|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 29 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
P. Kandiah memorial lecture : Shortcomings of socialism by Sitaram Yechury, Politburo Member, Communist Party of India (Marxist) (Continued from last week) Stalin deals in length on this issue in a section titled "Questions of theory". However, when such transformation of forms, whose changes represent the movement towards greater and larger participation of the people in the activities of the state are not made at the appropriate time, the growing aspirations of people under socialism get stifled and this leads to alienation and discontent. Further, the same form need not be applicable uniformly to all socialist countries. The form will be determined by the historical background and the concrete socio-economic conditions in those countries. Lenin had clearly stated in the State and Revolution that as the forms of bourgeois states are varied, the period of transition from capitalism to Communism "certainly cannot but yield a great abundance and variety of political forms". But he goes on to underline that the forms may be different but the essence will inevitably be the dictatorship of the proletariat. "The forms of bourgeois states are extremely varied, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism certainly cannot but yield a great abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat". The adoption of the Soviet form of state in the post-Second World War socialist countries of East Europe, hence, was a development that ignored the concrete socio-economic conditions and the historical background of these countries. For instance, Czechoslovakia had Communists elected to its Parliament in a multi-party system before the revolution. The prohibition of multi-party systems under socialism was seen by many as a regression. This contributed, as well, to the alienation of the people and growing discontent. Socialist democracy The second area where there were major shortcomings was that concerning socialist democracy. Democracy under socialism needs to be deeper and richer than under capitalism. While capitalism gives the formal democratic right, it does not provide to the vast majority of people the capacity to exercise it. (Under capitalism, everyone has a right to buy anything that is available, but the majority do not have the capacity to exercise this right). Socialism must provide both the right and the capacity to the people to exercise that right. However, in the process of socialist construction in many countries, two types of shortcomings occurred. First, the dictatorship of the class over a period of time was replaced by the dictatorship of the vanguard of the class, i.e., the Party. This over time was replaced by the leadership of the Party. The socialist state which represents the entire class and working people got substituted by a small section in the Party. This led to a strange situation with the decisions, say, of the Party Politburo, becoming enforceable on all citizens. This was done through a fiat instead of convincing the majority of the people who are not members of the Party through democratically decided state bodies like the Soviets. The Leninist principle of a Party decision being articulated in democratic people's fora and Party's leadership established through a democratic process with maximum people's participation was replaced, unfortunately, by diktats. This, naturally, strengthened the sense of alienation among the people. Secondly, in the process of implementation of democratic centralism, inner-Party democracy, often, became a casualty while centralism became strengthened, as certain periods in the history of the USSR shows. This led to the growth of bureaucratism which is the very antithesis of democracy. Tendencies alien to socialism, such as corruption and nepotism also surfaced. An example of this was the institutionalisation of privileges to large sections of the leadership of the CPSU and other ruling Communist parties. In this process, the vitality of this revolutionary principle is robbed, alienating the Party from the masses and the Party ranks from the leadership. Socialist economic construction It must be noted that instead of correcting these distortions both in the area of the class character of the state under socialism and socialist democracy, the Gorbachev leadership set about a course of abandoning both the concept of the leading role of the working class and democratic centralism. In the process, it disarmed the revolutionary party and prevented it from undertaking the necessary corrections which finally led to the dismantling of socialism. The third area where some shortcomings took place were in the process of socialist economic construction. As productive forces rapidly developed under the social ownership of the means of production and centralised state planning, the methods of economic management that arise precisely due to this rapid economic development need to constantly change. The inability to transit to new levels by introducing such changes can lead to the stagnation of the economy. For instance, once all available land for agricultural production is utilised, then any further increases in production can happen only through increases in productivity. If such change is not affected in time, then problems arise. This is precisely what happened in the USSR in the seventies and the eighties. Once again, instead of effecting such changes, the Gorbachev leadership set about a course of abandoning the socialist economic foundations of social ownership of means of production and planning. Under the influence of the "bourgeois god of market economy", the systematic dismantling of the socialist economic foundations took place which contributed to the dismantling of socialism itself. Gorbachev and the liquidationist leadership of the CPSU thus emerged as the children of the illegitimate relationship between revisionism and imperialism. Neglect of ideological consciousness The fourth area where major shortcomings occurred was in the field of strengthening the collective ideological consciousness of the people under socialism. Socialism can be sustained and developed only by the growing collective consciousness of the people which, in turn, cannot be reared without the ideological steadfastness of the ruling Communist Party. Due to these shortcomings, a situation arose where counter-revolutionary forces, both external and internal, acted in concert to dismantle socialism. These reverses to socialism, therefore, have occurred not because of any inadequacies in the basic postulates of Marxism-Leninism. On the contrary, they have occurred primarily due to departures from the scientific and revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism; incorrect estimations of the relative strengths of world capitalism and socialism; a dogmatic and mechanical interpretation of the creative science of Marxism; and also due to major shortcomings during the course of socialist construction. While facing the current challenges, the socialist countries have embarked on a reform process, specific to the concrete situation of their countries. Particularly in the present situation where the international correlation favours imperialism with its virtual monopoly over capital and technology, the socialist countries are engaged in serious efforts at developing productive forces to consolidate socialism. These have generated concern and debate among well-wishers of socialism the world over. While these reforms have led to rapid economic growth in some countries, like in China, new problems have also arisen. Let us discuss some theoretical and political issues with specific reference to China. The triumph of the socialist revolution in Russia (and subsequently, following the defeat of fascism in the second world war, in the relatively less developed Eastern Europe, semi-feudal semi-colonial China; northern Korea; Vietnam and Cuba) did not and could never have meant the automatic transformation of the backward economies and low levels of productive forces into high levels (higher than that of capitalism) of socialised means of production. For the purpose of our discussion, however, it needs to be noted that every socialist revolution, based on a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, worked out its approach towards developing rapidly the productive forces. How this can be done is specific to the concrete realities faced by the specific revolutions, both domestically and internationally. Lenin, himself, noted on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution: "Borne along on the crest of the wave of enthusiasm, rousing first the political enthusiasm and then the military enthusiasm of the people, we expected to accomplish economic tasks just as great as the political and military tasks we had accomplished by relying directly on this enthusiasm. We expected - or perhaps it would be truer to say that we presumed without having given it adequate consideration - to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary - state capitalism and socialism - to prepare - to prepare by many years of effort - for the transition to Communism. Not directly relying on enthusiasm, but aided by the enthusiasm engendered by the great revolution, and on the basis of personal interest, personal incentive and business principles, we must first set to work in this small-peasant country to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism. Otherwise we shall never get to Communism, we shall never bring scores of millions of people to Communism. That is what experience, the objective course of the development of the revolution, has taught us." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp.58 emphasis added) Further, he proceeds to state: "Capitalism is a bane compared with socialism. Capitalism is a boon compared with medievalism, small production, and the evils of bureaucracy which spring from the dispersal of the small producers. In as much as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 350) ( To be continued) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
