconstruction has resulted
in drastic changes just in a superstructure: in legal, legislative, ideological,
moral, spiritual spheres of life of society, in the whole system of social
relations. I shall explain it on an example.
Let's suppose, that fascist overturn has happened somewhere today. It
is clear, that with all this going on there will be former owners of means
of production, at whose factories the hired workers will work, as well
as yesterday. It is obvious, as well as that the proletariat and the society
will be loaded in brown night of a fascist terror from the moment of the
overturn. There is a question from this: should workers and people in general
be pleased, that capitalism as a social and economic structure has remained
unshakable? Probably, it is more important nevertheless the system, the
order, the regime, in which people found oneself.
And another. Let's imagine, that the slaves in Ancient Rome would work
in a quarry, on a plantation... not manually under baking sun, but on the
current technology with conditioners, with electronics, but at the same
time they would be still chained to this technology and a whip of the slave-driver
would whistle over them.
Tell, whether their position as slaves was changed very much? Just so,
but only there were workers of the USSR in the position of serfs in the
last decades of the USSR’s existence. And secretaries of regional committees,
town committees, district committees of CPSU at that time were evident
tsar's deputes, governors, real feudal lords each at his the level.
That is why it is necessary to consider Gorbachev’s reconstruction as
an analog of February revolution of 1917 in Russia. So, since full completion
of the reconstruction, i.e. since the prohibition of C.P.S.U. in August
1991 and fusillade of the old, still quite "communist" Supreme Soviet in
October 1993 Russia began it’s way from February to New October again as
at the beginning of the century.
Here is one more moment about that. Today it is widely exaggerated the
opinion that in the USSR there was not socialism, but state capitalism,
that is the highest, complete stage of capitalism development. But how
to explain in this case, that the state capitalism degraded not in any
but namely in the lowest, the first stage of capitalism as a result of
the BOURGEOIS reconstruction? You see there is practically no capitalist
competitiveness in Russia even now, and according to Marx it is a stage
of primary, free accumulation of the capital, the stage that historically
went after a ruin of the feudal relations. It is all the same as if a modern
jet airplane, having crashed, suddenly has turned not into a train, not
into an automobile, not into a steam-engine, namely into a cart with a
horse, isn’t it? How to explain it, referring to Marx-Lenin? But this question
simply does not exist for our "sharp-sighted" Marxists, they do not notice
it.
Generally it is necessary to speak about state capitalism rather more
minutely.
"A witty German Social-Democrat of the seventies of the last century
called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system.
This is very true. At the present the postal service is a business organized
on the lines of state-capitalist monopoly… We have a splendidly-equipped
mechanism which can very well be set going by the united workers themselves".
(State and revolution, chapter 3 items 3) "In Germany we have the last
word of modern capitalist engineering and planned organization subjugated
to junker-bourgeois imperialism.
Set instead of a military, junker, bourgeois state a state of another
social type, another class matter, soviet state, i.e. proletarian state
and you will receive whole sum of conditions, which gives us socialism".
We read it in the work "About "left" childishness and petty-bourgeois essence".
In "Impendent catastrophe and how to struggle with it" Lenin speaks more
laconically: "Socialism is nothing else than the nearest step forwards
from state-socialist monopoly ". What step does Lenin speak about? Probably,
only about one: about proletarian revolution, about establishment of revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat in the society. It is the alphabet of Marxism.
But the alphabet is unfamiliar for modern philosophers – they only reason
and find out whether there was state capitalism in the USSR or not. But
is it necessary to find out it, sirs "scientists"? Isn’t it clear, that
the elements of state capitalism began to appear already in ÕIÕ century
as a natural, essential stage in historical development of productive forces,
and since that time these elements have been pressing private-owner capital?
Isn’t it clear, that it is important not state capitalism in itself, but
in whose hands state is, because, everything, that happens in society,
is always completely determined by will and interests of a prevailing class.
And isn’t it clear from this that any research of the Soviet society should
begin with clearing up of a main question: what was namely ruling class
in the USSR? Where from did it appear (if bourgeoisie was overthrown and
destroyed by the revolution), how was it transformed in time, what was
it’s internal nature? It is senselessly to start any researches at all
without the answers to these questions.
But thinkers continue to search not there, where have lost. All of them:
both "admirers" and "opponents" of state capitalism, and nobody should
be misled that they carry on irreconcilable polemic among themselves: either
of them equally pull the wool over worker’s eyes with their empty words.
At the same time all of the debaters, surely, sincerely consider themselves
as the best protectors, friends of the workers... It is said, once Stalin
was asked concerning something: " And which of two variants is better?
". Stalin, having kept silent, answered: "Both are worse". It completely
relates to our supporters and opponents of state capitalism. So, “friends”
of the workers carry on discussions in a wrong way, wrong at all.
***
The proletariat is poor, worker, unlike capitalists, have nothing to
pay for work of the state, of the officialdom. The workers are strong because
of their organization, readiness to collective activity and activity by
itself - only in this case proletarians and a whole class become veritable
masters of the situation in the brigade, in the workshop, in the town,
in the country. And this is what is called socialism, Soviet authority,
dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarism. It is unlikely that there
is somebody who will declare, that our working class has ever had such
a highest organization, i.e. it has never been the master actually. In
connection with it I’d like to repeat my question once again: who was practically
a ruling class in the USSR?
Following exploiter classes are known: slaveholders, feudal lords, bourgeoisie.
There are simply no others. And here we reach a deadlock because it is
impossible to show precisely, which from these classes was the master in
the USSR. "Partocracy", "bureaucracy", "the party-state nomenclature"...
is not the answer here in any way, because it represents ordinary officialdom,
state machinery, i.e. state in essence, and state, as is known, is only
a tool in the hands of a real master: a prevailing class of society.
To find the correct answer, let’s pay attention to one more "strangeness"
of state capitalism in the USSR. It is known, that the economy of the Soviet
Union was almost unprofitable in the last decades, it practically existed
at the expense of sale of petroleum, gas, coal, timber, and other natural
resources. Besides, and not many people remember it now, up to 20 % of
the Union’s budget at that time were made up with so-called "drunk" money,
i.e. money obtained from realization of alcoholic production. (We shall
remark in brackets, that already communists-feudalists began to make drunk
people. Today bourgeois-democrats have driven it up to monstrous size,
having added to this drug addiction imported from the West. That is how
authorities cared and are caring now for spiritual rise of people!) And
meanwhile huge country with two hundred millionth population was working
with full exertion of forces: plants, factories, mines... were working
day and night three shifts. Add to this numerous working Saturdays, Sundays,
increased plans, socialist obligations, shock Komsomol constructions and
other supernormal, not paid, as a rule, toil of millions of serfs... And
prices were growing, people were standing in lines, necessary products
and goods were being distributed on ration cards.
It was a strange state capitalism, wasn’t it? For some reason it didn’t
need profit. But is it possible to imagine for example that in Germany
in Bismark time mail or railways yielded losses to the state? And in the
USSR it was normal. Why? Ours thinkers don’t burden themselves with such
questions! Whether we like or not, but the Soviet Union with it’s social
and economic structure doesn’t confine itself at all in Procrustean bed
of petrified conceptions of worker’s "friends". Judge: happened counter-revolutionary
overturn was properly deeply capitalist, and relations between a ruling
class (Administration as a whole) and the proletariat were found frankly
feudal; besides, inside the administrative milieu the distribution of the
blessings, expropriated from the proletariat, had pronounced petty-bourgeois,
hairsplitting character, when millions and millions were wasted for the
sake of personal twopenny-halfpenny gain. Let’s enumerate the main characteristics
of the social and economic structure once again: capitalist, feudal, petty-bourgeois
- such a fantastical, unprecedented in a former history, cocktail from
features and characteristics was after-October socialism. Such are the
facts; we cannot wave off from them.
******
Triumph and tragedy of world socialism have brought up a lot of questions
before us - their solution is a work of huge complexity and scales. Fortunately,
it has been already made in Marxism. A.B. Raslatzky has made it. Everyone,
who will read calmly at least three works: " Who have to answer? ", "Second
Communist Manifesto", "Notes on margins of history ", will see a harmonious
completed system of sights in the analysis of historical experience since
October, 1917 up to now. The evaluations are given purely from class positions
of the proletariat, i.e. from positions of Marxism.
Being afraid to appear didactic, however I have to say: I am surprised,
that as a rule discussions in the lists STACHKOM and PROLETARISM are quite
not about they should to be. And you see, from a broad, constantly shifting
circle of tasks facing to the proletariat Marxists always should be able
to determine the main task, without solution of which it is impossible
to solve anything. At present I consider the following as the main task.
The proletariat is powerful only when it is organized; and who is the
organizer, leader of a class? A party! And it is necessary to speak about
it first of all. Everything is important here: from the title of the party
to right understanding of a role, place, significance of the party in a
general system of dictatorship of the proletariat. What mutual relations
of the Party and class, Party and society should be? What is the Party:
a brain and a voice of the proletariat, or quite another matter? What kind
of dialectics of internal life of the Party should be, for example, in
order to the Party wouldn’t lose it’s revolutionary features in the case
of leader’s death (people are mortal), but would find rapidly, put forward
new Marxismly thinking leader from it’s ranks? It is also necessary in
the case of possible general secretary’s disparity to new historical conditions,
to new tasks of the next stage of socialist building.
And here is the most important question: should the party take power
into it’s own hands or, on the contrary, do everything by all it’s activity,
all work, with the purpose of the proletariat, organized workers by themselves
would be and always stay single real authority in the society during the
whole movement to communism. Always, everywhere, in all! You see, it and
only it is the only guarantee and condition of nonstop movement of the
human race into classless society - condition, which has never and nowhere
been realized in practice yet.
This is about what we should hold a mutual heated conversation. But
instead of it there are more and more fathomless in "depth" and "novelty"
conversations of the thinkers: "Trozky, Stalin, state capitalism, bureaucracy,
trade unions, centrism and etc." These questions are also important, but
they are secondary, i.e. even their brilliant solution never will raise,
mobilize the proletariat to truly revolutionary struggle.
****
The society can be considered socialist only in the event of the MAIN
law of socialism works in this society: " Distribution of labour and production
in the interests of the society as a whole, stimulating growth of common
weal and public consciousness ". ("SCM", chapter II) Only due to this Law
the society is able to move irrevocably to the future, to communism. Having
known it, we can say firmly: whether socialism was in the USSR and, if
it was , in what measure, in what forms, how long? It is undoubtedly that
under Stalin the Main law of socialism was executed – how did Stalin achieve
it, what were his mistakes, what did it cost to society – this is a separate
conversation. But since Khrushchev and further everything had been turning
to another side party down to full break-up of socialism. If to take into
account that similar process (even with different features) has taken place
in all countries of socialist camp, then whether it means, that after-October
socialism was defective in the sense that it was initially fraught with
the latent danger of regeneration, mutation in some feudal-bourgeois chimera
with Jesuitical mimicry a la socialism? Only one formal circumstance was
the reason of such a turn of things: a RULING status of the party.
Namely. Having seized authority strongly, finished off the opposition,
got rid of whatever competitiveness, the party naturally turned into COLLECTIVE
monarch, stood above the proletariat and the whole society. Being built
inside itself also in the strict vassal way, the party inevitably puts
forward, raises above itself a monarch-leader: Stalin, Mao, Tito, Hodge,
Chaoshesku... Most of them was even proclaimed perpetual Presidents. The
circle becomes locked, there is no way out from it. I.e. the life has demonstrated
inevitably, that a ruling, dictatorial Party is unavoidably converts the
workers, all working-people into real serfs. Almost secular world experience
from October up to now is a graphic evidence of it.
Theorists do not notice it! Not a party, but the proletariat by itself
should be ruling - it is the very essence and idea of socialism! And if
a Party doesn’t understand it then it is prepared beforehand for the same
inglorious end which finished the history of amazing in it’s revolutionary
character, legendary in former times RSDWP (b), turned into C.P.S.U. The
ancients spoke: " If the gods want to deprive someone of reason, they give
him authority ". Marx speaks even stricter, more precisely: "Authority
corrupts, absolute authority corrupts absolutely!" It is really true concerning
everybody and everything, but not only the organized working class, because
"Authority is such a privilege, which can not corrupt, make bourgeois only
the proletariat ". (The Second Communist Manifesto).
Yours faithfully. G. Isaev.
Sunday, March 5, 2000.
Please, send all your notes and questions concerning the translation to
voviy@yahoo.com
