Category: USSR
KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism

Thursday, August 17, 2017

KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/kke-speech-in-leningrad-conference-our.html
Speech of the Communist Party of Greece at the the International Theoretical Conference of Communist and Workers parties: “100 years after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the lessons and tasks for the contemporary communists.” (Leningrad, Russia 11-13/8/2017). 
Dear comrades,
On behalf of the CC of the KKE, we thank the RWCP for this initiative and for hosting our Conference Today.
The Central Committee of the KKE honours the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. It honours the climactic world-historic event of the 20th century which demonstrated that capitalism is not invincible, that we can construct a superior organization of society, without the exploitation of man by man.
The October Revolution shed light on the strength of the revolutionary class struggle, the strength of the exploited and oppressed, when they take centre stage and turn the wheel of history forwards in the direction of social liberation. The Russian working class through the October revolution came to incarnate the the vision of the working class-popular masses, of millions of people, for a better life.
The October Revolution demonstrated the correctness of the Leninist analysis that the victory of socialism is possible in one country or a group of countries, as a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism.
At the same time, October highlighted the irreplaceable role of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, as the leading factor not only in the socialist revolution, but also during the entire struggle for the formation, strengthening, and final victory of the new communist society.
The contribution of Lenin and the experience of the Bolsheviks in the struggle against opportunism (as a vehicle of bourgeois ideology and politics in the labour movement) is of great, decisive political and practical importance.
In practice, it has been demonstrated that the well-grounded confrontation against the economists, the Mensheviks and the SRs constituted a basic feature in the formation of the conditions for the formation of the revolutionary party, the party of a new type, built on Leninist principles.
The systematic efforts to cleanse the Bolshevik Party from opportunism strengthened the revolutionary forces and (in two years after the 2nd Congress, 1903) allowed for the preparation of the party and the acquisition of a decisive role in the 1905 revolution and in the years of reaction that followed, continuing and adjusting the revolutionary line in new conditions.
“An insurrectionary outbreak has once more been suppressed. Once more we say: Hail the insurrection!” as Lenin wrote in September 1905 about the Moscow uprising and later in 1906 that “, nothing could be more short-sighted than Plekhanov’s view, seized upon by all the opportunists, that the strike was untimely and should not have been started, and that “they should not have taken to arms (…)On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary.”
From 1905 until the victorious revolution of October 1917, a qualitative difference emerged in the form of the chasm between the strategy of the revolutionary current and the opportunism of the Mensheviks and SRs, who fostered fatalism and spread Parliamentary illusions, supported the bourgeois provisional government that was formed in February 1917, trapped the Soviets for a crucial period and tried to neuter them.
The Mensheviks and the SRs attempted to impede the October Revolution and to lead it to defeat. They fought against the new workers’ power and in a planned way undermined socialist construction, and it was these forces of opportunism that later corroded the CPSU and contributed decisively in the counterrevolution and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Today, when the consequences of the counterrevolution attack the working class all over the world and when it has been demonstrated in practice that capitalism gives rise to imperialist wars, economic crises, unemployment, poverty and refugees, the opportunist forces brazenly talk of “October”, attempting to undermine, cancel out the socialist character of the October Revolution and its enormous historical contribution.
The truth is that the forces of opportunism carried out an organized anti-soviet anti-communist campaign over the entire course of socialist construction, under the label of eurocommunism or its variants in many countries.
The communists must remember and learn.
Opportunism may change its name and forms of organization and expression, but at each historical moment it constitutes a great danger remains for the communist movement, a factor for its corrosion and co-option into the capitalist exploitative system.
Comrades,
The flame of October led to and accelerated the establishment of a number of Communist Parties, revolutionary workers’ parties of a new type, in opposition to the social-democratic parties of that era, which had betrayed the working class and the revolutionary political line.
The decades-long existence and successes of the socialist society, which was inaugurated by the October Revolution, demonstrated that a society without bosses, without capitalists that own the means of production is possible. This conclusion is not negated by the fact that in this specific phases it was not able to defeat once and for all capitalist ownership and capitalist profit.
The necessity and timeliness of socialism, the potential to abolish private ownership over the concentrated means of production flow from the development of capitalism which leads to the concentration of production. Capitalist ownership puts a brake on the social character of production. Capitalist ownership cancels out the potential for all workers to live in better socially organized conditions that correspond to their increased human needs:they should all have work without the nightmare of unemployment, working fewer hours, enjoying a better standard of living, with a high level of exclusively public and free education and similar services in health and welfare.
The working class creates these possibilities through its work inside capitalism, which are expanded by the development of science and technology. However, in a society where everything produced is determined on the basis of private, capitalist profit, the needs of the working class and the popular strata are crushed. The essence of the problem is that those who produce are not those who decide on the goals and organization of production. The cyclical economic crises are in the DNA of capitalism and are becoming increasingly deep and synchronized, resulting in the sharp increase of unemployment, the further expansion of badly paid work without social security cover, life with smashed rights, with imperialist wars for the division of markets and territories.
The deterioration of working and living conditions, despite the rise of labour productivity, concerns the entire capitalist world and indeed the most developed capitalist states. The capitalist states themselves, their research centres, admit that the workers’ income is shrinking, while the wealth of the capitalists is increasing.
The fact that the preconditions have been formed for the construction of the socialist-communist society does not automatically entail its realization. An important reason for this is the fact that, in contrast with the laws of nature, social progress requires the relevant activity of humans, in this case the class struggle for the abolition of the old society and the construction of one.
The outbreak of the socialist revolution (just as every social revolution in human history) presupposes the emergence of a situation where the ability of the ruling class to co-opt, repress and subdue the people is weakened.
Lenin formulated the definition of the revolutionary situation and identified the main objective and subjective characteristics, which are are accumulated in society on the eve of the revolution. However, as Lenin aptly stressed, this does not means that every revolutionary situation is converted into a revolution. Neither the reaction of those below, nor the crisis of those above will trigger the overthrow, if there is not a planned revolutionary uprising of the working class, led by its conscious vanguard.
In other words, for a workers’ revolution to break out there must be the presence of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, equipped with the theoretical elaborations and ability to predict the developments, based on the Marxist-Leninist world-view and capable of leading the revolutionary uprising of the working class.
Unfortunately, later on the positive experience of the October Revolution was not taken on board and did not prevail over the duration of the Communist International. In contrast, over a contradictory trajectory, the strategic view that, in general, posed the goal of an intermediate form of power or government between bourgeois and workers’ power, as a transitional phase to socialist power, prevailed to a significant extent.
Today, we can better examine the complex efforts of the USSR’s foreign policy to delay as far as possible the imperialist offensive and to utilize contradictions between the imperialist centres in this direction were related to significant alternations and changes in the line of the Communist International that played a negative role later in terms of the course of the international communist movement in the following decades. The changes were related to issues of how to confront the fascist current, the stance towards social-democracy, as well as towards bourgeois democracy itself. The policy of separating the imperialist alliances into aggressive ones, which included the fascist forces, and defensive ones, which included the bourgeois-democratic forces, emerged in this period.
More particularly, the assessment concerning the existence of a left and right wing in the social-democratic parties in the 1930s, which was the justification for an alliance with them, something that underestimated their complete transformation into parties of the bourgeois class by this point. This mistaken distinction was also maintained after the 2nd World War.
These changes, objectively, trapped the struggle of the labour movement under the banner of bourgeois democracy. Similarly, the separation of the imperialist centres into pro-peace and pro-war ones concealed the real cause of imperialist wars and the rise of fascism, i.e. monopoly capitalism. In other words, it did not shine a light on the urgent strategic tasks of the communist parties to combine the concentration of forces for the national liberation or anti-fascist struggle with the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power, utilizing the conditions of the revolutionary situation that were formed in a number of countries.
In general, the character of the era was underestimated in the strategic elaborations of the Communist International and the prevalent definition of the character of the revolution was based on the criterion of the position of a capitalist country in the international imperialist system. That is to say, the lower level of the development of a country in relation to the higher levels achieved by the leading powers in the international imperialist system, as well as the negative correlation of forces at the expense of the revolutionary labour movement were mistakenly adopted as criteria to define the character of the revolution.
However, the uneven development of the capitalist economies and unequal relations between states cannot be eradicated in the framework of capitalism. In the final analysis, the character of the revolution in each capitalist country is objectively determined by the basic contradiction it is called on to resolve, regardless of the relative changes of the position of each country in the international imperialist system. The socialist character and tasks of the revolution arise from the sharpening of the basic contradiction between capital and labour in each capitalist country in the era of monopoly capitalism.
In a lot of the elaborations of the Communist Parties, the approach towards the goal of workers power was based on the criterion of the correlation of forces and not the objective definition of the historical era we find ourselves in, which is determined by which class is at the head of social development, i.e. the motion towards social liberation.
However, these mistakes in the strategy of the international communist movement, as well as the mistakes made by the CPSU in terms of charting its domestic policy, together with the expected undermining work of imperialism and the counterrevolution, influenced the developments.
The October Revolution brought to the fore a superior organization of society, which was radically different from all the systems that historically had preceded it and which had as their common feature the exploitation of man by man.
During that period, new institutions of workers participation were developed, the core of which was the workplace; this political relation was subsequently violated, retreating in the face of existing objective difficulties and also subjective pressures. Under the pressure of the preparation for the active contribution of all the people in the upcoming war, the 1936 Soviet Constitution generalized the electoral right through a universal secret ballot, based on the place of residence. The assemblies of each productive unit as the core of the organization of workers’ power were downgraded. In practice, the difficulty of recalling representatives from the higher state institutions increased
They were interpreted as inevitable weaknesses existing in the nature of central planning and not as a result of the contradictions of the survival of the old, as a result of the mistakes of the non-scientifically elaborated plan. Thus, instead of seeking a solution towards the invigoration and expansion of the communist relations of production and distribution, it was sought backwards, i.e. in the exploitation of tools and production relations of capitalism. The solution was sought in the expansion of the market, in “market socialism”.
The 20th CPSU Congress (1956) stands out as a turning point because in that, under the pretext of the so-called “personality cult”, a series of opportunist positions were adopted on the issues of the communist movement strategy, of international relations and partly of the economy. In general, the central administration of the plan weakened. Instead of designing the conversion of kolkhozes into sovkhozes and, above all, of beginning the passage of all cooperative-kolkhoznik production to state control, in 1958 the tractors and other machinery became the property of the kolkhozes, a position which had previously been rejected.
A few years later, beginning with the so-called “Kosygin reforms” (1965), the bourgeois category of “business profit” of each individual production unit was adopted and the wages of managers and workers were linked to it. The assessment of the productivity of the socialist productive units on the basis of production volume was replaced by the value estimation of their products. The process of accumulation of each socialist unit was disconnected from central planning, resulting in the weakening of the social character of the means of production and product stocks. At the same time, by 1975, all state farms, the sovkhozes, were under full self-management. All these measures led to the creation of the conditions for private embezzlement and ownership, relations which were legally prohibited.
In about the same period, the Marxist-Leninist perception about the workers’ state was also revised. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) described the USSR state as an “all-people’s” state and the CPSU as an “all-people’s party”.These positions caused a rapid blunting- and consequently mutation- of the revolutionary characteristics and social composition of the party. The transformation of the CPSU’s opportunist degeneration into an open counter-revolutionary force was manifested in 1987, with the passage of a law which institutionally established capitalist relations, under the pretext of the diversity of property relations, the notorious policy of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost”. This fact also marks the formal beginning of the counter-revolutionary period.
Dear comrades,
The KKE seeks to draw the necessary conclusions for today, both from the victories and also from the bitter defeats and the retreat of the communist movement. Through a long and painstaking collective process, the KKE has charted a modern revolutionary strategy nad has increased its ability to organize leading sites of resistance and counter-attack in every sector of the economy, every large workplace, in every region of the country.
The strengthening of the KKE at all levels, which was an important issue at the recent 20th Congress of the Party, constitutes a prerequisite for the promotion of its revolutionary policy.
At the same time, the KKE struggles for the regroupment of the international communist movement, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the internationalist solidarity of the people against capitalism and imperialist war, which is expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!”Already, we can see some small steps towards the effort of the creation of a distinct pole based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism , through the “International Communist Review” and the European Communist Initiative.
An integral part of the KKE’s contemporary strategy is its programmatic perception of socialism. Socialist construction begins with the revolutionary conquest of power by the working class. The workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is an instrument of the working class in the class struggle which continues in socialism with other forms and means. It is utilized for the planned development of the new social relations, which presupposes the suppression of the counter-revolutionary efforts, but also the development of the communist consciousness of the working class. The workers’ state, as a mechanism of political domination, is necessary until the transformation of all social relations into communist ones, until the formation of communist consciousness in the overwhelming majority of the workers, but also until the victory of the revolution in the most powerful capitalist countries.
Dear comrades,
100 years ago, in this city, the 6th Congress of the Bolshevik Party took a “milestone” decision, setting out their line for the armed insurrection. The implementation of the decision led a few months later to the roar of the “Aurora’s” cannons. Today, 100 years afterwards, the communists from all over the world are called on to study this history, to draw the necessary conclusions, to chart a modern revolutionary strategy in their countries and at an international level.
This is the necessary response in order to deal with the corrosive work of opportunism, to overcome the ideological-political and organizational retreat of the communist movement, its revolutionary regroupment.
The adjustment of the strategy of the communist parties to correspond to the character of our era, the era of the passage from the monopoly capitalism-imperialism to socialism, which was inaugurated by the October Socialist Revolution and consequently overcoming the strategy of intermediate stages, which exists in the programmes of the communist parties, and defining the character of the revolution as socialist, is objectively necessary and imposed by reality.
This direction can contribute decisively to the liberation from political options that operate in the framework of capitalism, such as the so-called “left governments” and the alliance with social-democracy, to lend impetus to the anti-monopoly anti-capitalist struggle, to elaborations based on the requirements of the class struggle and that can contribute to the preparation of the subjective factor, to the concentration of working class-popular forces in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism-communism.
 
* * * 
Discurso del KKE en la Conferencia Teórica Internacional de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros “100 años de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre, las enseñanzas y las tareas para los comunistas hoy” (Leningrado, Rusia 11-13/8/2017)
Estimados camaradas:
En nombre del Comité Central del KKE agradecemos el PCOR por esta iniciativa y la celebración de la Conferencia de hoy.
El Comité Central del KKE rinde honor al centenario de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre. Rinde honor al acontecimiento transcendental del siglo XX que demostró que el capitalismo no es invencible, que  podemos construir una sociedad con organización superior, sin explotación del hombre por el hombre.
La Revolución de Octubre ha demostrado la fuerza de la lucha de clases revolucionaria, la fuerza de los explotados y de los oprimidos, cuando pasan enérgicamente a primer plano y giran la rueda de la Historia hacia delante, hacia la dirección de la liberación social. La clase obrera rusa a través de la Revolución de Octubre materializó el ideal de millones de personas, de las masas obreras y populares por una vida mejor.
La Revolución de Octubre demostró la validez del pensamiento leninista de que la victoria del socialismo es posible en un país o en un grupo de países, como consecuencia del desarrollo desigual del capitalismo.
Al mismo tiempo, la Revolución de Octubre destacó el papel irreemplazable de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, como dirigente no sólo de la revolución socialista, sino además de toda la lucha por la formación, el fortalecimiento, la victoria final de la nueva sociedad comunista.
La contribución de Lenin y la experiencia de los bolcheviques en la lucha contra el oportunismo (como vehículo de la ideología y de la política burguesa) tiene gran y decisiva importancia política y practica.
En la práctica se demostró que la confrontación bien documentada contra los economistas, los mencheviques y los eseristas fue el elemento principal para la formación de las condiciones para la formación del partido revolucionario, del partido de nuevo tipo, fomentado sobre los principios leninistas.
El esfuerzo sistemático para limpiar el partido bolchevique del oportunismo, fortaleció a las fuerzas revolucionarias y (dentro de dos años a partir del II Congreso en 1903) permitió al partido prepararse y desempeñar un papel decisivo en la revolución de 1905 y en los años de la reacción que siguieron, ajustando la línea revolucionaria en las nuevas condiciones.
“El estallido de la insurrección fue reprimido una vez más. Exclamaremos entonces, ¡Viva la insurrección!”, escribió Lenin en septiembre de 1905 respecto a la insurrección de Moscú y a continuación, en 1906, destacó que “así, pues, nada podía ser menos perspicaz que la opinión de Plejánov, que hacen suya todos los oportunistas, de que la huelga era inoportuna y no debía haberse iniciado, que ʻno se debió empuñar las armasʼ. Por el contrario, se debió empuñarlas más decididamente, con mayor energía y combatividad; se debió explicar a las masas que era imposible limitarse a una huelga pacífica y que una lucha armada intrépida e implacable era necesaria”.
Desde 1905 hasta la victoriosa revolución socialista de octubre de 1917 se hizo clara la diferencia en la calidad, el abismo entre la estrategia de la corriente revolucionaria y el oportunismo de los mencheviques y de los eseristas que fomentaron el fatalismo y difundieron ilusiones parlamentarias, apoyaron el gobierno burgués provisional que se formó en 1917, atraparon los Soviets durante un período crucial e intentaron neutralizarlos.
Los mencheviques y los eseristas trataron de impedir la revolución de Octubre y llevarla a la derrota, lucharon contra el nuevo poder obrero y socavaron de manera planificada la construcción socialista y estas fuerzas oportunistas en los años siguientes corroyeron el PCUS y jugaron un papel primordial en la contrarrevolución y en la restauración del capitalismo en la Unión Soviética.
Hoy día, cuando las consecuencias de la contrarrevolución atacan a la clase obrera en todo el mundo de manera dura y se ha demostrado en la práctica de que el capitalismo da lugar a guerras imperialistas, a crisis económicas, al desempleo, a la pobreza y a los refugiados, fuerzas oportunistas hablan descaradamente para la revolución de Octubre y, en todo caso, tratan de socavar, de eliminar el carácter socialista de la revolución de Octubre y su enorme contribución histórica.
De hecho, las fuerzas oportunistas llevaron a cabo una campaña antisoviética anticomunista organizada durante todo el curso de la construcción socialista, bajo el manto del eurocomunismo o de sus variantes en muchos países.
Las y los comunistas deben recordarlo y aprender de ello.
El oportunismo cambia de nombre y de formas de organización y de expresión, pero en cada momento sigue siendo un gran peligro para el movimiento comunista, un factor de corrosión y de asimilación en el sistema de explotación capitalista.
Camaradas:
La llama de la Revolución de Octubre condujo y aceleró la creación de varios Partidos Comunistas, de partidos obreros revolucionarios de nuevo tipo, en contraste con los partidos socialdemócratas de aquella época que habían traicionado a la clase obrera y la política revolucionaria.
Durante décadas, la existencia y los logros de la sociedad socialista, que fue inaugurada por la Revolución de Octubre, demostraron que es posible una sociedad sin patrones, sin capitalistas que poseen los medios de producción. Esta conclusión no se puede refutar por el hecho de que en aquel período particular no logró derrotar definitivamente la propiedad capitalista y la ganancia capitalista.
La necesidad y la vigencia del socialismo, la posibilidad de abolir la propiedad privada en los medios concentrados de producción derivan del desarrollo capitalista que conduce a la concentración de la producción. La propiedad capitalista es un freno para el carácter social de la producción. La propiedad capitalista cancela la posibilidad de que todos los trabajadores vivan en mejores condiciones organizadas a nivel social que satisfagan las necesidades crecientes humanas: Que todos tengan trabajo sin la pesadilla del desempleo, que trabajen menos horas disfrutando una calidad de vida mejor y servicios de educación, de sanidad y de bienestar de alto nivel, exclusivamente públicos y gratuitos.
En el capitalismo, la clase obrera crea estas oportunidades con su trabajo que se amplían con el desarrollo de las ciencias y de la tecnología. Sin embargo, en una sociedad donde todo lo que se produce y el modo de producción se determinan sobre la base de la ganancia privada, capitalista, las necesidades de la clase obrera y de las capas populares están suprimidas. La esencia del problema radica en el hecho de que unos producen mientras que otros deciden los objetivos y la organización de la producción. Las crisis económicas cíclicas están en el DNA del capitalismo y se hacen más profundas y sincronizadas; consecuentemente se aumenta bruscamente el desempleo, se expande de nuevo el trabajo mal pagado y sin seguridad social, la vida con derechos aplastados, con guerras imperialistas para el reparto de los mercados y de los territorios.
A pesar del aumento de la productividad del trabajo las condiciones de trabajo y de vida se deterioran en todo el mundo capitalista, incluso en los Estados capitalistas más desarrollados. Los propios Estados capitalistas, sus centros de investigaciones, afirman que se reducen los ingresos de los trabajadores, mientras que se aumentan las ganancias de los capitalistas.
El hecho de que se han creado las condiciones previas para la construcción de la sociedad socialista-comunista no significa que esto sucederá automáticamente. Una razón importante es el hecho de que, a diferencia de las leyes de la naturaleza, el desarrollo social requiere la actividad humana, en este caso la lucha de clases para la abolición de la vieja sociedad y la construcción de la nueva sociedad.
El estallido de la revolución socialista (así como de todas las revoluciones sociales en la Historia de la humanidad) implica una situación en la cual se debilita la capacidad de la clase dominante de asimilar, suprimir y aplacar al pueblo.
Lenin formuló el concepto de la situación revolucionaria e  identificó las características principales objetivas y subjetivas de la sociedad en la víspera de la revolución. Sin embargo, como señaló Lenin acertadamente, no toda situación revolucionaria desemboca en una revolución. Ni la reacción de los de “abajo” ni la crisis en los de “arriba” provocarán un derrocamiento, a menos que exista un levantamiento revolucionario planificado de la clase obrera, dirigido por su vanguardia consciente.
Dicho de otro modo, para que se estalle la revolución obrera  se requiere la presencia de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, armado con elaboraciones teóricas y con la predicción de los acontecimientos basada en la cosmovisión marxista-leninista, capaz de dirigir el levantamiento revolucionario de la clase obrera.
Desgraciadamente, la experiencia positiva de la Revolución de Octubre no fue asimilada y no prevaleció a lo largo de toda la existencia de la Internacional Comunista. En cambio, a través de un curso contradictorio, prevaleció en gran medida el concepto estratégico que, en general, planteaba como objetivo un poder o un gobierno de tipo intermedio entre el poder burgués y obrero, como poder transitorio hacia el poder socialista.
Hoy día podemos ver mejor que el esfuerzo complejo de la política de asuntos exteriores de la URSS para retrasar lo más posible el ataque imperialista y utilizar las contradicciones entre los centros imperialistas en esta dirección, está relacionada con importantes alteraciones y cambios en la línea de la Internacional Comunista que desempeñaron un papel negativo en el curso del movimiento comunista internacional en las décadas siguientes. Las alteraciones tenían que ver con la confrontación de la corriente fascista, la actitud respecto a la socialdemocracia, así como a la propia democracia burguesa. Surgió entonces la distinción política de las alianzas imperialistas de aquel período en agresivas, en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas fascistas y en las alianzas defensivas en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas democrático-burguesas.
En particular, la evaluación respecto a la existencia de un ala izquierda y un ala derecha en los partidos socialdemócratas en la década de 1930, de la que surgía la alianza con estas fuerzas, estaba equivocada, lo cual menospreciaba su transformación completa en partidos de la burguesía. Esta distinción equivocada fue mantenida incluso después de la II Guerra Mundial.
Estos cambios, objetivamente, atrapaban la lucha del movimiento obrero bajo la bandera de la democracia burguesa. Respectivamente, la distinción de los centros imperialistas entre los a favor de la paz y los a favor de la guerra, escondía el verdadero culpable por la guerra imperialista y el ascenso del fascismo, el capitalismo monopolista. Es decir, no señalaba la tarea estratégica imperativa de los Partidos Comunistas de combinar la concentración de fuerzas por la lucha por la liberación nacional o por la lucha antifascista, con la lucha por el derrocamiento del poder burgués, utilizando las condiciones de la situación revolucionaria, que se habían formado en varios países.
En general, la Internacional Comunista en sus elaboraciones estratégicas subestimó el carácter de la época y predominó la definición del carácter de la revolución teniendo como criterio la posición de un país capitalista en el sistema imperialista internacional. Es decir, se adoptaron erróneamente como criterios para la definición del carácter de la revolución el nivel mínimo de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas de un país, en relación con el nivel superior alcanzado por las potencias líderes en el sistema imperialista internacional, así como la correlación de fuerzas negativa a expensas del movimiento obrero revolucionario.
Sin embargo, el desarrollo desigual de las economías capitalistas y las relaciones desiguales entre los Estados no se pueden abolir en el marco del capitalismo. En última instancia, el carácter de la revolución en los países capitalistas se determina objetivamente por la contradicción básica que debe resolver, independientemente de los cambios relativos en la posición de cada país en el sistema imperialista. El carácter socialista y las tareas de la revolución surgen de la agudización de la contradicción básica entre el capital y el trabajo en los países capitalistas en la época del capitalismo monopolista.
En varias elaboraciones de Partidos Comunistas, el enfoque del objetivo del poder obrero se basaba en el criterio de la correlación de fuerzas y no en la definición objetiva de la época histórica en que vivimos en base a la clase cuyo movimiento está en la vanguardia del desarrollo de los acontecimientos sociales, es decir de la actividad por la liberación social.
Sin embargo, estos errores en la estrategia del movimiento comunista internacional así como los errores cometidos por el PCUS en la elaboración de su política interna, junto con la esperada labor del imperialismo y de la contrarrevolución para socavarlo, afectaron los acontecimientos a continuación.
La Revolución de Octubre puso de manifiesto una organización superior de la sociedad, que fue radicalmente diferente de todos los sistemas que precedieron históricamente y cuyo rasgo común era la explotación del hombre por el hombre.
En aquel período se desarrollaron las nuevas instituciones de participación obrera, cuyo núcleo inicialmente era el centro de trabajo, una relación política que fue posteriormente violada, retrocediendo ante las dificultades objetivas existentes así como ante presiones subjetivas. Bajo la presión de preparación para la contribución activa de todo el pueblo ante la guerra inminente, la Constitución Soviética de 1936 generalizó el derecho a voto mediante una votación secreta universal en base al lugar de residencia. Las asambleas de delegados en cada unidad de producción como núcleos de organización del poder obrero fueron degradadas. En la práctica, se aumentó la dificultad de revocación de delegados de los órganos estatales superiores.
Se interpretaron como debilidades inevitables de la planificación central y no como resultado de las contradicciones de la supervivencia de lo antiguo, como resultado de los errores de un plan que no había sido científicamente elaborado. Así que en vez de buscar una solución a la expansión y el fortalecimiento de las relaciones comunistas de producción y de distribución, se buscó mirando hacia el pasado a la utilización de herramientas y de relaciones de producción del capitalismo. La solución se buscó en la expansión del mercado, en el “socialismo de mercado”.
Como punto de viraje se destaca el 20o Congreso del PCUS (1956), porque entonces, utilizando como vehículo el llamado “culto a la personalidad”, se adoptó una serie de posiciones oportunistas sobre cuestiones de la estrategia del movimiento comunista, de las relaciones internacionales, y, en parte, de la economía. En general, se debilitó la administración central de la planificación. En vez de planificar la transformación de los koljoses en sovjoses y sobre todo de iniciar el paso de toda la producción cooperativa-koljosiana bajo control estatal, en 1958 los tractores y otras máquinas pasaron a ser propiedad de los koljoses, una posición que había sido rechazada en el pasado.
Pocos años más tarde, a partir de la llamada “reforma Kosyguin” (1965), se adoptó la categoría burguesa del “beneficio empresarial” de cada unidad de producción individual y la vinculación de este con los sueldos de los administradores y de los trabajadores. La evaluación de la productividad de las unidades de producción socialistas teniendo como criterio el volumen de la producción fue sustituida por la evaluación del valor de su producto. El proceso de acumulación de cada unidad socialista fue desconectado de la planificación central lo cual tuvo como consecuencia el debilitamiento del carácter social de los medios de producción y de la reserva de productos. Al mismo tiempo, hasta el 1975, todas las granjas estatales, los sovjoses, habían pasado al régimen de auto-gestión completa. Todas estas medidas llevaron a la creación de las condiciones previas para la apropiación y propiedad privada, unas relaciones que estaban prohibidas por la ley.
Aproximadamente en el mismo período fue revisada además la percepción marxista-leninista sobre el Estado obrero. El 22o Congreso del PCUS (1961) describió el Estado de la URSS como Estado “de todo el pueblo” y el PCUS como un “partido de todo el pueblo”. Estas posiciones condujeron a un rápido debilitamiento y, a continuación, a la mutación de las características revolucionarias y de la composición social del Partido. La degeneración oportunista del PCUS se transformó en una fuerza abiertamente contrarrevolucionaria que se manifestó en 1987, mediante la aprobación de la ley que consolidaba institucionalmente las relaciones capitalistas bajo el pretexto de la variedad de relaciones de propiedad, de la notoria política de “perestroika” y de “glasnost”. Este evento señala el comienzo formal del período de la contrarrevolución.
Estimados camaradas:
El KKE pretende sacar conclusiones necesarias para el presente tanto de las victorias como de las derrotas amargas y la retirada del movimiento comunista. A través de un gran esfuerzo colectivo duro el KKE ha desarrollado una estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea que mejora su capacidad de organizar focos de resistencia y de contraataque avanzados en cada sector de la economía, en cada región del país.
El fortalecimiento del KKE en todos los niveles, un tema que fue discutido en el reciente 20o Congreso del Partido, es una condición previa para la promoción de su política revolucionaria.
Al mismo tiempo, el KKE lucha por el reagrupamiento del movimiento comunista internacional, de acuerdo con los principios del internacionalismo proletario y la solidaridad internacionalista de los pueblos contra el capitalismo y la guerra imperialista que se expresan a través de la consigna “Proletarios de todos los países, uníos”. Ya se han dado algunos pasos pequeños en el esfuerzo de crear un polo distintivo en base a los principios del marxismo-leninismo, a través de la “Revista Comunista Internacional” y la Iniciativa Comunista Europea.
Un componente de la estrategia contemporánea del KKE es su percepción programática del socialismo. La construcción socialista empieza con la conquista revolucionaria del poder por la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, la dictadura del proletariado, es el instrumento de la clase obrera en la lucha de clases que continúa en el socialismo con otras formas y medios. Se utiliza para el desarrollo planificado de las nuevas relaciones sociales, lo cual tiene como condición previa la frustración de los intentos contrarrevolucionarios, así como el desarrollo de la conciencia comunista de la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, como mecanismo de dominación política, es necesario hasta que todas las relaciones sociales se conviertan en comunistas, hasta que se desarrolle la conciencia comunista en la inmensa mayoría de los trabajadores, así como hasta que se consiga la victoria de la revolución, al menos en los países capitalistas más poderosos.
Estimados camaradas:
Hace 100 años, en esta ciudad, el VI Congreso del partido bolchevique tomó la decisión que significó un hito, que trazó la línea de la insurrección armada. La implementación de la decisión condujo dentro de pocos meses a que sonaron los cañones de “Aurora”. Hoy, 100 años después, los comunistas en todo el mundo están llamados a profundizar en esta trayectoria histórica, a sacar conclusiones valiosas, a trazar la estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea en sus países y a nivel internacional.
Esta es la respuesta necesaria para la confrontación del trabajo corrosivo del oportunismo, para la superación del repliegue ideológico, político y organizativo del movimiento comunista, su reagrupamiento revolucionario.
El ajuste de la estrategia de los partidos comunistas para corresponder con el carácter de nuestra época, la época de transición del capitalismo monopolista-imperialismo, al socialismo, que fue inaugurado por la Revolución Socialista de Octubre y, consiguientemente, la superación de las etapas de transición que existían en los programas de los partidos comunistas y la definición del carácter de la revolución como socialista, es objetivamente necesaria y exigible.
Esta dirección puede contribuir significativamente a la liberación de opciones políticas que operan en el marco de la gestión del capitalismo, como son los llamados “gobiernos de izquierda” y la alianza con la socialdemocracia, dar un impulso a la lucha antimonopolista-anticapitalista, a elaboraciones que se basan en las exigencias de la lucha de clases y pueden contribuir significativamente en la preparación del factor subjetivo, en la concentración de fuerzas obreras y populares en la lucha por el derrocamiento del capitalismo y la construcción del socialismo-comunismo.
Communist Party of Italy – Contribution to the scientific conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Communist Party of Italy – Contribution to the scientific conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/communist-party-of-italy-contribution.html
Communist Party of Italy.
Contribution at the Scientific Conference in honor 
of the 100 years since the October Revolution.
Leningrad, August 10-13, 2017.
A hundred years ago scientific socialism became reality. Until then, Marxism had only been theorized within the First International and applied to the class struggle in conditions of bourgeois domination; after that, it became reality for a short while, during the Paris Commune, showing that the proletarian revolution was not only possible, but even necessary. With the October Revolution, Marxism is applied to building Socialism, as the first step in the construction of the Communist society.
This event gave world’s history an overwhelming impulse. Just to recall some of the main contributions that the USSR gave to the historical revolutionary process: the resistance to the imperialist aggression during the civil war, the push to the construction of Communist parties all over the world, the birth of the USSR and the solution of the problem of nationalities, the collapse of colonialism, the construction of socialism through the proletarian dictatorship and the centralized planning of the economy, the defeat of nazi-fascism by the Red Army and the support to the Partisan movement in Europe and Asia, the fast post-war reconstruction, the high cultural and social level achieved by the people not only in the USSR, but also in the People’s Democracies, the priceless contribution to anti-imperialist and class struggle allover the world.
These facts really changed history and the world. Today, a hundred years after that epic event, communists are called to think about the causes of real socialism’s collapse. Why? The question is simple and the answer is obvious: it would be unrealistic to propose that experience again after a century, if we did not understand the causes of its collapse or if we considered it as an “unavoidable” event, due to intrinsic flaws of the socialist construction.
On the contrary, we want to reaffirm (leaving room to further constructive contributions) the sole real alternative to capitalist barbarity and its substantial burn-out we can witness every day is scientific Socialism, based on the proletarian dictatorship and the centralized planning of the economy. According to our standpoint, this is what was built in the USSR and the People’s Democracies.
If 1917 marks the starting date of that construction, we consider 1953-56 as the starting period of its degenerative decline. Why do we adopt this three years period ? In 1953 Stalin died, and we will consider the events came up just after that and led, in 1956, to crucial congresses (the CPSU XXth in the USSR and the ICP’s VIIIth in Italy) which gave way to the degenerative turn. What did those events cause. Did they suddenly changed the nature of those Parties, which adopted the new political line? Did they suddenly changed the nature of the proletarian states, turning them into bourgeoisie-ruled states? Or did these parties and states keep the way of socialist construction until their collapse in 1989/1991? The two different answers would lead either to reject those experiences since their modification, or to reaffirm their validity up to the last moment of their existence, despite their well known limits.
Emotions do not help in giving an answer to this double-faceted set of questions. How can one sincerely reject the well-educated, united, economically and scientifically developed society, created in the Socialist countries and the people’s democracies? How can one negate their support to the liberation and anti-colonialist movements across the world? How can one overlook the contrast to warmongering imperialism? Turning to Italy, how can one negate the positive role, played by the Italian Communist Party and its sections, which nurtured the class consciousness of millions workers, rescued and strengthened their social rights?
On the other hand, we cannot forget that the Socialist society, as well as the Communist parties, a long before Gorbachev and Occhetto (the last ICP’s secretary general, who proclaimed its dissolution in 1991), were infected by a germ we are still studying. As we are Marx’s disciples, endowed with the instrument of historical materialism, we must connect all political and ideological processes to class and production relations, existing in the society. We must pay attention to both primary and secondary relations.
The ideological clash in the USSR.
Opposite to what, normally, is considered as the “historical truth”, at Stalin’s time the political debate in the USSR was far from being inhibited or paralyzed by “terror”. We can perceive this circumstance by reading one of the last works by Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., written of 1952, where he criticized some comrades that were expressing different opinions in full freedom. By reading this interesting text, we can understand the economic debate in the USSR, as it was at that time, as well as its further political evolution.
 
The two lines.
During the whole period of socialist construction, two main political lines were confronting, revealing different ideological approaches, especially regarding the economic policy. The first line is represented by the line of thought, from Bucharin to Gorbachev, passing through Khrushchev and Kosygin. Bucharin opposed the accelerated end of the NEP, the priority of heavy industry development and the kolkhoz-based collectivization in rural areas, relaunching the concept of individual farms; Khrushchev, in the aftermath of Stalin’s death, sold machines and tractors’ stations to collective farms; Kosygin (and the economists of the 60’s) confirmed Khrushchev’s reforms; this process went on until the announced disaster of Gorbachev, who legalized the parallel economy, allowing it to finally poison the Soviet society, and canceled the leading role of the Party up to Socialism’s dismantling.
The second line is the one carried out by Stalin until his death, which finds full application in the five-year plans, the countryside collectivization and the constantly growing role of the socialized economy, centrally directed and controlled by the working class at the expense of the market’s influence in the Socialist society.
Here, we want to recall another loyal exponent of this line: Andrey Zhdanov. The year before his untimely death in 1948, he chaired the first Cominform’s meeting, where the ground was laid for the response to the growing threat by imperialism, the condemnation of the Titoist betrayal, the criticism of political opportunism of some western Communist parties (the Italian and French parties among the others), and for the acceleration of Socialist construction in the People’s democracies. Stalin’s point of view stems directly from his last work, Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR (February 1st, 1952), where he draws clearly his own vision about the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR and the relations between socialized production and the market.
Among the goals outlined, there is the following: «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, cooperative, and collective-farm — should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity».
Stalin, as a dialectical materialist, points out the route that the integral implementation of the proletarian dictatorship must follow during Socialism’s construction: commodities’ production for trade in the goods’ market cannot be immediately abolished. The aim is to decisively remove from trading the capitalist conditions and the control over it. Stalin goes on: «It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private ownership of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its “money economy,” is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production».
What Stalin is saying here is that production, not distribution, does determine the real nature of the society. The market existed well before capitalism and could last even under a socialist economy for a certain period, but only if the relations of production are held firmly by the working class and the market is not allowed to generate new forms of capitalist accumulation, that impede Socialism or conflict with it. The various “if”‘s in italic Stalin puts in his discourse to underline the necessary conditions, are real nails in the coffin of capitalism, but they have been torn away one by one after his death.
In the following passage, Stalin approaches the issue of the Law of value. This law states that the commodities’ value entirely lies in the amount of human labor therein, either as previously accumulated labor (dead work) or, as newly incorporated labor through the current productive cycle (living work). Does this law exist and how does it operate under socialism? Stalin answers: «It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system. Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist. In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the exchange of commodities through purchase and sale, the exchange, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator. But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account.
 
Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing. Under present conditions, it really is not a bad thing, since it trains our business executives to conduct production on rational lines and disciplines them…. But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the
sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds. It has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production is restricted and placed within definite bounds by our system. The same must be said of the sphere of operation of the law of value. Undoubtedly, the fact that private ownership of the means of production does not exist, and that the means of production both in town and country are socialized, cannot but restrict the sphere of operation of the law of value and the extent of its influence on production. In this same direction operates the law of balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy, which has superseded the law of competition and anarchy of production. In this same direction, too, operate our yearly and five-yearly plans and our economic policy generally, which are based on the requirements of the law of balanced development of the national economy. The effect of all this, taken together, is that the sphere of operation of the law of value in our country
is strictly limited, and that the law of value cannot under our system function as the regulator of production. … Value, like the law of value, is a historical category connected with the existence of commodity production. With the disappearance of commodity production, value and its forms and the law of value also disappear. In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately – by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods. As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society’s demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies.
Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion that under our present economic system, in the first phase of development of Communist society, the law of value regulates the “proportions” of labour distributed among the various branches of production.
If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are the most profitable, are not being developed to the utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and sometimes altogether unprofitable. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which are still unprofitable and where the labour of the worker does not yield the “proper returns,” are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable and where the labour of the workers might yield “big returns,” are not opened.
If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable — in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the “proportions” of labour distributed among the branches of production. Obviously, if we were to follow the lead of these comrades, we should have to cease giving primacy to the production of means of production in favour of the production of articles of consumption. And what would be the effect of ceasing to give primacy to the production of the means of production? The effect would be to destroy the possibility of the continuous expansion of our national economy, because the national economy cannot be continuously expanded with out giving primacy to the production of means of production.
These comrades forget that the law of value can be a regulator of production only under capitalism, with private ownership of the means of production, and competition, anarchy of production, and crises of overproduction. They forget that in our country the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law. Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of balanced development of the national economy and economic planning annul the principle of profitableness of production. That is quite untrue. It is just the other way round. If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question, then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning, which save us from periodical economic crises disruptive to the national economy and causing tremendous material damage to society, and which ensure a continuous and high rate of expansion of our national economy.
In brief, there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a “regulator of the proportions” of labour distributed among the various branches of production». Why did we report this extensive quotation? Within it, we find the core of the question of the production relations’ regulation in the USSR, lately undermined by the reforms, carried out after Stalin’s death: it was not possible to “revise” the construction of Socialism without bringing into question this point, concerning the essential material basis of Socialist construction. Stalin identifies the role of the law of value in the domain of production rationalization, but he excludes it affects distribution proportions among productive sectors, such as agriculture, heavy and light industry. This proportion can only be fixed in a political way by the Plan, as a goal to be pursued. Can this be realized without taking into consideration technical and economical restrictions and relations within society? Of course, it cannot. I can fix by my will, that I want to reach a certain place by my car: this does not depend on the laws of physics, nevertheless I must take into account the restrictions, imposed by the same laws, like distance, weight, speed, fuel consumption, traffic, etc…
Stalin goes on: «Balanced development of the national economy, and hence, economic planning, which is a more or less faithful reflection of this law, can yield nothing by themselves, if it is not known for what purpose economic development is planned, or if that purpose is not clear. The law of balanced development of the national economy can yield the desired result only if there is a purpose for the sake of which economic development is planned».
In the same text, Stalin had previously stated: «The same must be said of the laws of economic development, the laws of political economy – whether in the period of capitalism or in the period of socialism. Here, too, the laws of economic development, as in the case of natural science, are objective laws, reflecting processes of economic development which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them and, relying upon them, utilize them in the interests of society, impart a different direction to the destructive action of some of the laws, restrict their sphere of action, and allow fuller scope to other laws that are forcing their way to the forefront; but he cannot destroy them or create new economic laws. One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws. However, these laws are not abolished, but lose their validity owing to the new economic conditions and depart from the scene in order to give place to new laws, laws which are not created by the will of man, but which arise from the new economic conditions»
Stalin becomes very concrete in answering some comrades. In the first answer, addressed to Alexander Ilic Notkin, he says: «To equate a part of the means of production (raw materials) with the means of production, including the implements of production, is to sin against Marxism, because Marxism considers that the implements of production play a decisive role compared with all other means of production. Everyone knows that, by themselves, raw materials cannot produce implements of production, although certain kinds of raw material are necessary for the production of implements of production, while no raw material can be produced without implements of production. Consequently, it cannot be denied that the law of value does influence the formation of prices of agricultural raw materials, that it is one of the factors in this process. But still less can it be denied that its influence is not, and cannot be, a regulating one».
Here, the eventuality to step back in the construction of Socialism is totally excluded. Socialism here seems to be measured by, not made of, the ratio between socialized economy and the remnants of mercantile economy. The second answer, addressed to L.D. Yaroschenko, is of the greatest importance to understand Stalin’s conception of the relation between subjective factor, the political one, and technical organizational factor: «Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a “rational organization of the productive forces,” and the transition from socialism to communism will take place without any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism. He plainly declares that “under socialism, the basic struggle for the building of a communist society reduces itself to a struggle for the proper organization of the productive forces and their rational utilization in social production.” It is not true, in the second place that the production, i.e., the economic, relation lose their independent role under socialism, that they are absorbed by the productive forces, that social production under socialism is reduced to the organization of the productive forces.
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». Here too we can appreciate the two distinctive aspects of Stalin’s thought: primacy of the political will over technical aspects, necessity of a lasting and unceasing guidance towards the limitation of the mercantile area of the production and distribution, in favor of socialized production and distribution.
In the third answer, to A.V. Sanina e V.C. Vensger, Stalin focuses on a technical issue, which will later acquire a great political value during Khrushchev’s reformation period. «Assuming for a moment that we accepted Comrades Sanina’s and Venzher’s proposal and began to sell the basic implements of production, the machine and tractor stations, to the collective farms as their property. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be, first, that the collective farms would become the owners of the basic instruments of production; that is, their status would be an exceptional one, such as is not shared by any other enterprise in our country, for, as we know, even the nationalized enterprises do not own their instruments of production. Can it be said that such a status would facilitate the elevation of collective-farm property to the level of public property, that it would expedite the transition of our society from socialism to communism? The outcome would be, secondly, an extension of the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, because a gigantic quantity of instruments of agricultural production would come within its orbit.

Would it not be truer to say that our advance towards communism would only be retarded by it? Comrades Sanina’s and Venzher’s basic error lies in the fact that they do not understand the role and significance of commodity circulation under socialism; that they do not understand that commodity circulation is incompatible with the prospective transition from socialism to communism.

They evidently think that the transition from socialism to communism is possible even with commodity circulation, that commodity circulation can be no obstacle to this. That is a profound error, arising from an inadequate grasp of Marxism.

What, then, does the collective farm own? Where is the collective-farm property which it disposes of quite freely, at its own discretion? This property of the collective farm is its product, the product of collective farming: grain, meat, butter, vegetables, cotton, sugar beet, flax, etc., not counting the buildings and the personal husbandry of the collective farmers on their household plots. The fact is that a considerable part of this product, the surplus collective-farm output, goes into the market and is thus included in the system of commodity circulation. It is precisely this circumstance which now prevents the elevation of collective-farm property to the level of public property. It is therefore precisely from this end that the work of elevating collective farm property to the level of public property must be tackled. Such a system, by contracting the sphere of operation of commodity circulation, will facilitate the transition from socialism to communism». It is impossible to be clearer.
What happened after Stalin’s death, when Khrushchev’s reforms started? As a first step, machinery and tractors’ stations were sold to Kolchoz. This laid the foundations for the restoration of capitalist accumulation in the USSR. What happened after Khrushchev’s removal from office on October 15th, 1964, when the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet accepted his resignation from the leadership? The policy to withdraw from the full social property of the means of production and the restrictions to mercantile commodity circulation went on. Here we cite an article by the economist E. Liberman, appeared on Novosti, November 9th, 1964. “Stimulated in pursuing high revenues, the enterprise itself will find in its plans the best ratio between quantitative and qualitative indexes. It will become easier, then, to fulfill the basic principle, upon which what is important for society must be important for every single corporation and worker. […] when the necessity of a substantial renovation of the planning system will come to evidence, it will be necessary to elaborate a sole general criterion, free from both corporate concepts and subjective stratification” (Piano e profitto nell’Economica Sovietica, Editori Riuniti, 1965, pp. 163-166).
Under the pretext, that the centralized planning was too “rigorous and inefficient”, a line of lack of principles and exclusive attention to indexes was adopted and liberalism started affecting Soviet economy. Contrary to Stalin’s standpoint, the task was no longer to achieve the fixed goal, but to move in the most “efficient” way, no matter in what direction. Just to refresh the example of the car trip, it’s like if the driver were now following the most rapid route without a precise destination: the only important thing is the lack of traffic or heavy slopes.
The fateful 1953.
The events following Stalin’s death and those before the XXth Congress are actually impressive. Here we list them following a geographical criterion just to highlight the impact they had not only on the USSR, but also on People’s democracies, as well as on the respective Communist and Workers parties, just to give an idea of the earthquake occurred.
 
USSR.
In the immediate aftermath of Stalin’s death, Lavrenti Beria, one of his nearest collaborators, was imprisoned and sentenced to death. Notwithstanding the infamous accusation of being a spy of British imperialism and other charges later invented by Kruschev, Beria had been the leader of Soviet intelligence that put an end to repressions started in 1937, for which Ezhov was the major responsible.
 
Differently from the Moscow trials, which condemned the block of Bucharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev after legal trials, about which we have detailed information, charge proofs against Beria were never provided.
 
Poland
Bolesław Bierut, Komintern’s officer in the USSR (back in Warsaw in 1943), was one of the commanders during the anti-nazi Resistance, and the first President of the People’s Republic of Poland (1947-1952). After the Presidency, he substituted Władysław Gomułka as the Secretary General of the Unified Polish Workers Party and appointed Prime Minister (1952-1954). He died in Moscow, while heading the Party’s delegation to the CPSU XXth Congress. Władisław Gomułka was accused of “nationalist deviationism”, removed from all his offices
(1948-1949), expelled from the Party (1949) and imprisoned (1951). Released in 1954 and rehabilitated in 1956, he was re-elected Secretary General of UPWP and the following year became member of the State Council. He started his own reforms program, based on the idea of a “national way to Socialism”.
 
Hungary.
Mátyás Rákosi was the Secretary General of the Hungarian Communist Party between 1945-1956. He took part in the government held by Béla Kun under the Soviet Hungarian Republic; after its fall, he fled to the USSR, where he became one of the leaders of Comintern. In august 1952, Rákosi was appointed Prime Minister, but on June 13th 1953, he was invited to Moscow and obliged to resign in favor of Imre Nagy. In January 1955 the CPSU Politburo again summoned at the Kremlin all the Hungarian leaders and violently attacked Nagy. However, a few months after the XXth congress, in July 28th 1956, Rákosi was obliged to resign from the Party Secretariat, and to sign a humiliating self-criticism, where he took upon himself the absurd responsibility for the events that will occur shortly later in Hungary.
 
Czechoslovakia.
Klement Gottwald. One of the founders of the Czech Communist Party, Secretary General of the KSČ from 1929 to 1945 and Comintern Secretary from 1935 to 1943. Between 1945 and 1946 he was deputy Prime Minister, then Prime Minister until 1948 and President from 1948 to 1953. Gottwald died in 1953 in Moscow, only five days after Stalin’s funerals, in which he took part, on
March 9th.
 
DDR.
Walter Ulbricht. He has been heading the illegal Communist Party during Nazism, then he fled to Paris and in 1938 moved to Moscow. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Ulbricht was one of the leaders of the Comintern. After Stalin’s death, on March 5th 1953, Ulbricht was charged with cult of personality.
Italy.
Pietro Secchia. One of the undisputed leaders, along with Luigi Longo, of the Italian antifascist Resistance. In December 1947, Secchia traveled to Moscow and had long conversations with Zhdanov and Stalin, being entrusted with forwarding their harshest criticisms about the guidance of the Italian Communist Party, led by Togliatti. This criticism are confirmed by the hard fight Secchia engaged inside the leadership of the ICP.
 
«I do not propose», Secchia said, «to change our line or to adopt two lines, but we must not deceive ourselves, we must be conscious that this fight becomes more and more difficult… We must think about broader, harder and firmer fights, [without excluding the possibility of] being engaged in the near future in a fight different from the legal one, in a violent fight against reactionary groups, keeping in mind that the sole way to achieve victory is to act through broad unitary actions…». He concludes: «Today, the Italian situation, in my opinion, is still favorable for unleashing an offensive, we have forces to do this and, if the enemy will try to block us by violence, we still dispose of such a force potential to break their violence and lead the Italian workers to the final victory».
 
This policy was reported, in Italy, at the VIth Congress of the Italian Communist Party, which took place in Milan on January 4th, 1948. The report is heavily self-critical, «it reflects the criticism from the outside» Secchia contentedly commented, and warning against “constitutional illusions”, he alerted: «We follow a democratic line, but we will not let any provocation, any reactionary plan to take us unprepared. We acquired the experience of the partisan war». In that moment, no need was to add anything more to be clearly understood by those delegates. The new Central Committee, in its first session, elects the Party’s Directing Committee, the Secretary General and the Vice-Secretary. Togliatti and Longo were confirmed again in these positions. Anyway, this decision caused Secchia’s protest and a firm disappointment of the CPSU, to the extent Togliatti was obliged to find an immediate solution. Without even waiting for a new session of the C.C., Togliatti wrote a letter to the CC members, for them to immediately vote Secchia for Deputy Secretary General, along with Longo. Secchia was the Head of the Organization Department of the CC and, under his leadership, the Party reaches its highest political and organizational point, with two million members. “In the history of the Italian movement there never have been such a spontaneous, compact and extended general strike like the one of July 14-16th, 1948», Secchia commented after the attempt against Togliatti. The strike of July 14th had just been the first “great demonstration of unity, of class and national consciousness” and others will come. “The party – Secchia continued -, “has become under the ideological, political and organizational point of view thanks to this strike”. In 1954, the Seniga affair (Seniga was Secchia’s closest assistant, who fled away with the Party’s cash and many important documents) weakened Secchia’s position to the extent that he had to resign from the Organization Department, being excluded from the Secretariat too. Secchia also, like Rakosi, had to sign a humiliating self-criticism which paved the way for the final victory of Togliatti’s line.
 
Criticisms against the USSR.
Criticism against the USSR is not new and comes from the most different sources. Here, we want to briefly report the one by the Trozkyite wing, which broke up with the party a long before 1953, and the one by the Maoist wing, just to clarify the distance between us and them: a sidereal distance from the former, and a considerable one from the latter.
 
The Trozkyite wing.
As it is notorious, Trozky was used to talking of “Degenerated workers’ State”, accusing the bureaucratic “caste” which allegedly came to power after his expulsion. In the following years, Trozky himself had to admit the non-scientific character of the term “caste” and its scarce adherence with Marxist theory, given that it does not describe any kind of production relation. It is like saying that society is founded on theft: it’s a commonplace that does not describe who produces, what produces and why he does that. Coming back to Trozky’s “caste” theory, we find out that it is defined not as a class, but as a generic category of people, identified through sociological and psychological aspects. This theory unveils the personal aversion of its author to the Soviet leading group, who had reduced him to a scant minority, basing on a clear political line.
Trozky’s disciples are more refined and they are well aware of this serious gap. They defined the “caste” as a true class that imposes exploiting production relations on Soviet society, replacing the old bourgeoisie. According to this view, Socialism would have created a new class of appropriators of surplus value, produced by the working class. This interpretation is hardly justifiable from a Marxist point of view. In fact, in the USSR the property of the means of production was not private but public and, consequently, any kind of appropriation by the “caste” would have had the character of mere individual appropriation, not of capitalist class exploitation.
This question does not scrape Trozkyite critics, who solve the problem in the most simple way ever: by inventing new specially-made categories. As property belongs to the Soviet State, thus, we are talking of “State capitalism”, tracing back to Lenin’s definition of a completely different historical period, like the one of the NEP. No matter if there is no production of goods for profit to be realized on the market. The “Caste” is not the capitalist bourgeoisie? It does not matter: they coin the definition of a new class and new production relations, allegedly created by socialism, inventing a new stage, “more” supreme than imperialism. What does really matters for them is to “imitate” some Marxist and Leninist concepts, with no care of their coherence with the rest of the theory.

Titoism belongs to the same category of opponents, who collided with the socialist field in 1948. Here too, arguments stand on a non-scientific level, focused on distribution aspects with no connection to production relations, often resulting in pure tautology (“Capitalist State strengthens capitalism, Socialist State strengthens Socialism”).
All these gaps do not escape to more able Trozkyite thinkers, who are more used to Marxist theory, such as Ernest Mandel. He highlights that some features of capitalism are lacking in the USSR: the law of the maximum profit, that pushes capitalists to invest in the most profitable sectors, does not operate, since the heavy industry is more favored; there are no capital exports, no economic cyclic crises, no private international trade, no reserve army of labor. 
In our opinion, these features have been existing in the USSR more or less until Gorbachev’s reforms. However, Mandel too, at least, is obliged to take shelter in the distribution issue. Obviously, in order to give these ghosts substance, he too was obliged to invoke “the exclusion of proletarians from corporate administration”, “the regime of terror and espionage” and the “soviet expansionism”, up to the most vulgar lies from the dirtiest bourgeois trash. Our duty is to clean away the waste, tossed on real socialism.

The Maoist wing.
The other wing that opposed the USSR after the XXth Congress was the one led by the Chinese Communist Party, headed by Mao Tzetung, and by the Albanian Party of Work, headed by Enver Hoxha.
The controversy came out gradually, about Stalin’s heritage defense and the concept of peaceful coexistence. Actually, the controversy did not patently came out until 1960. A record from the Moscow Conference between the 81 Communist and Workers parties says: «The popular republics of Albania, Hungary, Germany, Viet Nam, China, Korea, Mongolia, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, together with the great Soviet Union, constitute the mighty socialist field» And «The Communist and Workers Parties unanimously declare that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been and still is the universally recognized vanguard of the world Communist movement, being the most expert and trained contingent of the international Communist movement … 
The historical resolutions of the XXth CPSU Congress are not only of great importance for the CPSU and for the construction of Communism in the USSR, but they also started a new stage of the worldwide nCommunist movement, promoted and developed on the ground of Marxism-Leninism». The controversy initially mounted in an indirect way, without mentioning parties and leaders, then it became more stinging, by attacking such leaders, as Togliatti in 1962/1963 and Khrushchev in 1964, accusing him of being a revisionist (the Work Party of Albania already did that in 1962). Soviets replied with the counter-charge of breakaway activity.
Later, the controversy turned from ideology to the relationship between states, leading to the breach of diplomatic relations and trade cooperation. We will not mention here the breach between the Workers Party of Albany and the Communist Party of China after Mao’s death and the criticism by Enver Hoxha of the Cultural Revolution in China. We want to focus on some aspects of the Sino-Soviet controversy. From an ideological point of view, the Maoist criticism on the subject of the Soviet system after Stalin could be closer to our criticism of opportunism from Khruschev to Gorbachev, but the mode it took since the second half of the ’60s is unacceptable.
First, the charge of the USSR with “social-imperialism” does not have any Marxist scientific basis. In the USSR, until 1988, if a primitive capitalist accumulation existed, it was far from being dominant and, in any case, from the five features identifying imperialism, according to Lenin. The “Hoxhaist” version, according to which Kruschev wanted to impose on Albanians the construction of Socialism without the working class, by placing Albania in a given sector of the division of labor and cooperation within the Socialist area, reports a typical opportunist attitude, lacking in ideology, that focuses on the result without considering who, for whom, why and how that result should be achieved. This kind of argument in any case cannot define the USSR as an imperialist power.
In the 70’s the Maoist-Hoxhaist wing charged the Soviet leading group with the accusation of having turned the country of Socialism into a fascist one, dominated by a a bureaucratic-militarist “caste”. The absurdity of this charge is evident and it is not necessary to waste time in objecting that even basic prerequisites, supporting this thesis, do not exist in the real world. At the end of Mao’s life, Chinese policy became more and more embarrassing. This circumstance became evident not only with the rupture with the Socialist field, that such leaders as Kim Il Sung and Ceausescu tried to prevent, but also later, with the “thawing” towards the USA. Until that point, the Chinese Communist Party was accusing the USSR of being too submissive to imperialism. After the growth of the controversy, the USSR became the “main enemy”, considered more “aggressive” than the USA, that were supposed to be in a defensive position. Among the other consequences, this deviation led China to undermine the support to anti-colonial movements, as it happened in Angola. The crisis of relations with the USSR resulted also in a territorial dispute along the Siberian
border.

Our analysis.
In the following lines, we propose our own arguments about the reason of socialism’s fall in the USSR and the People’s democracies. The analysis starts from an economic examination of the evolution (or involution) of society, with the creation of a parallel economy out of public control, which allowed capital re-accumulation and the re-organization of a reborn bourgeoisie in antisocialist
political groups.
These groups, skillfully supported by western imperialism, initially infiltrated the Party, undermining its authority and prestige, then led it to a substantial incapacity of ruling society. How could those people and those ideas rise and make their way in the Party and Soviet society?
In our opinion, the answer is the following:
– In Socialist society interests, opposing the full enforcement of the proletarian dictatorship, continue to exist. We are not talking of the big agrarian and industrial bourgeoisie, which was eliminated, but small dealers and businessmen, who find the possibility to realize an original wealth accumulation, which cannot be defined as a capitalistic one yet;
– these groups, small but powerful and wealthy, find are connected to the “economicistic” wing of the Party. This wing is not Marxist-based, it lacks in principles and prioritizes results rather than values, the amount of road traveled rather than the direction taken. It is basically wanting to get out from the working class dictatorship;
– these two groups, supporting each other, manage to become prominent in the party and society; the shell formally remains unaltered, as well as the apparent features of the society. Step by step, both the parallel economy and the parallel ideology find their way. If, to a certain extent, the parallel economy was able to fill eventual gaps of the centrally planned economy, slowly it turned into the cause of these gaps: robbery and embezzlement grow, and neither a party that is losing ideological principles, nor a state that lost its class characteristics, being declared “state of the whole people”, can fight this drift;
– at a certain moment the break occurs: economic groups became so strong and powerful that they bring into question even the existence of such a super-structural crust, as the Communist Party, which is no longer needed to cover their parallel activities. The Party, where a confrontation between the Marxist-Leninist part and the opportunists is going on, became an obstacle to their goals;
– the prevalence of opportunists in the leading group of the CPSU discredited the Party in front of the working class and the people, while the delay of reaction and the lack in mobilization capacity by the revolutionary forces remaining in the Party brought to its selfdissolution by means of the betrayal of the group, headed by its Secretary General, supported by the imperialist circles;
– at this point, the way was paved for the destruction of Socialism and the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the other republics of the USSR. The biggest assault in history to the people’s wealth began. 
Summarizing, in our opinion, a dominant “caste” never existed: the cases of robbery and embezzlement did not alter the class nature of society until they gave birth to a parallel system of “black” economy.
The crisis and the degenerative process were generated outside the Communist Party, but were carried into it, due to a lack in surveillance and alertness, especially from the ideological point of view: this is a typical feature of opportunism. The economic structure of the Soviet system remained mainly socialist until the reforms by Gorbachev, even if the causes of its own fall were growing inside it.
 
Conclusions
We hardly can definitely draw some conclusions, even if temporary, because the issues herein deserve the most accurate study in order to synthesize various experiences in different countries. Nonetheless, avoiding to answer the question highlighted in this work, is an obstacle to the ideological relaunch of the international Communist movement. These answers should give new oxygen and new lymph to the Communists’ struggle allover the world.

We have a great theory behind us, Marxism-Leninism, and a great history also: the history of the USSR and the Socialist countries.

Finally, we have a great task too: to change the world.
Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) – The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today
| August 14, 2017 | 8:18 pm | Party of Communists USA, Russia, USSR | No comments

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) – The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/party-of-communists-usa-pcusa-october.html
The October Revolution: A Beacon for Americans Today.
Contribution of the Party of Communists, USA (PCUSA) at the Scientific Conference in honor of the 100 years since the October Revolution.
Leningrad, August 10-13, 2017.
This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the socialist revolution in Russia. It was the first time that the working class anywhere in the world was able to seize and hold power. The revolution grew out of the conditions of imperialism and the First World War. Russia had been ruled by a tsar, or emperor, making it one of the most reactionary regimes in Europe.
In the 1930’s, when the entire capitalist world sank into depression, and tens of millions were left jobless and starving (much like today), the Soviet Union was forging ahead building a new society without unemployment and hunger. They transformed a country with a 90% illiteracy rate into one in which nearly everyone could read and write.
The Soviet Union not only freed the workers but also fought against racism and sexism. The great Afro-American activist Paul Robeson said about his trips to the Soviet Union, “I felt like a human being for the first time since I grew up. Here I am not a Negro but a human being.”
Achievements of the Revolution.
Under the Bolsheviks the last serfs of Europe were freed and the country was transformed into a modern, industrialized socialist state. The prison house of nations became the community of nations.
The Soviet Constitution abolished racism and every man and woman were guaranteed the right to work, A 40-hour work week, social security, housing, food, education, and medical care were the law. Child labor was abolished; Homosexuality was decriminalized; and Women for the first time were granted the right to vote, hold office, and were paid the same wages as men.
Influence Abroad: The West Invaded and later Pushed “Reforms” to forestall Revolution.
Fearing the spread of Soviet socialist revolution, Winston Churchill remarked, “We have to strangle the baby in the cradle.” Thus in 1918, an Expeditionary Force consisting of 17 nations and 22 legions invaded the young Soviet Union. It was during this war that the British army first used chemical weapons in battle. Over 8 million people were killed, but the Soviets defended their revolution and the invaders were expelled by 1921.
The benefits of the Bolshevik Revolution were not limited to Russia alone. The 40-hour work week, minimum wage, social security, abolition of child labor, free education, the right to clean water, and many other concessions that Americans now take for granted are a by-product of socialism. President Roosevelt did not “give” these concessions. It was the militancy of workers led by a young, militant American communist party who were inspired by the example of their Russian comrades.
The Soviet Union Rescues the World from Nazism.
When Mussolini, Hitler, and the rest of the Fascists unleased war upon the world, it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the attack. The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the Second World War. The total number of Soviet lives lost exceeded 22 million.
The accomplishments of building socialism and defeating fascism are a tribute to the leadership of the Communist Party and its General Secretary Joseph Stalin. Communists are reviled by anti-communist “historians” in the pay of world capitalism for this reason.
During the post-war period, the Soviet Union became a beacon for workers in the West that demanded greater concessions from their capitalist masters. The USSR with its policy of proletarian internationalism, provided a shining example to national liberation movements throughout; Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
To destroy the Allied alliance which included the Soviet Union, finance capital replaced Henry Wallace with Harry Truman on the Democratic Party ticket in 1944. Truman became President when President Roosevelt died. The Truman administration started the Cold War, which began with the first use of nuclear weapons that were dropped on civilian centers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It was Karl Marx who said we should “question everything.” It was Lenin that pointed out in history we must view everything from a class viewpoint; who benefits from capitalist policy?
The Capitalist-owned mass media began a propaganda war falsifying history against the Soviets and their allies, concealing their true motives for dropping those nuclear bombs on Japan. Western Capitalists spent trillions of dollars over many decades trying to defeat socialism militarily. Unable to defeat the USSR with an escalating arms race, the Western powers funded a counter-revolution inside the country led by Mikhail Gorbachev and other traitors. The Soviet Union did not collapse. She was betrayed by paid anti-communist forces within Russia.
Lessons to Be Learned.
We know from our study of history that the return of capitalism to the USSR is a temporary historical setback. Without the USSR and a strong world communist movement to act as a brake on capital, we live in an era of widening imperialist wars, fascist attacks on the working class, mass unemployment, drug addiction, diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C killing millions.
Our movement is daily studying to learn from the Soviet Union’s great battles and achievements as well as the human errors that led to her deliberate destruction. The main lesson we learned from the tragic collapse of the USSR is that reformism and concessions to capitalism only lead workers to defeat, and a life of poverty and insecurity.
We honor the bold fight by the workers and peasants in the Bolshevik Revolution against capitalism and for a working-class socialist world.
Today, we must organize workers, students and soldiers in the USA to build a mass working class Party that will turn this era of imperialism into a new, higher stage of human development called socialism.
From our historic viewpoint, the Soviet experiment was not a failure. It was a successful first step towards building a scientific socialist society. Its success can be measured by the economic reforms that workers in the US and the West have today. It’s no accident that the quality of life for workers in capitalist countries has deteriorated substantially since 1992, the year the USSR went out of existence. The success of national liberation movements in China, Vietnam, DPRK (North Korea), Cuba, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, and Angola to be free of colonial oppression are a direct result of the Leninist policy of Soviet proletarian internationalism.
Let us be inspired by the shining example of October to create a new, socialist-communist world free of all exploitation and imperialist war! Long live the example of the 1917 Revolution! Peace, land, bread!
We Communists have been peace activists all our political lives. That is why we find life today so troubling. The two USA parties of monopoly capitalism, the Democrats and Republicans, worship war and military spending. Along the way, they corrupt the minds of workers and promote hatred among peoples. It has been suggested that the leaders of these parties are addicts, that they are addicted to war. The truth is that the capitalist economic and social system that these parties represent cannot exist without war and conquest.
We founded the PCUSA in 2014 precisely because we saw the urgent need to build a strong Communist movement in the United States that would not tap dance around the peace issue. We need a fearless voice to represent the working class on the peace question. This is the job of every Communist.
KKE: Statement on the 72 years since the imperialist crime in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Sunday, August 6, 2017

KKE: Statement on the 72 years since the imperialist crime in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/kke-statement-on-72-years-since.html
On the occasion of the 72 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Press Office of the CC of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) issued the following statement:
 
“This year marks the 72nd anniversary since the U.S. imperialist crime in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an act which did not serve any military need against the- already defeated- Japan, but the intimidation of the people, of the Soviet Union and the then rising socialist system and communist movement. Thousands of people lost their lives from the dropping of the atomic bombs, while thousands continue dying every year as a result of radioactivity’s consequences. 
Today, 72 years later, the people continue facing the most repulsive product of capitalist barbarity, the imperialist war. The sharpening of the antagonisms between states and monopolies, for the distribution of markets and energy resources, across the world and especially in our region, consist the cause of military interventions, of the dozens local and regional wars, of borders’ redrawing, with the people being the victims and thousands of refugees and uprooted ones. They increase the risk of a generalized imperialist war. They confirm the need for the workers-people’s movement to be firmly in the direction of the struggle against imperialist war and its causes. 
 
All the above prove how fake and misleading is the argument of the SYRIZA-ANEL government that Greece consists “an ‘islet’ of securityand stability” in a burning region. And all these when the current government, like the previous ones, willingly and actively participates in all the dangerous plans of the USA, NATO, EU in the region. The government has legitimized NATO’s presence in the Aegean, expands NATO’s bases in Greece and has supported all NATO’s decisions which, within the context of competion especially with Russia, move towards actions that can cause a real holocaust to the people of Europe and general. 
 
Capitalism cannot be humanited, it can neither give solutions to the basic problems of the people nor secure peace for the people. The imperialist wars will exist as long as the power is in the hands of the capitalists.
 
For that reason, the struggle for disengagement from NATO and all the imperialist organisations, the struggle for the defense of the country’s borders and sovereign rights, for the disengagement from imperialist wars and interventions, is inseparable from the struggle for the overthrow of the capital’s power, with the sovereign peoples and their power. 
 
Source: 902.gr / Translation: In Defense of Communism.
 
* On the 72nd anniversary of the imperialist crime in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Greek Committee of International Detente and Peace (EEDYE) organises in Athens an event in honor of the victims, Tuesday 8 August 2017, at 8 pm at the Acropolis. A similar political event will take place in Thessaloniki, also on Tuesday 8/8. 
The Revision of the Great October on the 20th and 22th Congress of the CPSU

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The Revision of the Great October on the 20th and 22th Congress of the CPSU

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-revision-of-great-october-on-20th.html
By Gyula Thürmer*.
Source: International Communist Review, Issue 7, 2017.
 
Hundred years have passed since the Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed on the 7th of November 1917. The Hungarian Workers’ Party celebrates the Great October as an outstanding event of the universal history, an event that had a decisive influence on the world, the international workers’ movement, and also on Hungary and the fate of the Hungarian workers and toiling masses.
1917 provides a lot of experience and conclusions for the communist and workers’ movement. The conclusions of the Great October are still valid, they serve as a guide for any political force which is fighting against capitalism, in order to construct socialism.
On the other hand, the rejection and revision of 1917, the re-evaluation of its importance has always been the tool of anti-communist, revisionist forces. The conclusions of the Great October have been revised by the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and the 22th congress of the CPSU validated these key points borned under the influence of revisionism in the party’s programme. These decisions had grave consequences for the entire communist and workers’ movement, its effects can still be felt.
Historical lessons of the Great October
  1. The Great October was a socialist revolution.
The contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved within the framework of  capitalism, capitalism  must be replaced by a socialist society. The path to this is the socialist revolution. The Great October opened the epoch of revolutions.
This great epoch is still not over. There were and there will besuccesses and failures, the times of revolutionary recession and periods of revolutionary upsurgeare followingeach other, but this process ultimately leads  to the victory of socialism on a world scale. Now we witness bigger and bigger wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, growing poverty for more and more people, growing population and more and more deteriorating natural environment, increasingly destructive military technologies concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer, better and better technical opportunities and weakening democracy – those are contradictions, which cannot be resolved by capitalism.
  1. The Great October was the revolution of the working class.
1917 was not a  coup d’etat of a small revolutionary group, but it was a social revolution. A historical deed of the working class, the only class interested in the consequent fight against capital. It proved the words of the Communist Manifesto:
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.”[1]
The position of the working class has changed a lot in the recent decades. The internationalization of capital and capitalist competition lend impetus to the concentration and centralization of capital and this development leads to changes in the social structure, while the strengthening of the monopolies sharpens the problems, exerts pressure on and destroys a section of the middle strata. Still the working class in the broad sense of the word – the social class which  owns no capital and must sell its own labour power – today too is the most conscious force in the fight against the capital.
  1. The communists were those who prepared, organised and carried out the first socialist revolution of the world
The Great October proved that among the various currents in the labour movement only the revolutionary, radical line, the communists assume the responsibility and are able to carry out a socialist revolution, only Marxism-Leninism is a reliable ideological weapon.
In the epoch of socialist revolutions the communist and social democratic currents completely and finally broke up. Communists became the carriers of socialist revolutions, while social democracy irrevocably committed themselves to capitalism .
  1. Working masses cannot win and keep the power without a disciplined, organised, built on the principles of democratic centralism Marxist-Leninist party
Against the will of the masses – no matter how organised a small revolutionary group is – no victorious revolutuon is possible. But no matter how much the people wish for a revolutionary change, it’s not possible without an organised and disciplined party.
  1. The prerequisite of the party’s success is the adherence to Marxism-Leninism.
The basis of the communist party’s strength is its ideological purity and the unity of policy and action. While  the basis of the party’s ideological purity is the acceptance and creative application of Marxism-Leninism.
  1. Proletarian internationalism and the international unity of the communist parties are important prerequisites of the success of the revolutionary struggle.
Shortly after the victory of the Great October, in the March of 1918 the 3rd Internationale  started its work, the 3rd Internationale  was so far the biggest institutionalized cooperation in the history of the communist movement.
The importance of proletarian internationalism is not decreasing. Only together communist and workers’ parties can defeat the forces of capitalism.
  1. Socialism should oppose the forces of capitalism with a compelling power. Peaceful co-existence does not mean reconciliation with capitalism but is one of the forms of struggle.
Capital has never forgiven the revolution of 1917. From the first moment it tried to get revenge, to get back its lost positions. We Hungarians rememer well, that in 1919 the Soviet Republic was drown in blood and Miklós Horthy was put into power for more than two decades. In order to eliminate the Soviet Union and communists, the capital unleashed fascism on the world. Without the support and the money of the European big capital there would have never been any Hitler or Mussolini. Capital didn’t care that fascism caused wars and the death of tens of millions. Capital still hasn’t completely lock back the spirit of fascism into the bottle, but takes it out everytime it’s needed. Capital started the cold war (1948-1990) in the name of revenge, and toppled socialist systems in several countries in the 1990’s. In this specific period there was at the same time an opportunist corrosion of the CPs and violations of the laws of socialist construction, which formed conditions for the counterrevolution.  A milestone in this course were the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
The historical place of the CPSU’s 20th congress
On 14-25 February, 1956 the 20th congress of the CPSU took place. The congress was a turning point in the history of the Soviet and the international communist movement. It revised the most basic lessons of 1917. Its decisions determined the way of thinking and the political practices of the communist movement for a long time. Instead of 1917, the historical reference point became 1956, the 20th congress. The reference point in evaluating the debates within the Soviet party started to be the attitude to the 20th century, not to 1917. This determined the relationships with the different communist parties too.
The CPSU tried to make the postulates of the Soviet political thinking to be accepted as dogmas in the international movement, and had much success with it. This largely held back creative thinking. It strenghtened the position of petty bourgeois-opportunist forces within the leaderships of socialist countries.
This period concided with the changes in the basis of the Western European communist parties, the increasing influence of intelligentsia, the decreasing  proportions of actually workers. In Europe eurocommunist parties emerged, which rejected the revolutionary effect of the Great October and the experiences of socialist countries, absolutised the peculiarities of Western European countries, revised the basic principles of Marxism. These views still have a damaging influence on the European communist movement, obstruct the fight of the workers. They reached the point of irrationally and unscientifically arguing that socialism could be constructed through bourgeois parliamentary elections and using the tools of capitalism.
The 20th congress of the CPSU also has played a considerable  role in destroying the earlier existing unity of the socialist countries. From the 60’s the relationship between  the Soviet Union and China became hostile. The positions of China were utilized by US and European imperialism against the Soviet Union.
The 21th extraordinary congress of the CPSU took place between January 27-February 5 1959. Its task was to strenghten the changes in the CPSU’s leadership and Nikita Khrushchev’s power position and to make the elaboration of the CPSU’s new programme quicker.
The CPSU’s 22nd congress on October 17-31 1961 accepted the new programme of the CPSU, and thus implemented a revision of the conclusions of 1917 on the level of the party programme.
In the last decades the Marxist re-evaluation of the CPSU’s 20th congress has begun in the communist movement.
The Hungarian Workers’ Party declared on the 90th anniversary of the Great October: „Capitalist counter-revolutions would have been impossible or very hard to carry out, if there hadn’t been internal causes in some of the socialist countries. The decisive internal cause should be looked for in the leaderships of the socialist countries, where a reformist-opportunist wing emerged and gradually gave up its socialist positions. This political line was felt already after the CPSU’s 20th congress, when several values of socialist construction were rejected with the pretext of eliminating the mistakes of the Stalin-era. The justified and correct criticism of Stalin was used to reject the positive elements of his heritage, to deprive the socialist countries’ societies of the reliable historical consciousness. Evaluating of Stalin according to today’s circumstances, correcting the distortions is the duty of our time”.[2]
The Greek Communist Party has come to the following conlusion after thorough analysis of Soviet socialism:
Following World War II and the post-war reconstruction, socialist construction entered a new phase. The Party was faced with new demands and challenges regarding the development of socialism-communism. The 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956) stands out as a turning point, since at that congress a series of opportunist positions were adopted on matters relating to the economy, the strategy of the communist movement and international relations. The correlation of forces in the struggle being waged during the entire preceding period was altered, with a turn in favor of the revisionist-opportunist positions, with the result that the Party gradually began to lose its revolutionary characteristics. In the decade of the 1980s, with perestroika, opportunism fully developed into a traitorous, counter-revolutionary force. The consistent communist forces that reacted during the final phase of the betrayal, at the 28th CPSU Congress, did not manage in a timely manner to expose it and to organize the revolutionary reaction of the working class.”[3]
The revision of the lessons of Great October’s at the CPSU’s 20th congress
Let’s examine closer the most important questions, in which the CPSU’s 20th congress changed the evaluation of the Great October experience!
Peaceful coexistence
Following a certain detente in the middle of the 1950’s and the gradually established military balance between the Soviet Union and the USA the CPSU’s 20th congress thought that the peaceful coexistence of the two systems means a broad cooperation and the aspect of anticapitalist fight can be put aside.
The congress was right to conclude that there was a certain detente.
Thanks to the consistent peaceful foreign policy of the socialist countries the state of international tension, which was fraught with great danger, has been replaced by a certain détent.”[4]
The congress correctly concluded that the existence of the two world systems is a fact, which determines international relations.
The emergence of socialism from within the bounds of a single country and its transformation into a world system is the main feature of our era. Capitalism has proved powerless to prevent this process of world-historic significance. The simultaneous existance of two opposite  world economic systems, the capitalist and the socialist, developing according to different laws and in opposite directions, has become an indisputablle fact.” [5]
The congress didn’t speak about the fact that this relative detente between the two world systems was mostly a result of the military balance formed due to the developments of the 1950’s, the creation of the Soviet atomic and hydrogen bomb, the great successes in rocket research.
The congress overlooked the internal problems of the socialist countries. We shouldn’t forget that in 1956 counter revolutionary processes take place in Poland and Hungary.
 „The socialist system is marching forward triumthantly, without crises or upheavals. It is bringing great benefits to the peoples of the socialist countries, demonstrating its decisive superiority over the capitlist system.” [6]
The programme accepted at the CPSU’s 22th congress in 1961 says:
The CPSU maintains that forces capable of preserving and promoting universal peace have arisen and are growing in the world. Possibilities are arising for essentially new relations between states.”[7]
 „Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist countries is an objective necessity for the development of human society.”[8]
Lenin was a supporter of the world revolution. For Lenin peaceful coexistence was a temporary compromise: I can’t defeat capitalism now, but I don’t give up the goal. In March 1919  the Communist Internationale was formed, which enjoyed the full support of the Soviet state. In the 1920’s  communist parties were created in almost every country of the world. At the period when Stalin was the general secretary of the party the CPSU supported the Comintern. Though in 1943 they  made a gesture to the capitalist members of the antifascist coalition and dissolved the Comintern,  by then there was already a new, effective force of the world revolution, the triumphantly advancing Red Army.
The CPSU under the leadership of Khrushchev gives up the idea of world revolution, he declares peaceful coexistence as the end goal, stating that relations of capitalism and socialism would be determined by peaceful competition. Brezhnev a bit clumsily, but returns to the idea of world revolution.  Of course, this does not negate the fact that in the period when Brezhnev was the GS of the CPSU the problems of utilizing the tools of capitalism in socialist construction continued and sharpened, with the result that the party lost its revolutionary way with grave consequences.
Gorbatchev’s „new way of thinking” meant giving up the goals of socialism. He gave back the territories gained in WW2, ruined the Soviet armed forces, left socialist countries at the mercy of the forces of capitalism.
This was one of the biggest theoretical misconception of the CPSU’s 20th congress, which explained many political steps that contributed to the weakening and then toppling of the socialist system.
This was the false and incorrect interpretation of the principle of  peaceful coexistence. Socialism will win on a world level if it produces more and better in economy, than capitalism does. But this doesn’t mean that military power can be given up.
Based on the false and incorrect interpretation of the principle of peaceful coexistence, the Soviet Union reduced a significant portion of the land  and naval forces in the beginning of the 60’s. From the end of the 60’s it signed a number of agreements on the limitation and reduction of armaments and disarmament with the USA, that broke  the delicate military balance which was so hard to establish, and more than that – made the Soviet Union vulnerable. This doesn’t mean that disarmament efforts weren’t needed, but it’s a fact that it led to the end of military balance. The mistake was not the disarmament, but the series of one-sided concessions to the US. Without the military power balance the socialist world became vulnerable on all other fields too, as the military balance had the greatest impact on capitalist countries.
The parliamentary road, as a way of creating socialism
The 20th congress of the CPSU declared that in the changed international conditions communist parties can get into power by parliamentary elections and can make socialism win.
… the present situation offers the working class in a number of capitalst countries a real opportunity to unite the overwhelming majority of the people under its leadership and to secure the transfer of the basic means of production into the hands of the people. The Right-wing bourgeois parties and their governments are suffering bankruptcy with increasing frequency. In those circumstances the working class, by rallying around itself the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are uncapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a  position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the popular interest, to capture a stable majority in parliament, and transform the latter from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people’s will. (Applause.) In such an event this institution, traditional in many highly developed capitalist countries, may become an organ of genuine democracy, democracy for the working people.
The winning of a stable parliamentary majority backed by a mass revolutionary movement of the proletariat and of all the working people could create for the working class for a number of capitalist and former colonial countries the conditions needed to secure fundamental social changes.”[9]
The 22nd congress of the CPSU fixed this thesis in the party’s programme:
In the conditions prevaling at present, in some capitalist countries the working class, headed by its forward detachment, has an opportunity to unite the bulk of the nation, win state power without a civil war and achieve the transfer of the basic means of production to the people upon the basis of a working class and popular front and other possible forms of agreement and political cooperation between different parties and democratic organisations. The working class, supported by the majority of the people and firmly repelling opportunist elements incapable of renouncing the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, can defeat the reactionary, anti-popular forces, win a solid majority in parliament, transform it from a tool serving the class interestes of the bourgeoisie into an instrument serving the working people, launch a broad mass struggle outside parliament, smash the resistance of the reactionary forces, and provide the necessary conditions for a peaceful socialist revolution.” [10]
The CPSU’s thesis about the parliamentary way creates serious illusions in the workers’ movement. Many parties completely settle for election work and performance in the parliament. Some of the parties forget that the fight for the interests of workers, working people is a constant task of  communists. Taking part in the parliament is not the goal for a communist party, but only a tool.
The Hungarian Workers’ Party is deeply convinced that socialism will be brought by a new popular socialist revolution. The party’s new programme, which was adopted in 2012, says:
We don’t know which year, which month and which day the new socialist revolution will win. But we know that it will win. It will win when the majority of the people understands through their own experiences that there is only one way to happiness, the new popular socialist revolution, and they will be willing to make an effort for it.[11]
Attitude to social democracy
The CPSU’s 20th congress declared that in order to prevent a world war, the strategic cooperation of communist and social democratic parties is necessary and possible.
Not a few of the misfortunes harussing the world today are due to the fact that in many countries the working class has been split for many years and its different groups do not present a united front, which  only plays into the hands of the reactionary force. Yet, today, in our opinion, the prospect of changing this situation is opening up. Life has put on the agenda many questions which not only demand rapprochement and co-operation between all workers’ parties, but also create real possibilities for the co-operation. The most important of these questions is that of preventing a new war. If the working class come out as a united organised force and acts with firm resolution, there will be no war.”[12]
And the report goes on:
All this places an historic responsibility upon all leaders of the labour movement. The interests of the struggle for peace make it imperetive to find points of contact and on these grounds  to lay the foundations for co-operation, sweeping aside mutual incriminations. Here  co-operatons with those circles of tne socialist movement whose views on the forms of transition to socialism differ from ours is also possible and essential. Among them are not a few people who are honestly mistaken on this question, but this is no obstacle for co-operation.Today many Social-Democrates stand for  active struggle against the war danger and militarism, for rapproachment with the socialist countries, for unity of the labour movement.We sincerely greet these Social-Democrats and are willing to do everything necessary to join our efforts in the struggle for the noble cause of upholding peace and the interests of the working people.”[13]
The programme accepted at the CPSU’s 22nd congress is even more clear:
The Communist parties favor cooperation with the Social-Democratic parties not only in the struggle for peace, for better living conditions of the working people, and for the preservation and extension of their democratic rights and freedoms, but also in the struggle to win power and build a socialist society.”  [14]
Social democracy in the 19th century grew from the working masses of the capitalist countries, the trade union movement. They also dreamt about socialism, like communists, but in a long-long term, and on a daily basis they wanted to end the unfairness of capitalism, to make capitalist order nicer. Revolutionary Marxists never agreed with that, as capitalism, even in its best, most democratic and richest form is built on the exploitation of the working masses. Revolutionary Marxists always aimed for the creation of socialism.
But after the WW2 social democracy has undergone an essential change. There was plenty of money in the course of growth of general european well-being after the war. This made it possible for capitalist social democratic parties to give more to the masses, to create the so called „the welfare state”. In turn, the existence of the socialist world, where masses had the right to work, rest and access to free health care, forced the capitalist parties to do so. The so called „welfare state” in reality meant that a minority of rich peope lived on a very high standarf of living. The middle classes and a part of the working masses got much better conditions than before. The standard of living of large masses of working people, not speaking about the rising number of foreign migrants changed only to a limited degree.
After the economic difficulties of the 80’s they had less money. The socialist world collapsed, the external coercive force disappeared. Capitalist governments gave up the generous policy of the so called „welfare state”, and social democracy in turn declared the concept of the 3rd way. Since the 80’s socialism is not the goal, and they even gave up the previous traditional demands of social democracy and started to carry out neoliberal policies.
Social democracy played a significant role in undermining, weakening the socialist countries.. Under the slogans of the „Ostpolitik”, the „disarmament” and the „European cooperation” they actively took part in the preparation of the counter revolutions of 1989-91.
In the former socialist countries several parties emerged under the name socialist or social democrat. These parties are fundamentally different from Western paries because they have no social democratic past at all, no trade  union background, they are not connected by their traditions to the workers. These parties, including the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), from the first moment have been active participants of the capitalist counter revolutions of 1989-91, and became one of the pillars of the capitalist system. Their task is to mislead and manipulate working masses, to stabilise capitalism.
Experiences of the revolution in 1917 and the 90 years that have passed since clearly show that the goals of communists and social democrats are fundamentally different.
Experiences of Hungarian history prove that Hungarian social democrats betrayed the interests of the workers in 1919 and in 1898-90 as well. They gave up the communists to the gendarmerie of the Horthy-era and even nowadays they do not shy away from legal and governmental attacks on communists.
The 90 years since 1917 clearly show: if communists under conditions of capitalit system  cooperate with social democrats in strategic questions, if they govern together, then this is always the communists who „pull the shorter” and who pay the biggest price.
The way of costruction socialism
The leadership of the CPSU after 1956, seeing the successes of socialism, made a false and in retrospect fatal conclusion: the victory of socialism is final and irreversible. The 22nd congress describes the party’s new strategy, the construction of the communist society.
„The Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopts its Third Program – the program of communist construction.”
The material and technical base of communism will be built up by the end of the second decade (1971-80), ensuring an abundance of material and cultural  values for the whole population, Soviet society will come close to a stage where it can introduce the principle of distribution according to needs, and there will be a gradual transition to one form of ownership – public ownership. Thus, a communist society will in the main be built in the USSR.” [15]
 The programme of the RCWP-CPSU correctly states:
Furthermore, the successful accomplishment of many tasks of socialist development, including the elimination of class antagonisms, led to the emergence in the party and the people of the illusion of consistency of further moving forward. This illusion of possibility to achieve quickly, withoit struggle, the  higher phase of communism was fixed in the third  party Programme, adopted in 1961. That demobilized the party, the working class, the toiling masses.  The programm wronglyproclaimed the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat and declared the public nature of such entirely class institutions as  a party and a state, thus creating an ideological cover for their petty-bourgeois metamorphosis. The subjectivist approach was used to explain errors and deviations in the construction of socialism by cult of personality. The task of revival of the essence of the power of the Soviets was not even set, workers, already fragmented organizationally, now were ideologically disarmed at the face of a rising wave of the petty-bourgeois. This disarmament of the party and the workers was based on the official proclamation of the “final” victory of socialism in our country .”[16]
The decision of the CPSU was a strategical mistake which affected the other socialist countries too. After the 20th congress they increasingly underestimated the necessity of class struggle. They disregarded the fact that the representatives of the old ruling classes and their descendants were still alive, the implementation of the elements of a market economy contributed to the revival of the bourgeois forces. Parties were not prepared for actual class struggle.
Later under the flag of Gorbatchev’s perestroika, glasnosty, modernisation, rapprochement with Europe  they introduced multi-party system, allowedand even helped the activity of the parties which were against socialism. With the false slogan of depolitisation they took out the army and the national security organs from under the control of the party and the people. System changes were prepared and carried out almost everywhere by reformist-opportunist forces. These forces deliberately crossed the border, beyond which we are talking not about the reform of socialism, but about the introduction of the capitalist system.
***
The socialist revolution in Russia in 1917 confirmed the correctness of Marxist-Leninist theory on the inevitability of the socialist revolution and the transition of humanity from the capitalist economic system to communism, the first phase of which is socialism. It was in October 1917 in Russia that a great historical epoch of transition of humanity from capitalism to socialism started.
Today, as never before, it is clear: The great October socialist revolution – the main event not only in the 20th century, but in the whole history of mankind, the event that showed the way of progressive development for many decades to come. In the result of the Great October revolution was dispelled the myth of the eternity of capitalism, capitalism ceased to be a world system. Since that time in the world exist two opposite social-economic systems, the struggle between them became the main form of manifestation of the main contradiction of the modern era – the contradiction between labor and capital.
The Great October inseparably interwined with the memory of the 20th century Hungarian socialism too. The successes of socialism proved that the Hungarian workers, the working people can manage being in power, creating a better life for millions, secure the survival and development of the Hungarian nation. Hungarian workers can still be proud of those decades, can draw strength to fight against capital system.  This is the legacy of the Great October.
There was a lot of good in Hungarian socialism, though not everything was good. But undoubtedly there were much more things that could have been called successes, results. And it’s also beyond doubt that despite all its problems and mistakes that socialism was better, more successful and more humane than today’s capitalism.
The Hungarian Workers’ Party is following the footsteps of the Great October. We want socialism. We have learnt from the history of socialism. We are convinced that a new socialist society will give even more and even better.
 President of the Hungarian Workers’ Party.
[1]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
[2] http://aszabadsag.hu/Archiv/Dokumentumok/2007_38sz.pdf
[3] http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/18th-Congress-Resolution-on-Socialism/
[4]Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Page 7.
[5]ibid, page 8
[6]ibid, page 13
[7]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963.  Page 62
[8] ibid,  page 65
[9]  Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Pp.45-46
[10]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963
[11]http://2010-2015.munkaspart.hu/component/content/article/1169
[12]Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress. Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow 1956. Page 24
[13]ibid
[14]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963.  Page 49
[15]Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. International Publishers Co.,Inc., 1963.  Page 74
[16]http://rkrp-rpk.ru/content/view/5/47/
Most Russians support Stalin monuments, poll shows
| July 20, 2017 | 8:55 pm | J. Stalin, Russia, USSR | No comments

Interesting website:

https://www.rt.com/politics/396935-most-russians-support-idea-of/

The Red Army Choir – The Definitive Collection [Full Album]
| July 20, 2017 | 8:40 pm | USSR | No comments