Right-Wing Revisionism Today

PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW Translated from the Russian by Jim Riordan First printing 1976 Translation into English. Progress Publishers 1976 Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

CONTENTS Page Preface ..................... 9 Chapter 1. Leninism and Right-Wing Revisionism..... 13 Historic Significance of Lenin's Fight Against Revisionism ................... 13 Right-Wing Revisionism Today........... 39 Anti-Communism and Right-Wing Revisionism..... 44 Chapter 2. New Stage in the Anti-Revisionist Struggle .... 55 Reasons for the Revisionist Resurgence........ 56 Strategy and Tactics of Revisionism......... 65 The Present Stage of Anti-Revisionist Struggle..... 76 Part I CRITIQUE OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES 1

OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM Chapter 3. Revisionist Falsification of Marxism-Leninism ... 87 The Conception of ``Open'' Marxism........ 88 ``Pluralism" of Marxism.............. 92 Negation of Leninism............... 97 Chapter 4. Critique of the Revisionist Falsification of the MarxistLeninist Conception of Ideology and Social Cognition . . . 103 Revision of Marxism-Leninism under the Guise of Dispelling Ideological Illusions.............. 103 Revisionist Distortion of Class Interest and Social Cognition ..................... 114 CONTENTS Chapter 5. The Philosophical Basis of Right-Wing Revisionism . 135 ``Materialism" Without Matter........... 138 ``Dialectics" Without Materialism........... 156 Chapter 6. Fundamental Inadequacies of Revisionist Interpretation of Socialism.................. 163 Socialism and the Critical Essence of Dialectics...... 163 Socialism and Antagonistic Contradictions........ 167 Social Unity and Contradiction........... 172

Spontaneous Development and Conscious Activity .... 174 Social Contradiction and the State........... 178 Chapter 7. Revisionism and the Individual under Socialism. Speculation in Regard to the Problem of ``Alienation'' ... 188 Part II REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE STATE OF THE MODERN WORLD AND THE TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM Chapter 8. Critique of Revisionist Notions of the World Today ,................... 201 Revision of Leninist Analysis of the World Today .... 203 Scientific and Technological Revolution and Social Progress.................... 206 Rejection of the Leading Role of the Working Class .... 220 Chapter 9. Revisionism and Socialist Revolution....... 233 Rejection of the Objective Basis for Socialist Revolution . . 233 The Main Criterion and Raison d'fitre of Socialist Revolution .................... 244 Ways of Implementing Socialist Revolution....... 250 Rejection of the Leading Role of the Marxist-Leninist Party in Socialist Revolution.............. 261

Chapter 10, The Ideological Similarity of Revisionism and the Bourgeois Theories of Industrial Society and Stages of Growth 266 The Theory of Industrial Society.......... 266 Ideological Similarity of Revisionism and the Bourgeois Theory of Stages of Growth............ 271 Chapter 12. Critique of Right-Wing Revisionist Conceptions of the Socialist Economy............... 296 The Theory of Market Socialism........... 296 Bourgeois Sources of the "Market Socialism" Theory . . . 302 Chapter 13. Political and Economic Roots of Right-Wing Revisionism ................... 313 Chapter 14. Revisionist Falsification of the Class Structure of Socialist Society................. 334 Social Structure and Social Relations in Socialist Society . . 336 Revisionist Notions of Socialist Social Structure..... 343 Chapter 15. Right-Wing Revisionism and the Socialist Political System.................... 351 Rejection of the Leading Role of the Party and the Idea of 4

Bourgeois Pluralism............... 351 Revisionist Theory and Practice of Weakening the State and Dismantling the Socialist Political System....... 357 Chapter 16. Attempts To Disunite the Socialist Countries .... 365 Distortions of Socialist Internationalism......... 365 Revisionist Distortion of the Principle of Unity of National and International Interests among Socialist Nations .... 370 Socialist Economic Integration and Its Revisionist Critics . . 375 Revisionist Speculation on Defence of National Sovereignty . . 382 Unity of Socialist States.............. 385 Chapter 17. Right-Wing Revisionist Ideas on War and Peace . . 391 Chapter 18. Revisionism and Anti-Sovietism........ 402 The Class Nature of Revisionism and Anti-Sovietism . . . 402 Revisionism Becomes Open Anti-Sovietism....... 406

Part IV CRITIQUE OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Chapter 19. Critique of the Methodological Principles of Revisionist Philosophy in Czechoslovakia..........415 Chapter 20. The Nature and Functions of Contemporary Philosophical Revisionism in Czechoslovakia.........429 Roots of Philosophical Revisionism..........429 Principal Features of Philosophical Revisionism in Czechoslovakia ...........,........433 Chapter 21. Critique of "Democratic Socialism" in Czechoslovakia 446 Chapter 22. Right-Wing Revisionism in Czechoslovakia and the Political System of Socialism............ 463 Revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as a Scientific Basis for the Part III CRITIQUE OF REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALISM Chapter 11. The Revisionist Conception of "Models of Socialism" 287 Bankruptcy of Revisionist "Models of Socialism".....287 Pluralism of "Models of Socialism"..........291 CONTENTS PREFACE</b> Socialist Political System .............466 Critique of the "New Model" of Socialist Political System in Czechoslovakia.................470 Chapter 23. Revisionist Right-Wing Opportunist Economic Ideas 485 Reasons for the Appearance of Revisionism and Opportunism in Economic Theory and Practice...........485 Revisionist Distortion of the Plan as the Basic Instrument of Balanced Management of Socialist Economy......491 Revisionist Interpretation of Socialist Ownership of the 6

Means of Production.................499 Revisionists on the Role of the Socialist Enterprise .... 504 Chapter 24. Attempts by Right-Wing Opportunists To Destroy the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia as a Party of a Leninist Type ....................511 The Need for a Revolutionary Workers' Party of a Leninist Type.....................511 Pluralism as a Programme for Abolishing the Leninist Party 515 Opportunists and Ideology.............524 Leninist Principles of Party Organisation.......529 Chapter 25. Failure of Revisionist Assault on Socialist Internationalist Principles .......,........538 The present book, written by a group of Soviet and Czechoslovak authors, is primarily intended as a critical analysis and expose of the anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist nature of contemporary Right-wing revisionist ideas that are inimical to the interests of the working class, world socialism and the international communist movement. The idea of the need for such a book arose during the political crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The events of that period utterly exposed the political nature of Rightwing revisionism and opportunism as allies of imperialist forces; they also revealed the great danger of Right-wing revisionism when it is not properly repulsed. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Moscow in 1969, had as its main theme the struggle against Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism and against opportunism of all brands. This Meeting made an important contribution to further strengthening the ideological unity of fraternal parties on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Present-day revisionism continues to be an international phenomenon; it finds a fertile soil wherever intermediate 7

sections of the population stand alongside the working class, where the consciousness of the working class, the common people and Communists is under pressure from hostile bourgeois ideology. Revisionism strikes when the working people drop their guard and relax their fight against it. Although differences exist in the views of Roger Garaudy, Ota Sik, 10 PREFACE PREFACE 11 Teodoro Petkoff and other revisionists, they relate to secondary issues and not the principal problems of the day. As an ideological trend, revisionism is a system of kindred views, alien to Marxism-Leninism, on the fundamental problems of the international working-class movement and the construction of socialism and communism. The authors of this book included in their critical analysis the most essential aspects of present-day Right-wing revisionism which lead to a betrayal of the working-class cause, to opportunism and to renegade actions. They thereby criticise both revisionist ideas and their argumentation. Revisionism is by no means novel to the history of the world working-class movement. Marxism-Leninism has had to deal firmly with numerous versions of revisionism and opportunism since the end of the 1890s. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, made an enormous contribution to this fight. His works are a classic model of Marxist scientific criticism of ideas and theories hostile to the working class; they remain a powerful weapon in the hands of Communists in their contention with Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism and all manner of opportunism. Contemporary Right-wing revisionist ideas and theories have inherited the worst aspects of Bernsteinism, the reformist ideology of Right-wing socialism and the most reactionary old and new bourgeois concepts and theories. Guided by the Leninist method of combating ideological opponents of Marxism, the authors of this book have tried to show both the class and ideological sources of revisionist concepts, their theoretical and logical contradictions and falseness, and the practical damage they can cause, as evidenced by historical facts and the revolutionary experience of class struggle, by the experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, by the building of socialism and communism in the USSR and elsewhere. 8

Contemporary revisionism uses all the means at its disposal, including support from bourgeois ``experts'' on Marxism, to gain public recognition as a variety of Marxism in order to perform its main function of disorientating and disuniting the international working class. The authors of this book have drawn attention to the Leninist idea of the integral nature of Marxism both in its historical development and in the structural unity and dialectical relationship of all its component parts. Experience has shown that the revisionists' attempts to speculate on their adherence to Marxism and to mask their anti-Marxist nature by Marxist phraseology are inevitably doomed to failure. Communists expose revisionists and exclude them from their ranks. This has been the fate of latter-day Right-wing revisionist ideologists like Garaudy, Sik and Ernst Fischer. Nevertheless, a criticism of their ideas retains its relevance and importance. It is a weapon that Communists use in the fight for the purity of MarxistLeninist theory and a stronger unity and solidarity of all Communist and Workers' parties. The authors have relied on the main theoretical and political documents of Communist and Workers' parties. These include material from the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969, the subsequent regional meetings, the communist conferences and seminars on theory. Documents of the 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and other recent congresses of fraternal parties have served as an important guide in evaluating the various revisionist ideas and a source of rational argument in criticising revisionist views. These Party documents creatively develop Marxist-Leninist theory. As Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, has said: "The successes of communist construction depend in many ways on the development of Marxist-Leninist theory, which is our unerring scientific compass. The decisions of the congresses and plenary meetings of the CC of our Party and major Party documents are a model of the creative development of Marxism-Leninism. But the very character of the tasks confronting us demands 12 PREFACE CHAPTER 1 LENINISM 9

AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> an increasingly active elaboration of the theoretical problems of social development and a creative approach to all the phenomena of life."* The fight against revisionists cannot be successful without development of such theory. Revisionism today is very much a product of the growth in nationalism fanned by the elaborate propaganda apparatus of bourgeois states. At the same time, revisionist concepts create a fertile soil for nationalist sentiments and views that are alien to proletarian, socialist ideology. In criticising revisionism and its sources, the authors of this book take a Leninist approach in interpreting the principles of proletarian internationalism that underlie the documents of the world communist movement intended further to consolidate the unity of the socialist community, the international working class and all anti-imperialist forces. # # * The First through Eighteenth chapters have been written by Soviet authors, and the Nineteenth through TwentyFifth chapters by Czechoslovak authors: Y. D. Modrzhinskaya (Chapter 1), V. V. Midtsev (Chapter 2), S. I. Popov (Chapter 3), M. K. Igitkhanyan (Chapter 4), I . D. Zagoryanov (Chapter 5), M. B. Savelyev (Chapter 6), V. S. Bobrovsky (Chapter 7), Y. D. Modrzhinskaya, L. S. Yeremenko and V. S. Yeremenko (Chapter 8), G. A. Davydova and V. A. Nikitin (Chapter 9), G. P. Davidyuk and V. I. Bovsh (Chapter 10), Ye. P. Sitkovsky (Chapter 11), Editorial Board, on the basis of the material supplied by Yu. Ya. Olsevich et al. (Chapter 12), R. I. Kosolapov (Chapter 13), A. A. Amvrosov and A. P. Sertsova (Chapter 14), B. S. Mankovsky (Chapter 15), F. T. Konstantinov and A. P. Sertsova (Chapter 16), N. A. Ponomaryov (Chapter 17), G. D. Karpov (Chapter 18), V. Rural (Chapter 19), A. K. Netopilik (Chapter 20), L. Hrzal (Chapter 21), J. Matejcik (Chapter 22), M. Fremer and F. Kolacek (Chapter 23), F. Havlicek (Chapter 24), and J. Kvasnicka (Chapter 25). * L. I. Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 1972, pp. 80, 81. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF LENIN'S FIGHT AGAINST REVISIONISM</b> Throughout his life, Lenin resolutely fought various 10

opportunist trends. This struggle continued, in the new historical setting, the traditions of Marx and Engels who had created and defended their philosophy in sharp clashes with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. Lenin's long experience of opposing Right- and ``Left''wing revisionism in Russia and abroad still retains its historic significance. Furthermore, a profound study of that experience can equip Communists of all countries with a powerful means of mounting an offensive against the various types of revisionism and opportunism today. A variety of unscientific schools first attacked Marxism without any pretensions of being Marxists themselves; they were, therefore, not revisionists. As Lenin himself noted, Marxism was created (1844-1848) in a fight against various types of petty-bourgeois socialism and, for the first half century of its existence, continued to fight against theories which were radically antagonistic towards it.* The ideological opponents of Marxism masquerading under ``socialism'' existed until the appearance of revisionism---i.e., roughly until the 1890s. They included the Young Hegelians who professed a philosophical idealism; the Proudhonists---a petty-bourgeois school opposed to the class struggle, prole* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, pp. 31-32; Vol. 21, p. 47. RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 15 tarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat; the Bakuninists---a petty-bourgeois anarchist and pseudorevolutionary movement; the Lassallians---a petty-bourgeois school which rejected proletarian revolution and the revolutionary potential of the peasants, and idealised the bourgeois state. Marxist opposition to revisionism began after the exclusion from the labour movement of all these and other more or less integral trends wholly alien to Marxism, at a time when proponents of these trends began to seek other means for expression. Lenin wrote, "The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.""" Revisionism was just such a trend. 11

Lenin associates the appearance of revisionism with the name of Eduard Bernstein who wrote a number of articles for Die Neue Zeit, the organ of the German Social-Democratic Party, in the period 1896 to 1898; in these articles he revised the philosophical, economic and political tenets of revolutionary Marxism.** Bernstein was backed up by opportunist elements of several parties in the Second International. These views were 'initially supported in Russia by the "Legal Marxists"---the bourgeois economists P. Struve and S. Bulgakov. Lenin later remarked that as soon as the Russian Social Democracy became an organisation associated with the mass working-class movement (i.e., after 1894) it began to struggle against the petty-bourgeois, opportunist trends in Russia. Such trends included Economism (1894-1902) and Menshevism (1903-1908), which became both the ideological and the organisational continuation of Economist ideas. During the first Russian Revolution of 1905, the Mensheviks devised tactics that were objectively meant to make the proletariat dependent on the liberal bourgeoisie, and expressed their own petty-bourgeois opportunist views. Later, in the period 1908-1914, Menshevism gave rise to Liquidationism, and the latter group became social-chauvinist between 1914 and 1915.* During and after Lenin's life, the Soviet Communist Party conducted a constant struggle against Trotskyism as a revisionist, opportunist, anti-Marxist, adventure-seeking, subversive trend which became, after Trotsky's expulsion from the Party, an out-and-out anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary group. The Party also had to deal firmly with Rightwing opportunists who expressed the ideology of the exploiting rich farmers (kulaks) and opposed the high rate of industrialisation, the collectivisation of agriculture and the elimination of the kulaks as a class.** The CPSU upheld and implemented Lenin's plan for building socialism in the USSR in a fierce struggle with Trotskyists, Right-wing opportunists, national-deviationists and other antagonistic groups. The rich experience of the Soviet Communist Party and the world communist movement helps to expose and defeat opportunist trends of the present day. In criticising present-day revisionism, Communists base themselves upon the definition by Lenin of the essence of revisionism, on Lenin's scientific analysis of the social and epistemological roots of revisionism and opportunism, and on the basic methods used by Lenin in criticising revisionism. 12

These questions are of prime importance. As soon as an anti-Marxist trend appeared among Social Democrats at the end of the last century, Lenin emphasised that it was an international revisionist and opportunist trend. He wrote, "the English Fabians, the French Ministerialists, the German Bernsteinians, and the Russian Critics---all * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 32. ** Ibid., pp. 32-38. * See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 259. ** See Fiftieth Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, 1967, p. 12. 16 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 17 belong to the same family, all extol each other, learn from each other, and together take up arms against `dogmatic' Marxism."* In noting the international nature of revisionism and opportunism, Lenin also pointed out their national characteristics: "In one country the opportunists have long ago come out under a separate flag; in another, they have ignored theory and in fact pursued the policy of the Radicals-Socialists; in a third, some members of the revolutionary party have deserted to the camp of opportunism and strive to achieve their aims, not in open struggle for principles and for new tactics, but by gradual, imperceptible, and, if one may so put it, unpunishable corruption of their party. . . . <SUP>:rt</SUP>' By revisionism, Lenin understood an opportunist trend alien to Marxism and socialism that existed within the revolutionary party of the working class and which, under the guise of Marxism, actually carried out a revision of the fundamental tenets of Marxist theory, replacing the basic principles of that theory by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. He branded opportunism as a betrayal of the liberation of the working class, as a deal with the class enemy of the proletariat and a siding with the bourgeoisie in politics. Under cover of Marxist terminology and a claim to be 13

``creatively'' developing Marxism, revisionists actually replace Marxism by views that are alien and inimical to it. As Lenin said, revisionists allegedly recognise certain principles of Marxism but, in practice, replace them with bourgeois notions.""^^11^^''* Therefore, the class nature of revisionism is a replacement of Marxism by bourgeois ideas, even though the social roots of revisionist ideas are usually associated with the petty bourgeoisie. It is important for an analysis of the class essence of social trends, as Lenin emphasised, to "take as our basis, not individuals or groups, but a class analysis of the content of social trends, and an ideological and political examination of their essential and main principles".* On that basis, Lenin noted that revisionism swims with the tide of bourgeois ideology. What was Lenin's view of the ideological nature of revisionism? In philosophy, according to Lenin, revisionism follows "in the wake of bourgeois professorial science".""* The major bourgeois philosophical trend under whose banner a revision of Marxism took place was then neo-Kantianism---a subjective-idealist philosophy alien to a scientific cognition of nature and society. Revisionists opposed both materialism and dialectics, replacing them, as Lenin said, "by simple (and tranquil) evolution".*** A renunciation of dialectical materialism actually led to a renunciation of the scientific justification for socialism. In political economy, revisionists rejected "the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions",**** and "said that concentration and the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production do not occur in agriculture at all, while they proceed very slowly in commerce and industry. It was said that crises had now become rarer and weaker, and that cartels and trusts would probably enable capital to eliminate them altogether".***** In the early years of this century, Lenin wrote that reality had very quickly shown that crises had by no means come to an end: "The forms, the sequence, the picture of particular crises changed, but crises remained an inevitable component of the capitalist system."****** Cartels and trusts which had concentrated production into enormous firms had, at the same * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 154.

14

** Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 33. *** Ibid. **** Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 353. **** Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 34. **** Ibid., p. 35. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 352-53. ** Ibid., p. 360. *** Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 85, p. 16. 2---2332 18 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 19 time, exacerbated class contradictions to an unprecedented degree. In scientific communism and socio-political ideas, revisionism rejected the theory of the class struggle, the opposing nature of liberalism and socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, declaring that the very concept of the ultimate aim of the communist movement held no water.* The fundamental concepts of the revisionists were bound up with the opportunist policy of collusion with and adaptation to capitalism. As Lenin put it, "The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing---this catch-phrase of Bernstein's expresses the substance of revisionism better than many long disquisitions. To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment---such is the policy of revisionism."** 15

Lenin revealed the organic connection between theoretical revisionism and political opportunism. Revisionism, appearing in the early part of the century under the banner of "freedom of criticism", meant, in Lenin's words, "freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism".*** Lenin demonstrated that revisionism inevitably leads to opportunism and a renegade position; he showed that the followers of Bernstein had corrupted socialist consciousness, had vulgarised Marxism by preaching a theory of playing down social antagonisms, declaring absurd the idea of social revolution and proletarian dictatorship, and confining the working-class movement and the class struggle to a narrow trade union approach and to a ``realistic'' fight for minor, gradual reforms/'" At the same time, opportunist policy drew revisionist views in its wake and required a corresponding argument for its justification. The following passage from Lenin is worth quoting in full because it reveals this connection: "Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned `new' arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, 'ultimate aim', was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc. ``Thus, the demand for a decisive turn from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism was accompanied by a no less decisive turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism. In view of the fact that this criticism of Marxism has long been directed from the political platform, from university chairs, in numerous pamphlets and in a series of learned treatises ... the 'new critical' trend .. . was transferred bodily from bourgeois to socialist literature."""*

16

It goes without saying that the link between revisionism and bourgeois ideology is masked in every possible way. In * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 353. ** Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 37. *** Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 355. * Ibid., pp. 362-63. ** Ibid., pp. 353-54. 20 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 21 the early part of the century, Lenin noted the trend towards an ever increasing subtle falsification of Marxism, an increasingly frantic attempt to pass off anti-materialist doctrines as Marxism in philosophy, economics and politics. In his analysis of revisionism, Lenin pinpointed its two basic forms: "revisionism from the right" and "revisionism from the left". The latter, it is true, had not at that time developed as much as the former/^^1^^" After the October Revolution Lenin once more returned to the generalised characterisation of these two basic forms of revisionist, pettybourgeois vacillation, noting that each turn in history evoked a change in the form of these trends. He referred to these forms as petty-bourgeois reformism which was "servility to the bourgeoisie covered by a cloak of sentimental democratic and social-democratic phrases and fatuous wishes",** and petty bourgeois revolutionising. The same basic forms of revisionism exist today, filled with content that corresponds to the present stage of the struggle. At the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969, these forms were defined as Rightwing opportunism---signifying a move towards a liquidationist position, collusion with Social-Democrats in politics and ideology---and ``Left''-wing opportunism which urges the masses to venturesome action and pushes the party onto a sectarian path under the guise of ultra-revolutionary phrases. In spite of their differences, both these varieties of revisionist opportunism ultimately lead to similarly harmful consequences. Objectively, they are both agreed on a policy of nationalism and anti-Sovietism. This is confirmed by the 17

frank interest of imperialism in promoting both forms of revisionist opportunist trends. In this connection, it is worth noting Lenin's definition of opportunism; he underlined that "the fundamental class significance of opportunism---or, in other words, its socialeconomic content---lies in certain elements of present-day democracy having gone over (in fact, though perhaps unconsciously) to the bourgeoisie, on a number of individual issues"."' Thus, by contrast with revisionism, which revises Marxist-Leninist theory, opportunism is a policy alien to Marxism-Leninism, a policy which subordinates the interests of the working class and all working people to the interests of the bourgeoisie. In many of his works, Lenin emphasised that opportunists were, in fact, the allies and the agents of the bourgeoisie.""* It is characteristic of opportunism that it tries to conceal, gloss over its de facto assistance to the bourgeoisie. This is another feature of opportunist policy which it shares with revisionism. Revisionism covers itself with the flag of Marxism, while opportunism covers itself with demagogic hypocrisy, equivocal phrases, retreat from clarity and principled position. Lenin wrote: "When we speak of fighting opportunism, we must never forget a characteristic feature of present-day opportunism in every sphere, namely, its vagueness, amorphousness, elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, will always evade taking a clear and decisive stand, he will always seek a middle course, he will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view."*'^^1^^"* In the last decade of the 19th century and in the first two decades of this century---i.e., at a time when Lenin wrote his works on revisionism and opportunism, the opportunists among Social-Democrats were simultaneously revisionists, in so far as they were revising Marxism while operating under the banner of Marxism. Two brands of opportunism exist today: first, opportunist trends of a Right- and ``Left''-wing persuasion within individual Communist parties; and second, an opportunist * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 153-54. ** Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 120. *** Ibid., Vol. 7, p. 404. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 38. 18

** Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 21. 22 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM ANDRIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> 23 trend within present-day Social-Democratic parties which has been called social reformism. The latter trend, while remaining opportunist, is no longer literally revisionist, in so far as it does not operate under a Marxist label. The CPSU Programme, adopted in 1961, stated that "the Right Wing of Social-Democracy has completely broken with Marxism and contraposed so-called democratic socialism to scientific socialism. Its adherents deny the existence of antagonistic classes and the class struggle in bourgeois society; they forcefully deny the necessity of the proletarian revolution and oppose the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. They assert that capitalism is being `transformed' into socialism. ``The Right-wing Socialists began by advocating social reforms in place of the socialist revolution and went as far as to defend state-monopoly capitalism. In the past they impressed on the minds of the proletariat that their differences with revolutionary Marxism bore not so much on the ultimate goal of the working-class movement as on the ways of achieving it. Now they openly renounce socialism. Formerly the Right-wing Socialists refused to recognise the class struggle to the point of recognising the dictatorship of the proletariat. Today they deny, not only the existence of the class struggle in bourgeois society, but also the very existence of antagonistic classes. ``Even when reformist parties come to power they limit themselves to partial reforms that do not affect the rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie."* Right-wing Social-Democracy continues to be, as it was during Lenin's lifetime, a vehicle of bourgeois influence on the proletariat, helping the monopolies and the capitalist state to blunt the workers' struggle against the capitalist system and for socialism; it supports the foreign policy of imperialism and conducts an anti-communist campaign. Present-day ideologists of social reformism have moved even further to the right by comparison with the early part of the century, rejecting Marxism both in words and in 19

deeds. In the main programme-documents of the Socialist International and its parties, reformist ideologists reject Marxism and the traditional socialist demands of the working-class movement. Thus, speaking in May, 1968 in Trier, Julius Braunthal, former Secretary of the Socialist International and theoretician of Right-wing Social-Democracy, said: "Until the great historical turning-point of the First World War ... Marxism was the predominant ideology of the Second International." In regard to the post-SecondWorld- War period, he said that "in the Socialist International ... reformism became the predominant ideology. Almost all its Member Parties had entered into government after the war, either governing alone, or sharing power in coalition with bourgeois parties.... The ideology which guided the policies of ... Social-Democrats was based on Reformism---the theory of a gradual development of the social order through the nationalisation of key industries, through a system of social planning and control of productivity ... and through a comprehensive system of social security. Therefore, in the European democracies, Marxism is no longer a really effective force as a theory of the proletarian class struggle and the social revolution.... But it is no longer the theory of Marxism---the theory of class warfare as a conscious struggle for a classless society---which inspires the workers and their intellectual leaders.... It is the theory of evolutionary Socialism and not revolutionary Marxism which guides their endeavours".* We are not here analysing the content of contemporary social-reformism. However, in looking at the very concept of opportunism, one cannot fail to notice the political and ideological kinship between modern Right-wing revisionism * The Road to Communism, Documents of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1961, pp. 501-02. * J. Braunthal, "Karl Marx and the Present Day", Socialist International Information, London, May 11, 1968, p. 100. 24 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 25 and Right-wing Social-Democracy. Moreover, while contemporary social reformism in the working-class movement no longer puts on a Marxist disguise, revisionism, in trying to operate within the communist movement, claims to adhere to Marxism. The CPSU Programme states that "the 20

ideological struggle of the imperialist bourgeoisie is spearheaded primarily against the working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties. Social-Democratism in the working-class movement and revisionism in the communist movement reflect the bourgeois influence on the working class.""' The renunciation of Marxism by Right-wing leaders and theoreticians of Social-Democracy is accompanied by the most intensive falsification of Marxism-Leninism which fully accords with the bourgeois falsification of Marxism undertaken by the host of ``experts'' on Marxism who never have been Marxists and have no connection with Marxism, but who portray themselves as its ``objective'' researchers and specialists. Right-wing revisionism today is also akin to contemporary bourgeois falsification of Marxism.** Lenin related the social roots of revisionism to the following: 1. existence of petty-bourgeois strata in society; 2. peculiarities in the numerical growth of the Communist parties; 3. economic backwardness of individual countries; 4. zigzag movements in bourgeois tactics; 5. the impact of bourgeois ideology on the working class. All these basically objective sources for revisional vacillations exist today. Nowadays, as in the early part of the century, every capitalist country has wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie, small businessmen, the so-called middle class, which capitalism inevitably reproduces and which stand alongside the proletariat. As Lenin put it, the working class is not divided from other classes by some kind of "Great Wall of China".* Moreover, sections exist in capitalist states and within the working-class movement which may be termed a labour, trade union and co-operative bureaucracy and a labour aristocracy, while political parties contain petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers and opportunist intellectuals who, whether they realise it or not, are actually vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat.** A serious objective source of revisionism is the "buying 21

off" of the working class elite by the monopolies through their super-profits. The labour aristocracy and bureaucracy comprise a social basis both for reformism and for Rightwing revisionism within the working-class movement. The numerical composition and role of middle classes, employees and intellectuals have sharply grown today as a consequence of the scientific and technological revolution. At the same time, as a result of the concentration of production in capitalist states, a considerable number of pettybourgeois elements are being forced out of agriculture into the working class. This process of the increasing share of wage labour in the able-bodied population of capitalist states is progressive because it involves more and more social groups in the fight against capital and increasingly reveals the deformed nature of the growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a numerically small group of monopolists. At the same time, however, the process is fraught with the mounting danger of these petty-bourgeois sections influencing the working class and pervading the Communist and Workers' parties with their petty-bourgeois views. In this context, Lenin's forecasts of certain trends in the social structure of capitalism are particularly topical today. According to Lenin, capitalism rapidly increases the number The Road to Communism, p. 501. See Chapter 3 of this book. * See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 285. ** Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 161. 26 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 27 of employees and demands more and more intellectuals. The latter occupy a peculiar position among other classes, aligning themselves partly to the bourgeoisie in their relations and views, and partly to wage workers, inasmuch as capitalism increasingly removes the independent status of the intellectual, turns him into a dependent employee and threatens his standard of living. Lenin foresaw that as a result of the dynamics of social processes, "a new intermediate social estate" would arise and new groups of the petty-bourgeoisie 22

and intellectuals would appear which would find it more difficult to live in capitalist society. In Lenin's opinion, the transitory, unstable and contradictory status of such social groups would show itself in their widespread acceptance of half-hearted, eclectic views, contradictory principles and attitudes.* Lenin regarded the growth of the working-class and the communist movement as a potential source of revisionism. He said: "If this movement is not measured by the criterion of some fantastic ideal, but is regarded as the practical movement of ordinary people, it will be clear that the enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new recruits, the attraction of new sections of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of theory and tactics."** He noted that petty-bourgeois philosophy again and again would penetrate the ranks of popular workers' parties,**"" that an abundance of intellectuals with their peculiar psychology within the Marxist ranks would inevitably give rise to opportunism in diverse spheres and in various forms.**** For that and many other reasons, Lenin ascribed immense importance to ideological work within the Party, pointing out the danger of underestimating such work and showing disregard for theory, for any manifestations of deviation, &#8226;&#8226;' See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 434; Vol. 4, p. 202. ** Ibid., Vol. 16, p. 348. *** Ibid., Vol 15, p. 39. **** Ibid., Vol. 7, pp. 403-04. permissiveness and liberalism towards those "vacillations in theory". He attributed a particularly important role in the ideological activity of the Party to the intellectuals, but only to those who really took a Marxist and working-class stand. The working-class and communist movement continues to grow; the number of Communists in the world has increased from 1,600,000 in 1928 to over 50 million today. Representatives of the intermediate sections have greatly replenished the Communist parties in Eastern Europe after the countries there took the road of socialism. This rapid growth signified an enormous success for the communist movement but, to a certain extent, it resulted from the inclusion in the Communist parties of insufficiently mature, theoretically unstable and inexperienced people.

23

Similar trends generally occur wherever Communist parties come to power; that compels them to conduct systematic and serious work in ideological and political education of their members. Lenin included an insufficiently high level of economic development in his enumeration of objective factors that encourage revisionist vacillation. He wrote, ". . .the rate at which capitalism develops varies in different countries and in different spheres of the national economy. Marxism is most easily, rapidly, completely and lastingly assimilated by the working class and its ideologists where large-scale industry is most developed. Economic relations which are backward, or which lag in their development, constantly lead to the appearance of supporters of the labour movement who assimilate only certain aspects of Marxism, only certain parts of the new world outlook, or individual slogans and demands, being unable to make a determined break with all the traditions of the bourgeois world outlook in general and the bourgeois-democratic world outlook in particular."* In Lenin's opinion, the tactical manoeuvring of the bourgeois ruling classes is another important factor that engenders * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 348. 28 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 29 revisionist vacillation within the working-class movement. He wrote, "The zigzags of bourgeois tactics intensify revisionism within the labour movement and not infrequently bring the differences within the labour movement to the point of an outright split.""" In analysing the tactics of the ruling classes, Lenin noted that everywhere the bourgeoisie invariably devises and uses two basic systems of administration, two methods of fighting for its interests and safeguarding its domination, which methods now replace each other, now intertwine in various combinations. First, there is the method of coercion, rejection of any concessions to the working-class movement, support for all old and outmoded institutions, rejection of reforms. The second is the method of liberalism, a concession to the workers in the sphere of political liberties, reforms, and so on.

24

These tactics are typical of the bourgeoisie and are not a result of any arbitrary action by individuals. Lenin wrote: "The bourgeoisie passes from one method to the other not because of the malicious intent of individuals, and not accidentally, but owing to the fundamentally contradictory nature of its own position .. . vacillations in the tactics of the bourgeoisie, transitions from the system of force to the system of apparent concessions have been characteristic of the history of all European countries during the last halfcentury___"** Here he notes that the bourgeoisie for a certain time achieves its object by a liberal policy, which is a 'more crafty' policy. A part of the workers and a part of their representatives at times allow themselves to be deceived by seeming concessions. The revisionists declare that the doctrine of the class struggle is `antiquated', or begin to conduct a policy which is in fact a renunciation of the class struggle".*** Such ``zigzags'' and the methods and tactics by the proletariat's class enemies are today characteristic of the class struggle both within capitalist states and internationally. The imperialist bourgeoisie continues to combine different forms of tactics---from fascist and neo-fascist armed force, naked agression and terror to a ``sophisticated'' cajoling policy of building bridges---explicitly aimed at undermining socialism from within. The pressure of bourgeois ideology on the working-class and communist movement has become a major objective source of revisionism. This source is not new, Lenin noted even before 1917 that "the deviations from Marxism are generated by 'bourgeois counter-revolution', by bourgeois influence over the proletariat".* Today, however, the pressure of bourgeois ideology on the working class and on the communist movement has grown immeasurably. The bourgeoisie has made ideological propaganda among the working people an inalienable part of its overall policy. The pressure of the entire imperialist system and its anticommunist propaganda on the socialist countries is a serious external source for the emergence and proliferation of revisionism within socialist states. The appearance of revisionism in these states depends also on the degree of maturity of socialist social relations, on the stage of socialist changes in a particular country and on the extent to which the tasks 25

of the transitional period have been resolved. Alongside the objective conditions that nurture revisionist views, the subjective aspects are increasingly coming to the fore, particularly in socialist countries where one would naturally expect subjective factors to play an important part in socialist construction. It is, therefore, very important for the Communist parties to conduct a consistent MarxistLeninist policy in directing revolutionary change and in building socialism and communism, to pay undeviating attention to inculcating a communist outlook in people and in * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 351. ** Ibid., pp. 350-51. *** Ibid., p. 351. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 154. 30 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 31 opposing bourgeois ideology and all varieties of opportunism, and finally, to remain watchful and give a timely rebuff to any incursions by imperialism and its agencies. An uncompromising Leninist attitude towards opportunism and revisionism was one of the factors which, together with political vigilance, helped the Soviet people and its Party to overcome the enormous difficulties that faced them and to pioneer socialist and communist construction. That is one of the crucial lessons of Party experience. Accordingly, the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted that wherever Communists drop their guard and understimate the need for a class approach to social phenomena, imperialist intrigues bear fruit, Right-wing opportunist and even openly anti-socialist elements come to life and nationalist sentiments are reinforced. If these phenomena are not repulsed firmly and in time, they can do immense harm to the cause of socialism. What, then, are the gnoseological sources of revisionist trends? In Lenin's view, the dialectical nature of social development and the potential that lies within it for distorting reality in people's minds provide an objective and constant gnoseological source for revisionism and opportunism. He wrote: "Capitalism is progressive because it 26

destroys the old methods of production and develops productive forces, yet at the same time, at a certain stage of development, it retards the growth of productive forces. It develops, organises and disciplines the workers---and it crushes, oppresses, leads to degeneration, poverty, etc. Capitalism creates its own grave-digger, itself creates the elements of a new system, yet, at the same time, without a `leap' these individual elements change nothing in the general state of affairs and do not affect the rule of capital. It is Marxism, the theory of dialectical materialism, that is able to encompass these contradictions of living reality, of the living history of capitalism and the working-class movement. But ... certain individuals or groups constantly exaggerate, elevate to a one-sided theory, to a one-sided system of tactics, now one and now another feature of capitalist development, now one and now another `lesson' of this development."* The erroneous revisionist and opportunist positions result from a one-sided interpretation of real-life events. Lenin wrote: "Bourgeois ideologists, liberals and democrats, not understanding Marxism, and not understanding the modern labour movement, are constantly jumping from one futile extreme to another. At one time they explain the whole matter by asserting that evil-minded persons `incite' class against class---at another they console themselves with the idea that the workers' party is a 'peaceful party of reform'. Both anarcho-syndicalism and reformism must be regarded as a direct product of this bourgeois world outlook and its influence. They seize upon one aspect of the labour movement, elevate one-sidedness to a theory, and declare mutually exclusive those tendencies or features of this movement that are a specific peculiarity of a given period, of given conditions of working-class activity. But real life, real history, includes these different tendencies, just as life and development in nature include both slow evolution and rapid leaps, breaks in continuity."** We may now proceed to examine the main methods of Lenin's criticism of revisionism and opportunism. In his criticism of revisionism, Lenin always relied on a scientific analysis of objective reality. He consistently applied the Marxist method in considering the objective content of the historical process at a given specific moment and, consequently, in understanding the movement of which class is the mainspring of social progress in these conditions.*** That is a strictly scientific, dialectical-materialist and class approach to an analysis of social phenomena. Such an approach includes historicism and so takes into consideration actual 27

changes, new problems of development and the specific * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, pp. 348-49. ** Ibid., p. 349. ** See Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 143. 32 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 33 nature of a historical situation. This method demands a comprehensive analysis of social phenomena and processes and, therefore, a differentiation and account of the dialectical links between essence, content and form, the general, specific and individual, the necessary and the accidental aspects--in a word, this method demands the application of scientific categories of materialist dialectics that reflect objective reality. Lenin's critique of revisionism and opportunism is based precisely on a thorough scientific analysis of the problem, on an examination of the actual events and processes that are distorted by revisionism. Lenin above all makes a radical distinction between revisionism, on the one hand, and a creative development of Marxism, on the other. It is particularly important to understand this distinction because revisionist arguments of yesterday and, especially, of today contain, typically, attempts to portray themselves as ``innovators'', representatives of creative Marxism, and to accuse Marxists-Leninists of dogmatism and ossification. The creative development of theory is one of the essential principles of Marxism-Leninism as a dialectical materialist theory that is based on the reflection of being in consciousness. The continual development of the world necessitates an advance and enrichment of Marxism-Leninism. Yet the fundamental principles of materialism and dialectics remain a scientific basis of that creative advance. In taking to task the Machists, Lenin recalled the words of Engels who said that "with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science ['not to speak of the history of mankind'), materialism has to change its form."* Lenin went on to say that "a revision of the `form' of Engels' materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical propositions is not only 28

not revisionism, in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is an essential requirement of Marxism. We criticise the Machists not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form and adopting the fundamental propositions of reactionary bourgeois philosophy-----"* Revisionism today, under the pretext of the "creative development" of Marxism continues to betray the very essence of Marxist-Leninist theory, rejecting the dialectical materialist philosophy and the vital principles of Marxist political economy and scientific communism, forming an alliance with bourgeois ideology all along the line. In his criticism of revisionism, both in the area of theory and on many salient practical issues of revolutionary struggle, Lenin consistently applied materialist dialectics and a class analysis. One example of just such a scientific approach is his analysis of the historical necessity and essence of proletarian dictatorship. Bourgeois antagonists of Marxism-Leninism and the Rightwing opportunist revisionists who follow in their wake, pontificate against the proletarian dictatorship, as they did in Lenin's day, falsely reducing it to coercion and interpreting it in a formal and abstract way. They metaphysically counterpose the word ``dictatorship'' to ``democracy'', completely ignoring the specific social content of these concepts. Lenin regarded proletarian dictatorship from the point of view of reality and the essential requirements of the class struggle; he gave an all-round justification for its historical role; he explained its class nature, tasks, social content, qualitative features and, on that basis, showed its inalienable connection with the new type of democracy, the multiplicity of forms that it could take. Lenin stressed that the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a new type of dictatorship (against the &#8226;&#8226;&#8226; V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 251. * Ibid., pp. 251-52. 3---2332

29

34 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 35 bourgeoisie) and a new form of democracy (for the working class and all working people); he said that proletarian dictatorship would combine force against the bourgeoisie with the complete development of democracy---i.e., the participation of the whole mass of the population in state affairs/^^1^^" All nations, he said, would arrive at socialism, but not in the same way; each one would bring its own specific features to a particular form of democracy, a particular variety of proletarian dictatorship, a particular rate of change. He foresaw that the transition from capitalism to communism "is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat"?* This essence manifests itself in the presence of the most diverse political forms which allow for both a pluralist and a one-party system, a form of Soviets and other forms which have been created, are being created or will be created by the peoples and their vanguard, depending on the balance of class forces, on the level of economic development in the country, on the degree of class consciousness and organisation of the working people, on national distinctions and traditions, and on the specific policy of various political parties. The nature of political power during the transitional period can be seen in any country which starts to build socialism in the fact that the working class, led by a Communist party, plays a leading role in socialist construction. As Leonid Brezhnev has said, "the practice of the socialist countries has reaffirmed ... that the development of socialist society proceeds on the basis of general laws, that in one form or another the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., state leadership of the building of socialism by the working class, is inevitable during the entire period of transition from capitalism to socialism".* From the point of view of criticising revisionism, it is class and scientific approach. back in 1910, Lenin reacted to a Leninist methodology in important to have an integrated It is worth remembering that the suggestions of Vperyod 30

(Forward) faction "to guarantee" Party members "complete freedom of revolutionary and philosophical thought", by showing quite clearly that it was a matter merely of the freedom to propagate bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. He said, "This slogan is thoroughly opportunist. In all countries this kind of slogan has been put forward in the socialist parties only by opportunists and in practice has meant nothing but `freedom' to corrupt the working class with bourgeois ideology.. .. The party of the proletariat ... is a free association, instituted to combat the `thoughts' (read: the ideology) of the bourgeoisie, to defend and put into effect one definite world outlook, namely, Marxism. This is the ABC."** The surrender of a class and, simultaneously, scientific position in the activity of a Communist party invariably leads to that party's liquidation. That was what Lenin had in mind when he emphasised that the direct road to such liquidation lies in "the destruction of the class independence of the proletariat, the corruption of its class-consciousness by bourgeois ideas", *** and that "the bourgeoisie are doing everything they can to spread and foster all ideas aimed at liquidating the party of the working class".**** Incidentally, the slogan "campaign for an open party", put forward by revisionists in Russia before the October Revolution, is now being presented by revisionists like Garaudy as an extremely novel and progressive demand. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, pp. 147-48. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 270. *** Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 156. **** Ibid., p. 155. * See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 412; Vol. 23, p. 25; Vol. 29, pp. 182, 433. ** Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 413; Vol. 31, p. 92; Vol. 23, p. 70. RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 37 Lenin left us models of a profound analysis and criticism of Right-wing revisionism in a party's political tactics, uncovering the philosophical basis of such tactics from a class and scientific standpoint.

31

In evaluating the views and policies of Bernstein as an opportunist trend within socialism, Lenin remarked that the Bernsteinians were propagating defensive tactics. They regarded the parliamentary struggle, for example, not as a device of the struggle, but as the major and exclusive form of it, therefore obviating the need for violence against the exploiters. Moreover, Lenin distinguished between the subjective intentions and the objective meaning of a political line. He said: "It may not have been Plekhanov's intention to allay or blunt political and social antagonisms between the classes, and between the people and the old authorities; he may assure other people that he had no such intention; but in the present political situation this is precisely the effect of his arguments. ... ``Bernstein was not striving for social peace (or so he said); but the bourgeoisie rightly understood that this is what his arguments implied."* Lenin also made a detailed expose of opportunist argument and its theoretical basis. He showed that the revisionists' campaign for petty reforms and renunciation of the ultimate objectives of struggle would inevitably lead to their recognition of the lack of a need for a revolutionary programme, a revolutionary party and tactics, to the conclusion that only a party of democratic and ``socialist'' reforms was necessary. In using such arguments, Lenin said, they were actually refuting the socialist theory of class struggle as the only real motive force of history and replacing it with a bourgeois theory of ``solidary'', ``social'' progress. According to Marxism, the real motive force of history is the revolutionary struggle between classes; reforms are only a byproduct of that struggle. According to bourgeois philosophers, the locomotive of progress is solidarity between all elements of society who have come to recognise the ``imperfection'' of a particular institution. "The first theory is materialist; the second is idealist. The first is revolutionary; the second is reformist. The first serves as the basis for the tactics of the proletariat in modern capitalist countries. The second serves as the basis of the tactics of the bourgeoisie."* Here Lenin reveals the nature of the attitude of revolutionaries to reforms: "We shall never reduce our tasks to that of supporting the slogans of the reformist bourgeoisie that are most in vogue. We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the revolutionary struggle, that 32

undoubtedly enhance the independence, class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat. ... Only by such tactics can real progress be achieved in the matter of important reforms."** Lenin frequently returned later to the part played by reforms in the class struggle and made the point that the only correct, Marxist tactic was not to let slip a single, slightest chance for real reforms and partial improvements and, at the same time, to explain to the people the falseness of reformism. Lenin drew the important conclusion from his analysis of reformist tactics: "Two worlds of ideas: on the one hand, the point of view of the proletarian class struggle, which in certain historical periods can proceed on the basis of bourgeois legality, but which leads inevitably to a denoucement, an open collision, to the dilemma: either smash the bourgeois state to smithereens or be defeated and strangled. On the other hand, the point of view of the reformist, the petty bourgeois who cannot see the wood for the trees, who cannot, through the tinsel of constitutional legality, see the fierce class struggle."*** * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 71. ** Ibid. *** Ibid., Vol. 16, p. 307. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, pp. 471-72. 38 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 39 It is evident that on matters of tactics, Lenin showed the greatest flexibility, taking into account the need to use various approaches and means of struggle depending on the concrete situation; at the same time, he always saw the class differentiation in society, the strategic objective, the theoretical scientific reasons for the workers' practical struggle for the future of all working mankind. Among the basic methodological questions concerning Lenin's approach to the fight against revisionism, we should include his ability to analyse individual changes in capitalist society in connection with the overall situation, in connection with a qualitative definiteness of the capitalist system--33

the ultimately decisive question of the essence of these changes. This was the nature of Lenin's argument against revisionist ideologists who speculated upon, for example, such changes in capitalism as the development of the shareholding system. To counteract the arguments of the forerunners of contemporary bourgeois and revisionist ideologists about the ``transformation'' of capitalism Lenin wrote, "What the abundance of these small depositors signifies is not the decentralisation of big capital but the strengthening of the power of big capital, which is able to dispose of even the smallest mites in the people's savings. His share in big enterprises does not make the small depositor more independent; on the contrary, he becomes more dependent on the big proprietor."* Lenin's analysis of the objective contradictions of capitalism and his criticism of inability to interpret its new aspects are particularly topical today when the scientific and technological revolution is engendering new phenomena within contemporary capitalism without changing its nature, in fact exacerbating the old and creating new contradictions. Lenin's experience of struggle against opportunism and revisionism serves today as a powerful weapon for all Communist parties. In the Address of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties on the Centenary of the Birth of V. I- Lenin, it was stressed that loyalty to Marxism-Lenin-. j<SUB>sm</SUB>---a great international teaching---is a guarantee of further communist successes. The ideological heritage of Lenin continues to be an inexhaustible source for a consistent struggle against bourgeois ideology, reformism and revisionism. RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> Right-wing revisionism today has succeeded from revisionism at the turn of the century and is similar to it. Yet it also has new features that are expressed in the following. 1. It continues to be a revision of Marxist theory all along the line---i.e., it revises all the component parts of Marxism (philosophy, political economy and scientific communism), yet it concentrates its attention on rejecting the basic laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism and socialist construction---i.e., on the social and political problems of the day. 34

The revision of Marxism-Leninism is also changing its form. While Right-wing revisionism at the turn of the century had operated under the banner of an open "criticism of Marxism", it is today a hypocritical device of all Rightwing revisionists, who try to undermine Marxism with bourgeois concepts, to pretend that they are returning to the ``authentic'', ``genuine'' Marxism. The accents in the revisionist rejection of the main principles of each of Marxism's three component parts are also changing. Revisionists reject primarily what is common to all component parts of Marxism---the principle of a class approach to social phenomena. But it is this approach which is the only correct one in a society where classes and the class struggle exist, in a world where the class struggle is developing both on national and international scale. The ignoring of a class approach is evident in the philosophy, V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 96. 40 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 41 economic views and social and political ideas of contemporary revisionism. The focal point of the revision of Marxist-Leninist philosophy today is the rejection of the fundamental problem of philosophy and of the theory of reflection, attempts to take dialectics out of materialism and to turn it into a sophistry adapted to hypocritical speculation about abstract ``humanism''---a device widely employed by all anti-communists. The focal point of revision of the economic theory of Marxism is the economic basis of socialism, including its major laws; socialisation of the principal means of production, economic planning, and the organic connection between centralism and other democratic forms of government. The revision of scientific communism lies in the renunciation of the leading role of the working class and its party in the fight for socialism, of the Leninist theory of socialist revolution, of the historical necessity of proletarian dictatorship, of the basic principles of socialist democracy and 35

the Leninist theory of the working-class party. The fundamental tenets of all three component parts of Marxism are revised now, as in the past, by replacing Marxism with old and new bourgeois concepts. The present-day bourgeois sociological theories of " industrial society", ``deproletarisation'' and "the end of ideology" are having a particularly important impact on Rightwing revisionism. It is also being influenced by bourgeois philosophical ideas concerning abstract humanism, by economic theories of market socialism that have become part of the armoury of Right-wing socialist and anti-communist propaganda. 2. Just like their ideological forebears, present-day revisionists are continuing to falsify Marxism and, therefore, follow in the footsteps of the bourgeois ``experts'' on Marx. Revisionists borrow from bourgeois ``experts'' on Marxism the device of counterposing Marx to Engels, and Lenin to Marx and Engels; they oppose conclusions made by MarxistLeninist parties to the conclusions of Lenin, oppose the partisan nature of socialist ideology to its scientific nature. Revisionists reiterate bourgeois ideas that Marxism is outmoded or disintegrating; they reproduce the bourgeois calumny that Marxism-Leninism is anti-humanist, and demand that it should be radically ``humanised''. The main thrust of revisionism is today directed against Leninism. One example of this struggle is the book by the Austrian Right-wing revisionists Ernst Fischer and Franz Marek, entitled Was Lenin wirklich sagte (What Lenin Really Said) (Wien, Miinchen, Zurich, 1969). As Friedl Fiirnberg, Secretary of the CG of the Communist Party of Austria, has justly remarked, the book serves the sole purpose of stating that Leninism is a specifically Russian phenomenon and that Lenin's teaching is scarcely applicable on an international scale, i.e., to other countries. Attempts to play down the importance of Leninism and to distort its meaning have also been made by such renegades from the French Communist Party as Roger Garaudy and Andre Barjonet, and several other Right-wing revisionists. To abject Leninism means directly to renounce the ideological basis of the entire communist movement, insofar as Leninism---the Marxism of the contemporary era---is just that basis. In the new historical epoch, Lenin defended and enriched 36

the fundamental principles of Marxism as the ideology of the working class: he creatively developed all three component parts of Marxism---dialectical materialism, economic theory (an important contribution to which was Lenin's teaching on imperialism) and the theory of scientific communism. Leninism signified the practical embodiment of the ideas of Marx. It was under the banner of Leninism that the process of profound revolutionary worldwide change began, developed and is continuing today. Any renunciation of Leninism leads to the working class and its vanguard being disarmed ideologically, to a renunciation of the fight for socialist revolution and for building 42 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 43 socialism and communism; it leads to an ideological capitulation to imperialism. 3. While, in the past, revisionism in theory frequently coincided with opportunism in practice, today Right-wing revisionism has completely coalesced with opportunism. There can no longer be purely theoretical arguments with the revisionists because pressing issues of the day---specific questions of the transition from capitalism to socialism and the practical construction of socialism and communism--stand at the centre of the struggle. Each of the issues on which the revisionists oppose Leninism is connected with the practical struggle between the world of socialism and the world of capitalism, between the reactionaries and the progressives. The indissoluble connection between revisionism and opportunism is shown by the fact that any proponent of revisionist views is, by the very logic of class struggle, cast upon the other side of the barricades and ultimately finds himself among the enemies of socialism. 4. A characteristic feature of contemporary Right-wing revisionism is its union with revisionism from the ``Left''. Nationalism and anti-Sovietism serve as a basis for such a union. Leonid Brezhnev said at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties that, "a frequent feature of both `Left' and Right-wing opportunism is concessions to 37

nationalism, and sometimes even an outright switch to nationalistic positions"."" This is because the social and political roots of both forms of present-day revisionism are so similar. Both forms rest on unstable, non-proletarian and petty-bourgeois strata with their ingrained national egoism and philistine prejudices. It is precisely these strata that are most influenced by bourgeois nationalism and inclined to purvey their own selfish interests as those of the whole nation. Both forms of revisionism, being carriers of bourgeois ideology, freely take in the dogmas of imperialist propaganda aimed at splitting the world communist movement and the socialist community, the more so because these dogmas are put out under the hypocritical pretext of ``concern'' for national sovereignty, national equality and independence. The imperialist bourgeoisie sometimes succeeds in using trends of petty-bourgeois nationalism which are typical of revisionism and which declare, as Lenin aptly put it, internationalism to be "the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal, petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest intact. . . ."* Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism remove both forms of revisionism from the genuinely national interest of the overwhelming majority of a nation---the working people, because the only true way to ensure that their interests are served is through proletarian internationalism, mutual assistance and solidarity in the fight against the common enemy---imperialism. Both forms of revisionism, being infected by nationalist prejudices and tendencies, are easily influenced by bourgeois anti-Soviet propaganda, playing on the philistine moods and enflaming hostility towards the Soviet Union, distorting its real role within the socialist community and the international communist movement. For the purposes of anti-Sovietism, both Right- and ``Left''wing revisionism employ Trotskyist ideas about the reactionary role of the Soviet Union, about a ``degeneration'' of the Party and the Soviet state. Both have seized upon Trotskyist methods of using the politically immature and inexperienced young people. The CC CPSU Theses on the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin said: "Present-day revisionism 'is assimilating' the ideas of various anti-Leninist trends, which were at one * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, 38

Moscow 1969, p. 156, V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148. 44 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 45 time or another defeated in open confrontation with Marxism-Leninism, and it is trying to use them to infiltrate the communist parties in order to impose its own line upon them, taking advantage of instances of ideological immaturity and dogmatism.""'' 5. An important characteristic of Right-wing revisionism today is its link with anti-communism which stakes on revisionism as its ideological and political ally in the plans to disorganise the communist movement and undermine socialism from within. In present-day circumstances, a single ideological front has been formed which embraces various political and ideological trends that are inimical to Marxism-Leninism and to socialism, they range from ``Left''- and Right-wing opportunism to the most virulent anti-communism. The most diverse political forces today exist in a single camp of opponents of Marxism-Leninism, the communist movement and the socialist community. They include imperialists, Maoists, nationalists, militant Zionists and rivisionists of all shades. ANTI-COMMUNISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> Imperialist ideologists and politicians pin great hopes on revisionism and nationalism. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the leading anti-communist ideologists, has said, "the Western posture toward Communism is not one of crusading militancy. ... Today, the predominant Western attitude is that Communism will gradually moderate itself, eventually approximating social democracy. . . . The West . . . relies . . . on the erosive effects of time and the pressures for change within the Communist states themselves".** Other ``experts'' on anti-communist affairs take the same line. Joseph Rothschild, an American expert on East * The CC CPSU Theses on the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin, December 23, p. 3. 39

** Z. Brzezinski, "Tomorrow's Agenda", Beyond Left and Right, New York, 1968, p. 318. European affairs, has written that "revisionism and polycentrism ... become ideological tools with which the People's Democracies can seek to carve out for themselves freedom to experiment with original or indigenous styles of politicoeconomic organisation". He insistently recommends " rewarding those countries and leaders who are prepared to assert and maximize their autonomy and independence from Moscow".* Behind the concern for the ``independence'' of socialist states, a major objective of imperialism is to weaken their unity and solidarity. Bourgeois ideologists therefore call for direct material assistance to anti-socialist forces so as to undermine the socialist system. Kurt London, director of an American anti-communist centre, declares that "the proper Western policy towards East Central Europe at the present juncture is that of peaceful engagement, i.e., the co-ordinated use of cultural exchange, financial credit, and diplomatic manoeuvre to promote the erosive forces already at work in the area".** He singles out the political importance of nationalism and revisionism, regarding revisionism as a system of views capable of eventually becoming a generally accepted doctrine in the socialist states, and nationalism, as an ideology capable of overtaking internationalism. The authors of another book on anti-communism recommend conducting a policy of liberalisation, "working from within its framework and its slogans---and then subtly, almost unconsciously changing their meaning, rather than smashing the works from outside, with unforseeable consequences".*** The works of anti-communists do not only make it clear that the overall tactical line of imperialism and revisionism coincides; they also directly praise revisionism and its representatives. Here one can also find the origins of many creative * J. Rothschild, Communist Eastern Europe, New York, 1964 pp. 89-90. ** K. London (ed.), Eastern Europe in Transition, Baltimore, 1966, p. XIV. *** P. Juviler, H. Morton (eds.), Soviet Policy-Making. Studies of Communism in Transition, New York, 1967, p. 117. 46 40

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 47 discoveries of the revisionists who boast of enriching and developing Marxism. To discover the real class essence of particular theories and conceptions, Lenin recommended asking the question: for whom are such views useful? It is undoubtedly more important to answer this question than to provide information on who exactly puts forward these views. The theoretical exercises of contemporary bourgeois ideologists and professional anti-communists convincingly show that revisionism is useful and profitable to our class enemies, that revisionist ideas converge with and at times are directly copied from their bourgeois prototypes. Anti-communists gladly welcome revisionist distortions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and their programme of improving socialism. The same ideas that revisionists present as their own are, in fact, met in the works of bourgeois anticommunist ``experts'' on Marxism. Here one finds the conclusion that socialism does not exist in the world today, that the working class has not fulfilled its historic role, that alienation is not removed by the abolition of private property, that determinism leaves no room for individual activity, that Lenin's interpretation of imperialism is outdated, and that proletarian dictatorship is a reactionary myth."' Anticommunists are even prepared to make common cause with revisionists on a ``Marxist'' platform if the latter agree with this type of ``improvement'' of Marxism. But what sort of Marxism do they have in mind? This question is answered by the professional anti-communist Alfred G. Meyer in a book which includes such authors and ``experts'' on Marxism as George Lichtheim, Maximilien Rubel, Robert C. Tucker, Gerhart Niemeyer and Herbert Marcuse, and revisionists like Gajo Petrovic and Karel Kosi'k. Meyer writes that ".. .we are all Marxists.. . . For we are all to some extent imbued with the ethics of Marx, we are all critics of alienation___We need not be critics of economic exploitation or political domination. . .. We accept the individual bricks of building blocks that Marx has fashioned. . .. The critical, if you wish destructive, elements of Marxism provide convenient nomenclature when one wants to describe society on 41

the other side of the so-called Iron Curtain.. .".* That is to say, "convenient nomenclature" for anti-socialist propaganda. In another book, the joint platform of revisionists and anti-communists is formulated as follows: "In the words of Raymond Aron, we are all Marxists in a sense [!]; all modern societies have an ambition to construct an order conforming to their ideal and refuse to submit to any fatality."** Thus, Marxism without Marxism is the ideological platform which unites anti-communists and revisionists. The bourgeois press accords special attention to the most energetic proponents of Right-wing revisionism. In a bookseries designed to popularise outstanding philosophers of all times and nations, books devoted to Buddha, Hegel, Confucius, Seneca, Thomas Aquinas, Plato, Sartre, Husserl, Jaspers and Nietzsche were accompanied by a book singing praises of Garaudy.*** His activity is advertised also on the pages of Problems of Communism, a leading periodical of contemporary anti-communism. It states, for example, that in discussions with Jean-Paul Sartre he does not make "any attempt to defend the traditional Marxist notions that Sartre attacks. ... Garaudy seems virtually to take over from Sartre the project of reconciling existentialism with Marxism, apparently with the aim of producing a better synthesis of the two than Sartre's.. . . Garaudy takes Fichte as his own model in seeking to recover what is valuable in existentialism...". The journal regrets that Garaudy "had been cut off from the * Ibid., pp. 99-101. ** L. Soubise, "Le marxisme apres Marx (1956-1965)", Qualre marxistes dissident frangais, Paris, 1967, p. 322. *** See S. Perottino, Roger Garaudy et le marxisme du XX* siede Paris, 1969. * N. Lobkowicz (ed.), Marx and the Western World, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1967. 48 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 49 one audience he wished most to influence, and to convert ... from dogma to thought".* 42

The theoreticians of anti-communism especially approve of renunciation of Leninism and the leading role of the working class today. Anti-communism and revisionism have, here, a common ideological source---Karl Kautsky, whose followers have long tried to divorce Leninism from Marxism and to make it out to be a regional, local phenomenon. In the words of Brzezinski, "Leninism has become an obsolete dogma which has little to say with regard to the novel psychological and scientific dilemmas of the postindustrial, technotronic age".** Furthermore, the " relativization of a hitherto absolute ideology is often the first stage in the erosion of the vitality of the ideology". Moreover, " revisionism was such erosion's harbinger."*** A good example of the fusion of revisionist views with anti-communism is the evolution of Milovan Djilas, who began as a renegade with anti-Soviet attacks and wild judgements on the flaws of ``Stalinism'' and ended up by declaring open war on Leninism and formulating a programme for restoring capitalism in the socialist states. In the words of another anti-communist ideologist, Ghita lonescu, this volteface is quite significant because it shows that "de-Stalinisation is not enough and .. . de-Leninisation is now ineluctable".**** lonescu pinpoints the declaration by Djilas that Leninist ideas and practical reality do not conform with contemporary requirements and circumstances, that an answer to the question "What is to be done?" can no longer be found in Lenin. In his view, "Leninism is altogether incompatible with the essentially pluralistic industrial and post-industrial society".* Djilas sees a way out of this situation in carrying out "economic, cultural, national and political pluralism",** which means, in fact, a complete renunciation of the fundamentals of the socialist system. In the attempts to disprove Marxist-Leninist ideas concerning the inevitable transition of all countries to socialism and communism, bourgeois ideologists speculate upon the problems of the scientific and technological revolution. They ignore its divergent social consequences under capitalism and socialism; they examine this revolution as a self-contained process allegedly liberating human society on the basis of the laws of social development discovered by Marx. The well-known American sociologist Daniel Bell concludes that "the older Marxist conception of 'laws of social development' is no longer valid" and that "the scientific and technological revolution cannot be led by the working 43

class".*** Such bourgeois sociological conclusions are typical of all Right-wing opportunist revisionists. How do anti-communist ideologists see the role of Rightwing revisionist ideas? In the words of Michael Gamarnikow, "economic revisionism ... strikes at the economic roots of the party's power" and it is the path to "the transfer of decision-making power ... to the new managerial class"; further, "the new generation of economists and technocrats ... is much more inclined to reject outdated theoretical dogmas" and therefore lead to "the abolition of centralised planning". He writes with approval of revisionists who have declared that "the 'cult of the plan' has been a manifestation of Stalinism just as insidious as 'the cult of personality' ".**** He is in full agreement with the assertion of Professor L. Markovic of Belgrade * Ibid., pp. 302, 303, 304. ** Ibid., p. 304. *** D. Bell, "The Post-Industrial Society. The Evolution of an Idea", Survey, No. (2) 79, London, 1971, pp. 154-55. &raquo;*** M. Gamarnikow, Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe, Detroit, 1968, pp. 15, 22, 46, 47. * M. Cranston, "The Thought of Roger Garaudy", Problems of Communism, September-October 1970, pp. 14, 18. ** Z. Brzezinski, Foreign Affairs, Oct. 1970, p. 20. *** Z. Brzezinski, The Soviet Bloc. Unity and Conflict, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967, pp. 511-12. **** The Political Quarterly, London, Vol. 41, No. 3, JulySeptember 1970, p. 302. 4-2332 50 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY tENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM

44

51 University that "a Communist party is no longer capable of leading a modern industrial society".* Problems of Communism, from which the last quotation was taken, relies on revisionist statements and tries to justify the prospect of creating in the socialist states a pluralistic political system of the Western type with legalised political opposition, the removal of communist parties from power and the creation of conditions for the "free play of political forces''. Many anti-communist ideologists** paint just such a political picture and, as a rule, try to justify it by references to revisionist and nationalist views. They value such ideas as a means of striving for political changes in the socialist states. They believe it necessary to concentrate their efforts on theoretical problems and to influence people's thinking; "the activities of the revisionists carry political implications. ... Philosophic revisionism, which has been a primary cause of recent social upheaval, has not been extinguished". By "social upheaval", they are referring to the counter-revolutionary actions in Poland in 1956 which were inspired by anti-socialist forces and revisionist elements. They conclude that "one of its stages has been completed, only to open the way for a new one."*** The imperialists, like their henchmen, have not laid down their arms or stopped trying to undermine socialism from within. Gustav Husak, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, has said: "International reaction knows full well that anti-communism in its old, primitive form can no longer break the bond between communist parties and broad sections of the working people. It therefore stubbornly uses every manifestation of Right-wing opportunism and revisionism in order to detract the working class from its revolutionary mission. Our recent experience and that of other parties convincingly confirm that revisionism naturally becomes open betrayal of socialism and of the revolutionary labour movement, a blatant transfer of its representatives to anti-communist and anti-Soviet positions."* Communists and other progressives are not alone in learning lessons from the past. The lessons from the events in Czechoslovakia are attracting the rapt attention of reactionary politicians and anti-communist ideologists. 45

The offensive of right-wing forces in Czechoslovakia was closely associated with the centres of world anti-communism. Channels have been discovered through which alien ideology penetrated into Czechoslovakia; they were Zionism, revisionist groupings inside certain communist parties, Trotskyist groups, Right-wing Social-Democrats and religious political organisations centred on the Vatican. Revisionist ideologists in Czechoslovakia had gone to America and other Western states for their instructions, and leading anti-communist ideologists had spoken about their doctrines directly in Prague. Brzezinski had given lectures in Prague on the "End of Leninism''. It is characteristic that subsequently, after the complete failure of the plans by anti-communist reactionaries, its ideologists came to the conclusion that the "radical club" idea had been put forward prematurely and questions had been posed too acutely; on the other hand, the difficult and * M. Gamarnikow, "Political Patterns and Economic Reforms", Problems of Communism, March-April 1969, p. 20. ** See Problems of Communism, September-October 1971, pp. 64-65; A. Z. Rubinstein, Communist Political System, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1966; R. Conquest, "The Limits of Detente", Foreign Affairs, July 1968; Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton, New Jersey, 1966, p. 41; R. Conquest (ed.), The Soviet Political System, London, 1968; Sowjetsystem und demokratische Gesellschaft. Eine vergleichende Enzyklopadie, Herausgegeben von C. D. Kernig, Bd. I, Freiburg, 1966, S. 1146. *** W. J. Stankeiwicz (ed.), Political Thought since World War H, Glencoe, 1964, pp. 262, 269, 285. * G. Husak, Report on Party Activity and Social Development After the Eighth Party Congress and Further Tasks of the Party Moscow 1971, p. 132 (Russ. ed.). 52 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

46

LENINISM AND RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 53 complex philosophical terminology of the inspirers of " ideology of protest" had prevented it from becoming "a weapon of direct political struggle". They believed that the hopes placed in the intellectuals had not been fulfilled because the intellectuals had been so amorphous/^^1^^" The anti-communists therefore were not happy to find in the midst of the Czechoslovak intellectuals, besides individual betrayers of socialism, many honest people who had rejected the plans and designs of their Western patrons. Yet Problems of Communism pours forth much praise for those forces "which provided the philosophical and ideological background of the mass revolutionary [i.e., counter-revolutionary.---Authors.} mood that emerged in Czechoslovakia during 1968".** It includes in such forces the philosopher Karel Kosik, activists of the Writers' Congress that took place in June 1967, Ivan Svitak, Milan Prucha, Ota Sik, Evzen Loebl and Ludvik Vaculik.*** Peter Ludz, currently Senior Fellow at the Research Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University, gives as the ingredients of that ``background'': "first, a new philosophy and ethic .. . influenced especially by existentialism", by Hegel and Schelling, phenomenology and neo-Kantianism. In his words, this philosophy puts its accent on subjectivity and a "free individual", an "intellectual elite", an understanding of practice hostile to a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, and it rejects the idea of a party spirit and collectivism, and even the concept of the "working class"; "second a sweeping and radical critique of the bureaucratisation of party, state, economy and culture; and third, the aspiration to realise---with the help of the West European intelligentsia---the vision of a democratic socialism, an `open' Marxism..." and "a number of other basic rights associated with parliamentary democracy".**** * See P. Ludz, "Philosophy in Search of Reality", Problems of Communism, July-August, September-October 1969, pp. 34, 39, 40. ** Ibid., p. 33. *** Ibid., pp. 34, 35, 37. ***&raquo; Ibid., pp. 33, 34, 35. Hopes for a regeneration of bourgeois democracy in the socialist states have long occupied a very important place in the political calculations of and-communists. Under the veiled talk of "democratic socialism", they had in mind the 47

implementation of counter-revolutionary plans for re-establishment in Czechoslovakia of political pluralism of a Western type, which would include the legalisation of political opposition and contention for power. They therefore wanted to create more favourable circumstances for the activity of anti-socialist forces and to legitimate their entry into the political arena. Of course, all that was termed " liberalisation and democratisation". The main link in this liberalisation has been the slanderous campaign against the Communist Party which is portrayed as the main obstacle in the way of modernisation, progress and freedom.* What are the forces within the socialist states on which anti-communism counts? As before---nationalism and revisionism. The ideologists of anti-communism set great store by nationalism, a split in the unity of the socialist community. Anything that can contribute to undermining such unity is employed, including old-style speculation on interests for "national independence" and the doctrines "of reliance on one's own forces" and isolationism.** In his analysis of the failure of imperialist plans in Czechoslovakia, George Gross, a specialist in anti-communist affairs, sees the mistakes of the Czechoslovak counter-revolutionaries in the fact that they concentrated efforts on reforms whose implementation would have led to removing Communists from power. He feels that they should have primarily united on a platform of nationalism and agitated for changing the status quo within the framework of the socialist system, rather than proclaiming, from the very beginning, the slogan of ``reforming'' the socialist system * Z. Brzezinski, "East-West Relations After Czechoslovakia", East Europe, No. 11-12, 1969, p. 6. ** Foreign Affairs, January1969, p. 279.</b> 54 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 2 NEW STAGE IN THE ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE</b> In the opinion of Gross, "three words best sum up the conclusions of this study---division, opportunity, and nationalism. Of the three, nationalism deserves to be the last word, for it is the source of division and opportunity as well".*

48

A very important human virtue is to be able to draw the right lessons from experience. History teaches us that reactionaries do not always enjoy that virtue. It was once said about the French royalists that they never forgot anything and never learned anything. This is worth remembering in regard to present-day anti-communist and revisionist ideologists. That is why vigilance and solidarity in defence of socialist gains from the intrigues of international reactionaries and their henchmen, an uncompromising onslaught on anti-communism and revisionism and a rational expose and critique of revisionist ideas remain among the foremost tasks that Communists have to face. The present international situation shows important positive trends towards the strengthening of peace and detente. The consistent implementation of the Peace Programme, formulated by the 24th CPSU Congress, a further strengthening of the positions of the fraternal socialist states and their unity, and the mounting influence of their co-ordinated policy on the course of international affairs, all contribute to an improvement in the international situation and to the widespread recognition of the principles of peaceful coexistence as a norm for relations between states with different social systems, contributing to a change on the international scene from the cold war to detente. At the same time, peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems does not mean any lessening in the ideological struggle. The contention of the two antagonistic ideologies---bourgeois and socialist---continues today against a background of rapid shifts in the political situation within individual states and throughout the world, profound and sharp changes in the balance of class forces. This contention takes place against a background of the further deepening of internal contradictions within world capitalism and a debilitation of its positions, radical changes in the international balance of power in favour of world socialism, the communist, working-class and national liberation movements. * G. Gross, "Communism Divided: Some Considerations for American Policy", The Russian Review, July 1969, p. 275. 56 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 57

49

Reactionary imperialist forces, even though they have forfeited the initiative and can no longer determine the direction and prospects of historical development, have not laid down their arms or left the battlefield. They are trying to launch the counter-offensive against the forces of peace, democracy, national independence and socialism. In its ideological campaign, the class enemy puts great hopes in the revisionists and opportunists of all shades. REASONS FOR THE REVISIONIST RESURGENCE</b> In recent years, ". .. the attempts on various sides to attack Marxism-Leninism as the ideological-theoretical basis for the activity of the communist movement have been most acute.. .. Here and there tendencies towards nationalistic self-isolation have been stepped up, and both ``Left'' and Right-wing opportunism have been revived."* Nationalist and revisionist trends within communist and workers' parties during the 1960s were encouraged by certain objective and subjective factors. One important factor was the aggravation of the international situation brought about by the intrigues of the aggressive forces of imperialism. During the 1960s, military conflicts, which posed a serious threat to world peace, occurred in Indochina and the Middle East; these were caused by the US aggression in Vietnam and the Israeli aggression against the Arab states. A strained situation, again caused by aggressive imperialist forces, was maintained around Cuba. In several parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America, imperialism tried to gain revenge for its past defeats. Europe became a focal point of unresolved international problems. The nuclear and other arms race continued at a rapid pace. International trade and cultural exchange between countries with different social systems were at a low level. The icy winds of the cold war froze the situation even more and prevented a solution of internationnal issues. As a result of a marked swing in the balance of power in favour of the world socialist system, of the international labour and national liberation movement, imperialism was obliged to make essential changes to its military and political doctrines. Its strategic policy aimed at an all-out offensive on world socialism and the revolutionary forces had come to grief. Therefore, without discarding their plans to launch a new world war, local wars or counter-attacks at various sectors of the anti-imperialist front, imperialist ruling circles began 50

more actively to pursue a policy of splitting the communist parties and the socialist states, trying to put them at loggerheads with one another, especially with the Soviet Union and the CPSU, at undermining world socialism, the international communist and national liberation movement, and all anti-imperialist forces. At the 1969 International Meeting, Leonid Brezhnev said: "The tremendous social break-up of the pillars of the old world taking place under the onslaught of socialism and all the revolutionary forces is meeting with growing resistance from the bourgeoisie. To safeguard its positions it strives to use all the economic and political possibilities of statemonopoly capitalism. In the capitalist countries, anti-communism has been elevated to the status of state policy. To erode the communist and the whole revolutionary movement from within is now one of the most important directions of the class strategy of imperialism.'"^^5^^' Ideological pressure by imperialism on the socialist states, the communist and revolutionary-democratic parties in these years was stepped up, and a new, more acute stage in the ideological struggle began. Revisionist trends appeared wherever individual sectors * 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, p. 26. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties Moscow 1969, p. 155. 58 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 59 of the anti-imperialist front, for various reasons, were insufficiently strong ideologically. In the advanced capitalist states, the ideological offensive against communist parties and the working class was accompanied during the 1960s, as occasionally in the past, by certain concessions to the working class in the social field---wage rises for certain categories of workers and employees, better housing conditions, social security, etc.

51

State-monopoly capitalism is today forced to make such concessions. In order to avoid social upheavals that menace its existence, it has to take into consideration the growth in the working-class movement and the mounting class struggle. At the same time, it is also bound to reckon with the conditions of competition and struggle between the two world social systems and with the successes of the socialist countries in the social sphere. Wage increases and similar concessions remain for capitalism only measures of social manoeuvring. And although capital will tomorrow take from the workers, by thousands of devices, including tax and price increases, what it had given them only yesterday, some sections of industrial and white-collar workers are taken in by the apparent concessions which are praised by revisionists as evidence of radical changes in the very basis of the bourgeois system. The resurgence of revisionist and nationalist tendencies in certain parties was also influenced by the fact that, for several years, these parties had been considerably supplemented by semi- and non-proletarians. In the advanced capitalist states, this influx was mainly from scientific and technical personnel, students, people from the field of literature and the arts, urban middle strata; they brought with them pettybourgeois ideas. In some newly independent states of Asia and Africa, the increase in the communist-party membership has come mainly from the peasants, who lean towards the ideas of nationalism and petty-bourgeois illusion. The widening social base of the communist and workers' parties testifies, of course, to the growth in their political prestige and influence. Nonetheless, in the parties which lack a measure of ideological education, the danger exists of pervading communist ranks with petty-bourgeois and bourgeois ideas, a growth in revisionist and nationalist tendencies. A great impetus was given to the growth in revisionist and nationalist trends by the sharp departure during the 1960s of the leaders of the Communist Party of China from Marxist-Leninist principles, and the Maoist divisive activity within the international communist and national liberation movement. This began with dogmatism and ``Left''-wing adventurism. Already in the late 1950s, the Chinese leaders had taken a stand on certain vital questions of domestic and foreign policy that differed radically from that of most other fraternal parties. The adventurist trends in domestic policy were apparent in the rejection of the policy of the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of China and the 52

launching of the ``great-leap-forward'' policy, permeated by a petty-bourgeois impatience and a striving to skip historically necessary stages of development. Behind the ultra-revolutionary slogans in foreign policy, one could more frequently detect an urge to secure for China the leading position among the world revolutionary forces. In June 1963, the Chinese leaders went against the jointly elaborated policy of the communist movement, which had been agreed upon by all communist and workers' parties, including the CPC, and published their notorious " TwentyFive Points"---"The Proposals Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement". In that document, they openly demanded a revision of Marxism-Leninism from a position of ``Left''-wing revisionism, petty-bourgeois revolutionism and adventurism, nationalism and chauvinism. The guidelines proposed by the Chinese leaders came not from a Marxist-Leninist analysis of the world political situation, but from subjective calls for a rapid destruction of imperialism and a forcing of world revolution by any means, including thermonuclear war. 60 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 61 In their further evolution the Maoists departed completely from Marxism-Leninism. In that period, the CPC leaders refused to co-operate with other Communist parties and began to create in several countries divisive groupings of a Left-wing opportunist colouring disguised as "Marxist-Leninist" parties, with which the Trotskyists often formed an alliance. Peking tried to unite these groups under its aegis to oppose the international communist movement. At the 9th CPG Congress, which took place in April 1969, the Mao Tse-tung thought was officially proclaimed as the "third stage" in the development of Marxism-Leninism and a new ideological and political platform of the Party. This was a special ideological and political platform opposed to Leninism on all basic questions of international affairs and the world communist movement. Maoism had gone beyond ``Left''-wing revisionism and opportunism and had become a national-chauvinist trend in contention with MarxismLeninism. It would be wrong to believe that the anti-Leninist stand 53

of Maoism and its divisive activity had stimulated only ``Left''-wing opportunist trends in the communist movement. The Maoists began to stimulate revisionist and opportunist trends of both a ``Left''-and a Right-wing persuasion. It is not accidental, therefore, that both ``Left''-and Right-wing revisionism take a conciliatory attitude to Maoism and, especially, to its anti-Soviet policy. Those who yesterday highly praised the "democracy and liberalisation" of Dubek and Smrkovsky, today try with the same ardour to rehabilitate and justify the political careering of the Peking regime. Maoism has stimulated any anti-Leninist trends within the communist movement. This is an important aspect of its servility to imperialism. Moreover, while Right- and ``Left''wing revisionists in the fight against Marxism-Leninism regard Peking as their militant vanguard and bastion, US imperialism with its strategy directed at undermining the unity of the socialist states and the international communist movement also looks to Peking for assistance---and not without reason. Subjective circumstances have also contributed to a livening in revisionist trends within certain Communist parties. Many parties in advanced capitalist states have long been pursuing a policy of creating broad anti-monopoly alliances. In recent years, Communists have been making new steps towards collaboration and concerted action with SocialDemocrats and other Left-wing forces. This policy has been formulated in the d'ocuments of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties and of individual Marxist-Leninist parties. In some countries, however, in an attempt to find common cause with the Social-Democrats, Communists have subdued their criticism of the ideological attitudes of Right-wing Social-Democrats hostile to Marxism-Leninism. In some cases, they have made concessions to Right-wing SocialDemocrats even on such matters of principle as the leading role of the revolutionary party of the working class, the paths and forms of transition to socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other cases, a fear of worsening relations with social democrats or with other allies in the anti-monopoly struggle has led to a surrender of positions even on such major political issues as judgement on the Czechoslovak events of 1968-1969 and the anti-Leninist policy of the Chinese leaders. A blunting of the class approach to ideological opponents and their hostile attitude is a dangerous disease, primarily 54

from the point of view of its revisionist complications. The well-known document adopted by the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Lessons Drawn from the Crisis Development in the Party and Society After the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The document points out the subjective mistakes that were responsible for revisionist tendencies in Czechoslovakia. These mistakes include a certain self-complacency and the fact that the "weakening of polit62 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 63 ical and ideological work blunted the fight against bourgeois ideology, petty-bourgeois tendencies and ideological subversion".* Communists naturally cannot forget the fact that MarxismLeninism grew and became tempered in an uncompromising struggle against ideological tendencies and ideas hostile to the working class, and that Lenin would not allow any compromises in this ideological struggle, any concessions to the class foes on questions of principle concerning the theory and practice of the revolutionary struggle. The Soviet Communist Party has always taken a principled stand on ideological questions. Leonid Brezhnev has said: "In accordance with the line laid down by the 1969 International Meeting, the CPSU is prepared to develop cooperation with the Social-Democrats both in the struggle for peace and democracy, and in the struggle for socialism, without, of course, making any concessions in ideology and revolutionary principles. However, this line of the Communists has been meeting with stubborn resistance from the Right-wing leaders of the Social-Democrats. Our Party has carried on and will continue to carry on an implacable struggle against any attitudes which tend to subordinate the working-class movement to the interests of monopoly capital, and to undermine the cause of the working people's struggle for peace, democracy and socialism."** This attitude does not leave any grounds for ideological concessions to the ideological enemy and it fully accords with the contemporary conditions of the ideological struggle. To affirm the principles of peaceful coexistence as a norm for interstate relations does not eliminate the historic rivalry between the two world systems, between the forces of 55

progress and those of imperialist reaction. As Leonid Brezhnev has pointed out, "competition, rivalry between the two systems in the world arena continues. The crux of the matter is only to see to it that this process does not develop into armed clashes and wars between countries, into the use of force or threat of force in relations between them, and that it does not interfere with the development of mutually advantageous cooperation between states with differing social systems".* In the situation of peaceful coexistence, economic rivalry between world socialism and world capitalism continues and moves to a higher stage; at the same time, the ideological struggle does not cease. Communists remain principled opponents of imperialism. Within the capitalist world, the forces of reaction and anti-communism continue vigorously to prevent any normalisation of the international situation, they try to combat progressive forces as, for example, in Chile, they continue ideological subversion against the Soviet state and other socialist countries. Leonid Brezhnev said: "While upholding the principle of peaceful coexistence we are aware that successes scored in this important field are by no means imply any let-up in ideological struggle. On the contrary, this struggle should be expected to grow in scale and scope and become a more uncompromising form of confrontation between the two social systems."** The justification for this conclusion is patently obvious. One must not, finally, forget the fact that revisionism has tried and is today trying to exploit certain unresolved theoretical questions. Wherever theoretical questions are ignored, wherever a creative approach to new problems is lacking and dogmatism and inertness find themselves a haven, favourable opportunities exist for every sort of revisionist speculation, for Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunist distortions of Marxism-Leninism. * Lessons Drawn from the Crisis Development in the Party and Society after the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Supplement to New Times, No. 4, January 27, 1971, p. 32. ** 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 28. * L. I. Brezhnev, Our Course: Peace and Socialism, Part Three, Moscow, 1973, p. 41. ** L. I. Brezhnev, 0 vneshney politike KPSS i Sovetskogo gosudarstva, Moscow, 1973, p. 445. 56

64 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISMTODAY</b> MEW STACK IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 65 The above-mentioned document of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia points out that one of the most serious reasons for the resurgence of activities of revisionist tendencies in Czechoslovakia was to be found in the "insufficient generalization of the practice and the accumulated experience of the masses, underestimation of the class approach to social problems".* The 24th CPSU Congress stressed the important role of theoretical work among Party members for combating present-day revisionism: "The struggle between the forces of capitalism and socialism on the world scene and the attempts of revisionists of all hues to emasculate the revolutionary teaching and distort the practice of socialist and communist construction require that we continue to pay undivided attention to the problems and creative development of theory. Repetition of old formulas where they have become outworn and an inability or reluctance to adopt a new approach to new problems harm the cause and create additional possibilities for the spread of revisionist counterfeits of MarxismLeninism."** These are some of the fundamental reasons that led, during the last decade, to a livening of revisionist trends in the international communist movement. Of course, these reasons did not operate in all communist and workers' parties with the same force or lead to the same results. Most fraternal parties, tempered in class struggle, spotted the revisionist danger in time and resolutely rebuffed it. The conditions of class struggle today, however, have become so complex, and the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism, between the working class and the monopoly bourgeoisie, between the national liberation movement and imperialism have become so acute that no single communist or worker's party can guarantee that the revisionist danger will not reappear unless it fights against it. In addition, revisionism of the past decade, despite its resounding defeats, is not finished; some anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist views still frequently appear in the ranks of the international communist movement and in individual parties.

57

STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF REVISIONISM</b> The principal features of the political strategy and tactics of Right-wing revisionism today consist in capitulation to the bourgeoisie and complicity in imperialism, divisive actions in the international communist movement and the world socialist community. One of the most typical features of Right-wing revisionism is to adopt a social-democratic position in evaluating contemporary capitalism, to whitewash capitalism and ascribe features to various aspects of the capitalist system which put in doubt the need for class struggle. It rules out the historic objective of the working class---to overthrow exploiting classes, to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and to ensure the victory of socialism. Right-wing revisionists adopt a social-democratic, apologetic stance in regard to contemporary capitalism in all spheres, particularly in making judgement upon the social consequences of the scientific and technological revolution and the principles of bourgeois democracy. The French revisionist Garaudy, for example, has written of the scientific and technological revolution in words borrowed from bourgeois and social-democratic literature. They serve as a launching pad to destroy and, ultimately, reject the MarxistLeninist theory of socialist revolution. He sees the basis of contemporary social development not in a transition of more countries from capitalism to socialism but in "a second industrial revolution", which, in his opinion, signifies the transition from an era of machines to an era of computers. He needed this idea to justify the false theory of a "new historical bloc", the basic elements of which would evidently be the working class and the intellectuals. He grants the 5-2332 * Lessons Drawn from the Crisis..., p. 32. ** 24th Congress of ike CPSU, pp. 123-24. 66 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 67 leading role in that bloc not to the working class (whose 58

historical role, as a result of the "industrial revolution", is allegedly in decline), but to the technocrats (whose role is allegedly increasing due to that revolution). Hence the conclusion, typical of Right-wing revisionists, that a working-class party is unnecessary, that communist parties must become socially amorphous organisations deprived of class ideology and their own class features. Garaudy writes: "If the Party does not want to be a sect of doctrinaires, but the germ of all the forces which, in France, want to build socialism, it cannot have an 'official philosophy'."* The reformist Socialist International came to the same conclusion back in 1951. In regard to the grovelling before the formal principles of bourgeois democracy, the Czechoslovak Right-wing opportunists must have set many new records when they advocated in 1968 a return to political pluralism, to a system of rival political parties, the elimination of the leading role of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and a return to the bourgeois-democratic regime at the time of the MasarykBenes republic. The ideas of pluralist democracy, renunciation of the leading role of the working-class party enjoy unanimous support from all Right-wing revisionists and opportunists who have penetrated communist and workers' parties. This is because idealisation of these formal principles assists the Right-wing opportunists to substantiate their renunciation of the class struggle. To make an absolute of peaceful, especially parliamentary, forms of struggle, typical of Rightwing revisionists, serves the same aims. Lenin attached great importance to the need for the working class to master all forms of struggle---peaceful and nonpeaceful, parliamentary and non-parliamentary. He thought it imperative to be prepared for the rapid and unexpected replacement of one form of struggle by another. He tirelessly explained that Marxism "differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not `concoct' them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more 59

varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle.""" Nowadays, as the documents of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties have pointed out, the opportunities for the working class to take power in alliance with other anti-monopoly forces by a peaceful, and in some circumstances parliamentary, way have increased. Yet a Right-wing revisionist absolutisation of peaceful forms of struggle and a parliamentary path to socialism means merely a return to social-democratic "parliamentary actinism", which thereby has demonstrated its utter futility. Such a policy could lead Communist parties only to isolation from specific forms of mass struggle and, consequently, to being divorced from the people and to their degeneration into reformist parties. The revisionists set great hopes by the fact that, having won a parliamentary majority together with other Left-wing forces, the Communists could directly start making socialist changes in the capitalist countries without any transitional stages. Their theories erase the natural boundary between the democratic and socialist stages of revolution, and remove the question of the communist parties taking the leading role in the national alliance of democratic forces. R. Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, Paris, 1969, p. 284. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 213. 68 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE At the present time, the democratic and socialist stages of revolution are drawing together to a certain extent. It would, nevertheless, be wrong to ignore differences of principle between these stages. The transition from the democratic to the socialist stage requires not only deep-going social, economic and political reforms; it requires above all radical change within the coalition of democratic forces when they come to power. Experience shows that representation of the working class and the participation of its revolutionary party in a coalition government of Left-wing forces on equal terms with other Left-wing parties does not yet create conditions for 60

implementing a programme of socialist reforms. In these circumstances, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois parties use their advantages of a government majority for realising their own programmes that do not go beyond democratic reforms and do not have a socialist character. The working class and its revolutionary party can raise the popular revolutionary struggle to a new stage and ensure the complete abolition of capitalist power and the transfer to socialism only by guaranteeing for itself the leading role in the coalition of democratic forces. It is from this angle that the question was examined in the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting: "In the course of anti-monopolist and anti-imperialist united action, favourable conditions are created for uniting all democratic trends into a political alliance capable of decisively limiting the role played by the monopolies in the economies of the countries concerned, of putting an end to the power of big capital and of bringing about such radical political and economic changes as would ensure the most favourable conditions for continuing the struggle for socialism. The main force in this democratic alliance is the working class."" On the issues of socialist revolution, latter-day revisionists of a Right-wing persuasion tend to make a fetish of specific conditions in individual states. They reject the general laws of socialist revolution and absolutise the specific conditions of individual states; it is here that the historic role of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the international importance of the CPSU in building socialism and communism come under fire. In denigrating the historic role of Leninism and the October Revolution and in maintaining that CPSU experience in building socialism and communism does not have international significance, the Right-wing revisionists propagate a petty-bourgeois nationalist theory about a multiplicity of the models of socialism. Such a theory has nothing in common with the Marxist-Leninist theory on the various forms of transition to socialism. When Marxists speak of the possibility of various forms of transition to socialism, they mean that the essence of the transition from capitalism to socialism, given the great variety of forms it may take, remains the same. That is the socialisation of the main means of production, establishment of proletarian dictatorship, abolition of exploiting classes and human exploitation, and other principles of socialism. The various revisionist "socialist models" differ in both form and content. The revisionists use such an approach in order 61

to ascribe to socialism anything they wish and to slander and attack genuine socialism. Garaudy in his book Le grand tournant de socialisme examines the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav and other socialist models; he directs all his criticism, however, against the Soviet "socialist model". The anti-socialist and anti-Soviet essence of the theory of multiplicity of "socialist models", which is in fact a renunciation of the general laws of socialist construction, is here paraded in its full colours. The paramount political attitudes of Right-wing opportunist revisionism in regard to international problems objectively correspond to the interests of imperialism. The revisionists underestimate the military danger whose source was * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 25. 70 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 71 and remains imperialism. Thus, they put forward the demand for a unilateral disbanding of military and political blocs, thereby equating the aggressive bloc of imperialist states (NATO) with the defensive alliance of socialist states in the Warsaw Treaty, which had to be set up as a counter-measure to the creation of NATO. Following bourgeois ideologists and politicians, Right-wing revisionists demand an extensive exchange of ideas and contacts between West and East. They, perhaps, forget that 'the socialist states can only agree to such co-operation when there is respect for the sovereignty, laws and customs of every country, when the Western states give up their cold war methods and when this co-operation will serve the cause of peace. The policy of the revisionists on the most urgent questions of the international communist movement and the world socialist system serves the interests of the imperialists whose major concern is to weaken the unity and cohesion of antiimperialistforces.</b> <b>!</b> The tasks of the anti-imperialist struggle insistently require a strengthening of the militant solidarity and cohesion of all anti-imperialist forces---the world socialist system, the 62

international working class and the national liberation movement. In order to resolve this task, it is necessary further to consolidate the communist and workers' parties, to raise the unity of the communist movement to a new level. Right-wing revisionists have made rabid attacks on Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism in an attempt to break the cohesion of communist parties and socialist states. By acting the part of defenders of autonomy and independence of each party, its right to an independent interpretation of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and its independent resolution of questions of the anti-imperialist struggle, the revisionists advocate a defence of national seclusion among individual sections of the communist movement, their isolation from one another and against stronger unity and solidarity of the communist parties and socialist states. Participants in the 1969 International Meeting affirmed "their common view that relations between the fraternal Parties are based on the principles of proletarian internationalism, solidarity, and mutual support, respect for independence and equality, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. Strict adherence to these principles is an indispensable condition for developing comradely co-operation between the fraternal Parties and strengthening the unity of the communist movement."* Right-wing revisionists recognise only the second part of this formula---i.e., respect for the independence and equality of parties, non-intervention in each other's internal affairs. But they pass over in silence or completely reject the principles of proletarian internationalism, cohesion and support which comprise the first part of that formula. Many opportunists today try to counterpose proletarian internationalism .to independence, sovereignty and equality of communist parties. This can only lead to a distortion of the very basis of mutual relations between fraternal parties, to a descent from proletarian internationalist positions to petty-bourgeois nationalist attitudes. It runs counter to the interests of consolidating the international communist movement. A joint declaration by delegations of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the French Communist Party stated that "while not in any measure rejecting or diminishing the independence, sovereignty and equality and the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs both of nations and of communist parties, Communists consider it a rule to 63

respect and consistently to observe these principles precisely because they, along with solidarity and mutual assistance, are an organic part of proletarian internationalism".** Revisionists try to justify their denigration of Soviet foreign and home policy, the rich experience accumulated by * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 36. ** Pravda, July 6, 1971. 72 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 73 the CPSU in the struggle for socialism and communism. Moreover, according to the statements by some of them, Communists made "a serious and unforgivable error" when they defended the October Revolution, glorified the first Soviet five-year plans, showed solidarity with the people of the Soviet Union, and saluted unreservedly the emergence of new socialist states after 1945* The revisionists believe that only the variety and the specific nature of the conditions in which communist parties now operate engender differences in an approach to practical tasks and, consequently, differences of opinion within the world communist movement. They look upon the reasons for the latter exclusively in objective circumstances in which communist and workers' parties operate today. Such an attitude is essentially wrong and politically dangerous. To agree with the argument that the causes of disagreement are engendered only by objective circumstances would mean excluding subjective sources of revisionism and making impossible any pinpointing of the persons who are actually responsible for the disagreements, and the actual paths of overcoming them. This attitude completely suits the revisionists, who strive to "rise above" the actual conditions of the movement and, possibly, to be generally outside of the struggle. But such a position cannot satisfy Communists fighting to consolidate their ranks and to overcome prevailing difficulties and disagreements. In order to surmount disagreements, one must take into account not simply the objective difficulties confronting the communist movement, the objective conditions that produce 64

differences in approach to the resolution of practical tasks; subjective factors also have to be considered. It is necessary to expose those who today take a divisive attitude, hamper the unity of communist parties, and, by weakening their potential, assist the class enemy. Motivated by the interests of uniting the communist movement, the participants in the 1969 Meeting recorded that "the diverse conditions in which the Communist Parties operate, the different approaches to practical tasks and even differences on certain questions must not hinder concerted international action by fraternal Parties, particularly on the basic problems of the anti-imperialist struggle"."'' The tendency for Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism to move closer together has markedly strengthened of late. The ideological and political platform of contemporary ``Left''wing revisionism is a policy of adventure-seeking which the Maoists had advocated in the 1960s and which they subsequently renounced in favour of an alliance with the most reactionary circles of imperialism. The nationalistic ideas, that have nothing in common with the internationalist ideology of the working class, pervade unsubstantiated accusations of revisionism against the CPSU and most other fraternal parties by the Chinese leaders who are supported by certain Leftist ideologists. These ideas permeate the Maoist theory of the moving of the centre of revolutionary struggle to the East---to China, and the pettybourgeois theses concerning the decisive role of the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America in the anti-imperialist struggle. These are replete with chauvinistic and hegemonistic pretentions for the Chinese leaders to play the leading role in the international communist and national liberation movement. Petty-bourgeois ``revolutionism'' in ``Left''-wing revisionist theories is apparent in the counterposing of the popular struggle for peace to the anti-imperialist struggle, in the one-sided orientation of ``Left''-wing opportunists to armed struggle. Indicative in that respect is the declaration published in Calcutta of the Central Committee of the Marxist Communist Party of India on the subject of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The Meet* International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, 65

Moscow 1969, p. 47. Le Drapeau rouge, January 29, 1971, p. 21. 74 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE</b> 75 ing's conclusions are criticised from a Leftist revisionist viewpoint. The authors of the declaration see the ``sins'' of the Main Document of the 1969 Meeting in the following: (i) It allegedly sets the work for peace as the main task of the anti-imperialist struggle and puts the national liberation struggle second; (ii) Direct and comprehensive assistance of socialist countries to peoples conducting an armed struggle against imperialism comes second to successes of the socialist states in economic competition (this is asserted despite the fact that wherever armed anti-imperialist struggle takes place, it has always rested on the political and material support, including armed support from the Soviet Union and other socialist states); (iii) The Main Document contains formulations which bear witness to insufficient stress on the national liberation struggle in different countries. It plays down the importance of contradictions between imperialism and the national liberation struggle which is now in the forefront of struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin America; (iv) The Main Document, it is alleged, contains an assertion of a revisionist viewpoint on the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism; (v) In examining the situation in the newly liberated countries, the Main Document makes a reassuring statement that several of these countries have already entered upon the non-capitalist road to socialism. The unsubstantiated nature of the above-mentioned assertions is apparent to any unbiased reader of the documents of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. They do not counterpose the struggle for peaceful coexistence and removal of the threat of a world 66

thermonuclear war to the interests of the national liberation movement. They do not counterpose these interests to the importance of economic gains in the socialist community. From the above-quoted extracts, it is apparent that the erroneous ideas of Peking are shared even by those parties and groups which do not blindly follow Peking and which, on several issues, are out of step with it. However, they are sometimes captive to ``Left''-wing revisionist views, particularly on the questions of the struggle for peace, of the national liberation movement, and of armed anti-imperialist struggle. Furthermore, the Peking leaders themselves, being ideological and political mentors of various Leftist groupings, advocated a "revolutionary war" against imperialism only in words. In fact, they always preferred the people of other countries to conduct an anti-imperialist war, with China remaining on the sidelines. In these circumstances, it was not the Peking leaders but the political parties and movements which had succumbed to their influence that had to pay for the reckless slogans emanating from Peking. Despite the situation being far from revolutionary, these parties had raised the flag of armed struggle and paid the cost. This is what happened to the Communist Party of Indonesia whose leaders came under the influence of Peking and took a reckless course which was far from Marxist-Leninist tactics and strategy of the revolutionary struggle. Much blood was shed for the same reason in Burma and other countries where communist and revolutionary-democratic leaders took a Leftist adventurist course. Peking propagandists have recently been playing on the national feelings of small and poor peoples in newly-independent countries, instilling in them the absurd idea (from a class viewpoint) of the growing antagonism between big and small, rich and poor countries. They maintain that big and rich countries (irrespective of their social system!) are trying to enslave the small and poor nations. They widely use the false conception of "one or two super-powers". In all these notions, nationalism and anti-Sovietism have, conveniently for imperialism, converged into a single stream. Accordingly, many authors, particularly in America, supported the Maoist propagandist outpourings. 76 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE

67

77 THE PRESENT STAGE OF ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE</b> The present stage of the struggle against revisionism has certain peculiarities which distinguish it from previous stages. These are as follows. Firstly, in recent years there has Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism to an anti-Soviet and nationalistic basis, entire world communist movement and its detachments. been a tendency for converge largely on counterposed to the individual

This process is evident both in the approximating of the ideological positions of Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism, and in the trend towards an organisational unity of various factional groupings. Peking is increasingly becoming the major centre which strives to attract to itself and take under its wing these anti-party and opportunist trends irrespective of their leanings. While the danger of ``Left''-wing revisionism was shown in the shift of the Chinese leaders to special ideological positions incompatible with Leninism, the danger of Right-wing revisionism was glaringly apparent at the time of the political crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Czechoslovak events revealed that both Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism appeared at that historical moment important for the fate of socialism in Czechoslovakia in a single camp---the camp of the avowed enemies of socialism. In 1968, these revisionists operated in the same nationalist and anti-Soviet ranks against the USSR and other fraternal countries, against the interests of Czechoslovak working people, the international working class, world socialism and the class interests of the international communist movement. The neutral position taken by Right-wingers and the proPeking position of ``Left''-wingers during the armed incidents, provoked by Peking, on the Sino-Soviet border in the spring and summer of 1969, was one more step to the convergence of Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionists. Events have also demonstrated that differences within the communist movement were due not only to the subversive activity of imperialism and the special complexity of the political situation and other objective conditions; they have stemmed also to a large degree from the penetration of the communist movement by Right and ``Left'' revisionist influences. 68

The objective situation has shown that in the new conditions, both Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism presents a danger, especially since the ideological and political nexus between them is growing increasingly stronger. For individual parties, of course, Right- or ``Left''-wing opportunism may present a greater danger, but the communist movement as a whole can be harmed by any opportunism, any departure from the Marxist-Leninist ideological and political basis of the communist movement. Speaking at the 1969 International Meeting, Leonid Brezhnev said: "We share the stand of the fraternal Parties which in their decisions draw attention to the need for resolutely combating this danger. The Communist Parties justly believe that the interests of their own cohesion, the interests of the whole anti-imperialist movement insistently demand an intensification of the struggle against revisionism and both Right and ``Left'' opportunism."* Secondly, the joint platform of Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism at the present time is anti-Sovietism and nationalism. It is on this basis that both brands of revisionism are being integrated and fused into a single anti-party and anti-communist force. Anti-Bolshevism was typical of all revisionist trends at the beginning of the century and antiSovietism became a feature of every type of revisionism after the October Socialist Revolution. But it has never had such a profound and dominating effect on the revisionist stance as it has today. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 156. 78 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 79 Nationalism had also been typical of many opportunist trends in the past, particularly in certain periods like, for example, the First World War. As Lenin put it, "the ideological and political affinity, connection, and even identity between opportunism and social-nationalism are beyond doubt".* But this affinity has today become a characteristic feature of all opportunist trends. Today, nationalism is the principal ideological weapon 69

used by both types of opportunism against the principles of proletarian internationalism. It has become the policy of opportunism irrespective of its orientation in the fight against the unity of socialist states and of the international communist movement. The propagandist centres of the imperialist states and the propagandist services of Peking are today principal sources of anti-Sovietism and nationalism. The ideological affinity of both are palpably clear. Having departed from Marxism-Leninism by making dogmatic mistakes and taking a ``Left''-wing opportunist line, the Chinese Party leaders have now formed an unprincipled bloc on an anti-Soviet platform with any, even the most reactionary, imperialist forces, including blatant apologists for capitalism and enemies of socialism and communism. Nationalism and Great-Han chauvinism are the essence of the present ideological platform of Maoism. The revolutionary phrase-mongering which concealed the anti-proletarian, anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist essence of Maoism culminating in the "cultural revolution" has now given way to a policy of complicity with imperialism, a cold political calculation subordinated to the same chauvinistic and hegemonistic goals. Facts show that for more than a decade the Peking leaders, no matter with what theoretical formulas they tried to veil their true political face, have been conducting a campaign against the USSR and other socialist states, and operating on the side of the imperialist forces against socialism. As the 10th Party Congress showed, the recent period is said to be characterised by Maoist leaders' even greater turn to the right. In their search for new contacts with the capitalist states they have joined forces with the most conservative and reactionary circles, with embittered foes of the working class, working people and the cause of peace and socialism. The foreign and home policy of the present Chinese leadership is poisoned with anti-Sovietism. In their state of nationalistic and great-power frenzy, they have descended to absurd claims on Soviet territory. A stream of malicious and monstrous abuse is pouring forth from Peking against the Soviet social and state system and the Leninist policy of the CPSU. The approach of the Chinese leaders to international problems is determined by their striving to do as much damage as possible to the interests of the Soviet Union and the 70

socialist community. China is sabotaging the efforts of the Soviet Union and other socialist states to bring about disarmament and detente. Within the United Nations, the Chinese representatives continually slander Soviet policy and, in UN voting on Soviet proposals on a number of urgent issues, they have often been in the same camp as the most reactionary imperialist circles, including the racists of South Africa. The fight against opportunism has today become above all a struggle against anti-Sovietism and nationalism, which are common to all anti-Leninist trends. Leonid Brezhnev has said: "The fight against Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism, against nationalism, continues to be urgent. It is precisely the nationalistic tendencies, especially those which assume the form of anti-Sovietism, that bourgeois ideologists and bourgeois propaganda have most willingly relied upon in the fight against socialism and the communist movement.""" V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 154. 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 27. 80 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 81 Thirdly, the special danger presented by both brands of revisionism lies in the fact that they are acting detrimentally to the unity of the socialist states, the world communist movement and all anti-imperialist forces. Peking is not ceasing its attempts to split the socialist camp and the world communist movement. Its efforts designed to attract certain socialist states and communist parties and to counterpose them to the CPSU and the USSR testify to the intention of the Chinese leaders to weaken the world socialist system and to cause its internal disintegration. The provocative activity of Maoism is being increasingly and firmly repulsed by the communist and workers' parties in the fraternal states, motivated by their interests in strengthening the international solidarity and unity of the socialist community. The struggle against revisionism has become an important integral part of the struggle to unite and consolidate the socialist countries and the international communist movement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 71

Events show that from making anti-Soviet and nationalist distortions, the revisionists have now taken the path of fighting against the communist parties in their own countries. They laud any idea aimed at disuniting the communist movement, and openly advocate the legalisation of factional activity inside communist parties. Both Fischer and Marek, for example, have decried as ``fateful'' the decision taken on Lenin's suggestion at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to ban factions. The Czechoslovak revisionists also demanded the freedom of factions and respect for the opinion of a minority which, one need hardly add, did not stop them from persecuting honest Communists opposed to the opportunist policy of Dubcek and Smrkovsky. Besides opposing the unity of the international communist movement and trying to disunite the fraternal parties, the revisionists support and take to absurd limits the harmful theories of ``polycentrism'' which, they allege, is inevitable in the present-day communist movement. They try to show that the lack of a single centre to guide the communist movement precludes the need and possibility of some sort of coordinated activity by the communist and workers' parties in the anti-imperialist struggle, the need for and possibility of joint elaboration by the communist and workers' parties of a common ideological policy on vital questions of world development and the anti-imperialist struggle. The absurdity of that approach to strategy and tactics is obvious. The international communist movement does not have a single guiding organ as it had at the time of the Comintern. Communist parties can only co-ordinate their positions and work out a common policy by means of bilateral consultations and multilateral meetings. Experience has shown that the international meetings of fraternal parties provide valuable results. It enables them collectively to work out concerted positions on vital problems of the anti-imperialist struggle and it helps to consolidate the unity of fraternal parties. Revisionists challenge the expediency of such international meetings. They pretend to be against any forms of internationalism like those of the past and want to pass themselves as supporters of new methods of regulating internationalism; they pour scorn upon the Comintern, stooping to a crude distortion of the historical truth and misrepresenting the facts of history, reiterating the insinuations made by 72

bourgeois anti-communist propaganda. If they really want to advocate new forms of international contacts, why is it that they refute the experience of the international meetings---a new and useful form of international contacts between Communists? The revisionists question the expediency of international forums of fraternal parties not as fighters against a central organisation of Communists. Nobody is suggesting that a new Comintern or other similar organisation should be set up at the present time. The revisionists are against the international meetings because the whole system of their ideas is 6---2332</b> 82 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NEW STAGE IN ANTI-REVISIONIST STRUGGLE 83 aimed not at strengthening the ideological basis of the international communist movement, which has always been Marxism-Leninism, but at undermining this basis, not at uniting the communist movement around Marxist-Leninist principles, but at dividing fraternal parties and wreaking havoc in their ranks. The modern ideal of revisionism is even not polycentrism but the absence of any co-ordinated activity within the communist movement, an ideological disorder and confusion, ``freedom'' of convictions and views as this is understood by the petty-bourgeoisie. This is a distinctive feature of the entire ideological outlook of Right-wing opportunism. They wanted Czechoslovakia to be a testing ground for such conception, even at the price of it leaving the socialist community and returning to the imperialist camp. The entire experience of contemporary international communist movements is at odds with revisionist demands and ideas. Communists cannot reject the fundamental principles of their movement since that would mean a departure from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and inevitable defeat in the class struggle. They cannot renounce the practice of jointly working out tactical and strategic guidelines on important issues in the anti-imperialist struggle, for that would invariably lead to forfeiting their place as the vanguard of the world anti-imperialist movement; it would mean deserting from the anti-imperialist army. They cannot give up 73

concerted action, insofar as that would be a break with proletarian internationalism, the dissolution of the world communist movement as a foremost political force in the antiimperialist struggle. At the end of the 1960s, all kinds of revisionists made desperate efforts to prevent the convocation of the International Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties. They realised, of course, that the Meeting would speak out against their attacks on Marxism-Leninism as an ideological basis for the activity of the communist movement, against any divisive activity within the communist movement. The communist parties made it their objective to rally the communist movement, to shore up its ideological foundation. The long and careful preparations for the Meeting, undertaken by all fraternal parties which expressed a desire to participate in it, the wide exchange of opinion at preparatory meetings and the Meeting itself, the documents adopted by the participants in the Meeting were all a hard blow to revisionism and opportunism of the Right and the ``Left''. The 1969 Meeting equipped communist and workers' parties with new arguments and a new approach in the fight for the purity of Marxist-Leninist theory, for the victory of genuinely revolutionary tactics and strategy in the international communist movement. It laid down a comprehensive programme of anti-imperialist struggle, encouraged further unity and consolidation of the world communist movement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The 24th CPSU Congress contributed substantially to upholding the ideological principles of the international communist movement. In the Report of the Central Committee, delivered at the Congress by Leonid Brezhnev and in speeches of many delegates and foreign guests, a profound analysis was made of contemporary world problems from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint. The fight against revisionism and nationalism in any country, of course, lies primarily within the competence of a particular fraternal party. At the same time, if that fight does not take place at some link of the communist movement, this is reflected in the movement as a whole. The CPSU displays a Leninist attitude and resolution in safeguarding the ideological basis of the international communist movement. In decisively safeguarding the purity of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, together with other fraternal 74

parties, it is consistently striving to strengthen the unity and solidarity of the socialist states, the international communist movement and all anti-imperialist forces. 84 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> The 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in May 1971 marked a signal victory in the fight against revisionism and nationalism; it provided a MarxistLeninist evaluation of the reasons for the 1968-1969 political crisis and drew important political conclusions from these events. Communists in other fraternal parties have also begun to wage a more consistent and firm battle against revisionists and opportunists. The conviction is gaining ground in the communist movement that no fraternal party can successfully advance if it does not conduct a consistent and determined battle for the purity of Marxism-Leninism. PART I CRITIQUE OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL</b> AND IDEOLOGICAL</b> PRINCIPLES OF RICHT-WING</b> REVISIONISM</b> CHAPTER 3 REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM</b> Present-day revisionist conceptions are aimed at destroying the monolithic integrity and structural unity of MarxistLeninist teaching. That is the objective of the Right-wing revisionist theories of ``pluralism'' of Marxism, of ``open'' Marxism and the ``deideologisation'' of Marxism. Revisionists make special efforts to undermine the philosophical foundations of Marxism, to take the ideology out of Marxist philosophy and to divorce it from the policy of the communist parties. Right-wing revisionists fully accept the ideas of " worldoutlook neutrality" and "free spirit" of Party members that are officially stated in the guideline documents of parties belonging to the Socialist International. Of course, these Right-wing Socialist theoreticians are far from being neutral in regard to Marxism-Leninism; they wage a constant 75

ideological war against it in the spirit of the very worst types of contemporary anti-communism. The same is true of Right-wing revisionists. Predrag Vranicki, for example, asserts in his theses "On the Need for Different Versions in Marxist Philosophy" that "it has been an undialectical decision to proclaim a certain definite form of Marxist philosophy to be the theoretical basis of a single party, and to give that party the right to determine philosophical questions".* Garaudy says much the same. The * Akten des XIV Internationalen Kongresses fur Philosophie, Vienna, 1968, Vol. II, p. 139. RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 89 unity of philosophy and politics, in his view, is "a totalitarian and clerical concept". A pluralistic society, he maintains, must of necessity rely on a division of philosophy and politics. While calling himself a materialist, he demands freedom of propaganda for idealism and religious views in a "pluralistic society", a society of "humane socialism". He and other revisionists strive to undermine both the ideological unity and the unity of action of Communists and to turn the party into a debate society, an arena of factional struggle. Marxism-Leninism has never identified politics and philosophy as the same thing. Genuine Marxists have always proceeded from the idea that the programme, tactics and strategy of a communist party must be based on science. Marxist philosophy, being dialectical and historical materialism, is the ideological-theoretical basis of a MarxistLeninist party, its political guidance of the class struggle of the working class, of the construction of socialism and communism. This was reaffirmed at the 24th CPSU Congress. Thus, the policy of the working class and of the Communist Party is organically linked with Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The education of party members and all working people in a spirit of dialectical materialism, the fight against bourgeois ideology, idealist and religious views, and scientific atheist propaganda all comprise a vital element in the ideological work of Marxist-Leninist parties. THE CONCEPTION OF ``OPEN'' MARXISM</b> 76

Bourgeois philosophers and revisionists, opponents of the Marxist-Leninist principle of the partisan nature of ideology, have put forward the conception of ``open'' Marxism which boils down to attempts to ``synthesise'' separate Marxist propositions with the ``attainments'' of present-day non-Marxist philosophy. In actual fact, these ``defenders'' of Marxism and of its "creative development" have not produced anything new. They are merely repeating the discredited experience of Bernstein and other past revisionists who endeavoured to ``update'' Marxism and to ``open'' it up to new trends in the bourgeois-liberal social science of their time. The same mechanism of ideological transplant is operating in contemporary revisionism. All that has changed is the character of specific ideological sources. It is mainly existentialism, neo-positivism and neo-Freudianism that today serve as the philosophical sources of revisionism. Existentialism has a particularly strong influence on present-day philosophical revisionism. Martin Heidegger's philosophy of being, Sartre's concept of freedom and Jaspers' ideas on the marginal situation are transferred virtually in toto by revisionists to their philosophical works under the guise of ``authentic'' Marxism. The revisionists go to absurd lengths in their attempt to erode Marxism and deprive it of its clear-cut ideological outlines, Danko Grlic, for example, sees a similarity between the views of Marx and Nietzsche, the reactionary German philosopher and ideological forerunner of fascism. In his opinion, what they have in common is a prophetic vision of the world; the historical consequences of their ideas, despite their differences, "are very close in the major strivings of their path".* Finally, Grlic finds a parallel between Nietzsche's concept of the superman, his notorious " fairhaired beast" and the communist ideal of harmoniously developed personality. Such are the attempts by revisionists to ``synthesise'' the great revolutionary philosophy of the working class and the extreme reactionary bourgeois concepts. As a result of such ``synthesis'' and ``enrichment'', Marxism in the writings of revisionists becomes something amorphous, completely dissolved in bourgeois philosophy. Then the revisionists say that Marxism is no longer valid and can no * Quoted from S. F. Oduyev, Tropami Zaratustry, Moscow, 1971, 77

p. 13 (in Russian). 90 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 91 longer exist as a special branch of social science. That is the view of Leszek Kolakowski, for example, who maintains that "the concept of Marxism as a special branch of thought will gradually fade away and in time will disappear altogether just as Newtonism no longer exists in physics, Linnaenism in botany and Harveyism in physiology. That will mean that the vital process of scientific development will assimilate the entire scientific attainment of Marx, restricting the sphere of application of certain ideas, correcting and removing others.""" In the course of such ``correction'' and ``removal'', revisionists attempt to deprive Marxism of its revolutionary essence, its scientific dialectical-materialist content and to convert it into a liberal-bourgeois doctrine. Many bourgeois ideologists have in one way or another ``assimilated'' separate Marxist propositions and some even call themselves Marxists. In fact, these "non-communist Marxists", as they are sometimes called in Western literature, remain typical bourgeois ideologists remote from the working-class movement. They eclectically select certain Marxist propositions and formulas, taken out of context, deprive them of any real meaning and adapt them to the needs of bourgeois idealist philosophy. "Non-communist Marxism" is also dangerous because it serves as a direct ideological source of Right-wing revisionism. It is not accidental that bourgeois propaganda should create a halo of "creative Marxists" and "best socialist minds of the day" around the "non-communist Marxists" like Jean-Paul Sartre, Erich Fromm, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Herbert Marcuse and Ernst Bloch. It counterposes them to real Marxism-Leninism, which is alleged to wallow in dogmatism and to have exhausted its creative potential. Lenin's warning is still valid that no bourgeois professor who is "capable of making very valuable contributions in the special fields of chemistry, history or physics, can be trusted one iota when it comes to philosophy. Why? For the same 78

reason that not a single professor of political economy, who may be capable of very valuable contributions in the field of factual and specialised investigations, can be trusted one iota when it comes to the general theory of political economy. For in modern society the latter is as much a partisan science as is epistemology."* An integration of ideological forces opposed to MarxismLeninism has been taking place in recent years. Open anticommunists, ``experts'' on Marxism, Sovietologists and revisionists of every sort are uniting on a common ideological platform in their fight against revolutionary theory. In spite of certain differences in initial premises and ideological conceptions, they have a single goal---to undermine the monolithic unity of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, to ``mollify'' Marxism and open it up for the penetration of bourgeois ideas; this they do by open frontal attacks or with the aid of ideological subversion. Idealism and metaphysics, which have undivided sway over present-day bourgeois philosophy, ultimately serve as an ideological substantiation of imperialist policy. Marxism is open for constant creative development by generalising the latest historical experience and attainments in special sciences. But it has always been closed to any penetration from ideological elements alien to it, to bourgeois ideas and conceptions. Just as there can be no convergence between socialism and capitalism, there can be no synthesis between Marxism-Leninism and contemporary bourgeois ideology. Marxism-Leninism develops methodological foundation; the Marxist philosophy is effected Communist and Workers' parties Leninism. on its own theoretical and creative development of by the collective efforts of all loyal to the spirit of

* L. Kolakowski, "Aktualne i nieaktualne pojecie marksismu", Nowa Kultura, No. 4, January 27, 1957. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 342. 92 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 93

79

The bold raising by the CPSU of new theoretical and practical issues of communist construction, the resolute struggle against dogmatism and phrase-mongering have created, especially of late, a situation favourable for a creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory in the USSR. Soviet philosophical thought is occupied with a creative search for and resolution of new issues presented by social development, the scientific and technological revolution and the achievements of sciences. Marxist-Leninist philosophy is also successfully developing in the fraternal socialist states, and Marxist philosophers in capitalist countries are making a considerable contribution to its development. ``PLURALISM'' OF MARXISM</b> Contemporary Right-wing revisionism tries to justify the ideas of ``pluralism'' of Marxism and Marxist philosophy by asserting that they are inevitably disintegrating into several schools of thought. Vranicki, for example, assumes that philosophy depends on the meaning and level of historical practice and must demonstrate the "multilateral aspects of a theoretical understanding of the complex relations of history". He draws the incorrect conclusion that various versions of Marxist philosophy should exist: ". . .the modes of approach to historical and human problems are potentially so diverse that they permit the most varied conceptions of Marxist philosophy, and also the most acute divergences among them, although each of them may make its own contribution to the problems of human and historical affairs... . This shows the need radically to reject the viewpoint of a single Marxist philosophy or a single structure of that philosophy and to accept the need for different versions."* Anti-communists like Raymond Aron, Brzezinski, Sidney * Akten des XIV Internationalen Kongresses fur Philosophie, Vienna, 1968, Vol. II, p. 140. Hook, Gustav Wetter and Innocent Bochensky are at pains to prove there is no single Marxism-Leninism. Let us note above all that logic is conspicuous by its absence in the ideas of Vranicki and other upholders of this conception. The need for many versions of Marxist philosophy does not follow from their assertion that philosophy depends on the level of historical practice and that it must in a multilateral way approach the reflection of complex relations of reality. It is precisely Marxist-Leninist philosophy---dialectical 80

materialism---and nothing else which enriches and synthesises in its continual creative development all social and historical practice. Materialist dialectics as a science puts forward the vital methodological demand for a comprehensive examination of a subject in all its aspects and mediacies. But this does not prevent dialectical materialism from remaining structurally whole and a consistently scientific philosophical teaching. There cannot be different competing sciences studying one and the same object, just as there cannot be different (the more so, polar) truths about one and the same question. And if the latter axiom is not to the liking of philosophising revisionists, that does not mean that they are right and science is wrong. Being under the very strong influence of existentialism and other irrational trends in bourgeois philosophy, they do not regard philosophy, including Marxist philosophy, as a science. In their opinion, scientific method is incompatible with the spirit of Marxist philosophy which they reject as a system of scientific knowledge, and which they recognise arbitrarily only as a method of "total criticism" of all existing things, as a special mode of philosophising on the inner workings of human psyche, as the "free expression of the spirit", as an abstract anthropological humanism. All conclusions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy are based on theoretical generalisation of the data presented by the social and natural sciences. The theory of the ``pluralism'' of Marxism has certain class and epistemological roots. Its class roots and social and political objectives are sufficiently clear: it is aimed at undermining 94 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 95 the unity of a single revolutionary philosophy of the working class, at portraying Leninism merely as an unadequate version of Marxism, which is valid with certain reservations only for backward countries with a predominantly peasant population. One of its aims, alien to the working class, is to rehabilitate revisionist and anti-Leninist ideas like Trotskyism and Maoism, which, it claims, are equally valid ``versions'' of Marxism. The epistemological roots of the theory of ``pluralism'' or 81

``multiplicity'' of Marxism are to be found in the metaphysical absolutising of certain aspects of the complex process of cognising social reality, as opposed to the various functions of Marxist philosophy which express a specific approach to various aspects and relationships of objective reality (for example, the scientific methodological function of Marxism is opposed to the humanist one; creative and positive function---to the critical one). The ideological source of the theory of ``multiplicity'' of Marxism lies in the irrational content of the contemporary bourgeois theory of knowledge which rejects any possibility of cognising the world and obtaining an objective truth, basing it on a purely subjective and absolutely relative character of human cognition. Modern revisionists take a completely arbitrary attitude to criteria for separating out various versions of Marxism. This again testifies to the unscientific nature and subjectivism of the idea of their ``pluralist'' Marxist theory. Sometimes they base their delineation of Marxism on geography and produce concepts of "regional Marxisms"---"Western" and ``Eastern''. One cannot help noticing that Right-wing revisionist ideas on the existence of regional forms of Marxism are based on the reactionary concept of ``Eurocentrism''---the idea that Western Europe is the sole centre of world civilisation and culture and that everything created in the East has no scientific or cultural value. Marxism here is portrayed as a purely Western philosophy, while Leninism is presented as an Eastern teaching inapplicable to Western European civilisation. This reactionary viewpoint rejects the indisputable fact of the integrity of human history and the international character of science. Revisionists often distinguish separate types of Marxism, taking as their point of departure certain personalities who are artificially isolated from the overall development of Marxist philosophy, which is based on social and historical practice, and above all, on the revolutionary struggle of the international working class. Thus, the views of Marx are counterposed to those of Engels, the views of Marx and Engels---to those of Lenin, and so on. Finally, as the basis for compartmentalising Marxist philosophy, they take specific features of a revision of dialectical and historical materialism. For example, many revisionists speak of the existence of four major schools of Marxist philosophy: 1. The positivist-scientific (allegedly taken from the philosophical works of Engels); 2. Hegelian-dialectical (Lukacs and Bloch); 3. Anthropological-humanist (apparently taken from the 82

early works of Marx); 4. Structural anti-humanist. The most typical view is that Marxism and Marxist philosophy contain two basic approaches. The first--``scientistic'' is noted for its overestimation and fetishisation of the role of science in cognition. It is based on the concept of "objective laws", recognises the theory of reflection and sees Marxist philosophy as a universal method of scientific cognition and transformation of the world. This is regarded as being dialectical materialism whose founder was, in the eyes of the revisionists, Engels. The school of Engels was continued by Lenin, Plekhanov and other adherents to dialectical materialism. Having proclaimed the thesis of a plurality of Marxist philosophy and of rivalry between its different versions, revisionist philosophers, those ardent followers of "free spirit", concentrate their criticism (and falsification) on this particular ``version'' of Marxist philosophy---i.e., dia. lectical and historical materialism which is said to have claims on being a scientific philosophy. In the spirit of con96 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATIONOF</b> MARXISM-LENINISM 97 temporary Marxology, the Right-wing revisionists aver that Engels fell into sheer scientism of a positudst nature and obscured the "real sense" of the philosophical views of the early Marx. They campaign against dialectical materialism and declare it to be false, alienated from a form of philosophical thinking, leading to dogmatism, schematism, conformism and political apologetics. Right-wing revisionists usually regard themselves as defenders of the second---i.e., the ``humanist'' or `` anthropological'' <SUP>:</SUP>school which they claim provides a real and authentic interpretation of Marxism. They take this from the early works of Marx (mainly from his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) and link it with a certain doctored interpretation of alienation and the self-alienation of the human personality. The revisionist interpretation of the early works of Marx converts the creator of dialectical materialism and scientific communism into an anthropologist of an existentialist type. Contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought has exposed such 83

falsification sufficiently fully and convincingly. Revisionist attempts to counterpose the philosophical views of Engels to those of Marx simply stand established historical facts on their head. Lenin, one of the most profound students of the works of Marx and Engels, frequently noted that Engels in his works set forth the philosophical teaching of Marx and that the views of Engels presented in his book Anti-Duhring (which Marx read in manuscript and approved) were in "full conformity" with "this materialist philosophy of Marx`s''.* Like bourgeois ``experts'' on Marx, Right-wing revisionists distort the historical fact that Marx and Engels were in complete unity of views and had a certain division of labour. In the last decades of his life, Marx worked on Capital, while Engels worked on the new teaching as an integral system, including its philosophical part. But this difference is relative; after all, Capital is not simply an economic work, it is also a profound philosophical study in which the dialectical method received unparalleled application and development. The philosophical meanderings of the contemporary Rightwing revisionists have nothing in common with the real views of Marx. Marx was the creator of dialectical materialism, while Engels was his co-worker and of the same mind. NEGATION OF LENINISM</b> The prime aim of the proponents of ``pluralist'' Marxism, like all contemporary anti-communists, is to defame Leninism as Marxism of the contemporary era, to challenge its international character, its vitality and creative nature. The book by Ernst Fischer, What Marx Actually Said is a good example of that. After enumerating the "four versions of Marxist convictions" of the present day, Fischer does not even refer to Leninism which, in his opinion, is a regional, ``Eastern'' teaching: "During the lifetime of Lenin, Leninism was called the views of that group (Bolsheviks) which Lenin headed inside Russian Social-Democracy and under whose leadership the October Revolution of 1917 took place."* The specific features of Leninism, in Fischer's opinion, are, firstly, an exaggeration of the role of the subjective factor in history which results in an actual departure from the social determinism of Marx and, secondly, elaboration of the question of using the peasant masses in revolution, which leads to the conclusion that a peasant question is the main feature of Leninism. The above-mentioned view of Fischer is typical of all Right-wing revisionists, but is not new and does not in any way fit the facts. It is indisputable that Lenin provided a 84

profound theoretical interpretation of the role of the subjective factor in history, especially at critical moments, during a period of revolutionary change. Lenin was a great * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 51. * E. Fischer, Was Marx wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1968, pp. 158, 159. 7---2332 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM tactician and strategist of class struggle who ably directed the revolutionary consciousness, energy and will of the working class and all working people to tackling objectively mature tasks of historical development. He was always severe with dogmatists and opportunists who underestimated the role of the subjective factor in history, who descended to a state of social fatalism and spontaneity. Lenin did not exaggerate the role of the subjective factor in history or commit the sin of voluntarism. In fact, he soberly analysed the objective conditions of the revolutionary struggle, mercilessly fought against ``Left''-wing adventurists who would not take these conditions into consideration. There is no contradiction between Marx and Lenin in interpreting the basic principles of a materialist understanding of history. It is also beyond doubt that Lenin made a huge service in theoretically substantiating the alliance between the working class and the peasantry. No socialist revolution or building of socialism in the USSR and elsewhere would have been possible without a resolution of that question. Nonetheless, although the question of the allies of the working class is extremely important, the main feature of Leninism is not the peasant question but the teaching on the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the ways to liberate the working class and all working people, the laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism on an international scale. It is these problems which make up the main aspects of Leninism as Marxism of the contemporary era. While in a genetic respect Leninism is a new stage in the development of Marxism, in a structural respect, Marxism-Leninism is an organically whole philosophy based on a generalisation of all human history and on a theoretical analysis of the laws of the present historical epoch. MarxistLeninist philosophy, being the methodology of scientific 85

cognition, generalises the latest attainments of the natural and social sciences. That is why the pulse of contemporaneity beats in the laws and categories of Leninism which express the future development of mankind. The sum total of historical development of the present era bears witness to the vitality of Leninism. Lenin revealed an unsurpassed model of creative attitude to revolutionary theory; he developed and raised all the component parts of Marxism to a new and higher stage. His early works which appeared in the mid-1890s laid the basis for a new stage in the development of Marxism, the Leninist stage. It was called forth by the requirements of the revolutionary struggle, the need for a theoretical interpretation of the laws of the new historical epoch and the revolution in natural science that was taking place at the turn of the century. All communist parties agree that the new stage in the development of Marxism was connected with the name of Lenin; therefore, the concept of Leninism is not some sort of personal invention, as Fischer and other revisionists maintain. Despite the opinion of Right-wing revisionists, the Leninist stage of Marxism did not end with the death of Lenin; it is continuing today, when revolutionary theory is being developed by the collective efforts of the communist and workers' parties true to the creative spirit of Leninism. The works of Lenin constitute an entire era in the development of Marxist philosophy. His book Materialism and Empiric-Criticism and other works have given Marxist philosophy a new form corresponding to the revolutionary discoveries in natural science and the radical changes in human social development. Lenin attributed immense importance to a further development of materialist dialectics as the logic, theory and method of cognising and transforming the world. In criticising metaphysics, he made more specific the dialectical materialist conception of development, creatively elaborated the laws and categories of materialist dialectics. He regarded dialectics and its principles as the living spirit of Marxism; he revealed the objective dialectics of the new historical epoch. 7* </BODY> </HTML> </HEAD> 86

<BODY> 100 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF MARXISM-LENINISM 101 Historical materialism, a materialist understanding of history and Marxist sociology, all gained comprehensive development in Lenin's works. Basing himself on the requirements of social and historical practice, Lenin gave special attention to the problem of basis and superstructure, the development of forms of ideology and political institutions, the part played by the subjective factor in historical development, especially during a proletarian revolution and the building of a socialist society. It is hard to overestimate Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialist revolution. His teaching on the Soviets as a form of proletarian dictatorship, his idea of the many forms of proletarian dictatorship and the regularities of socialist construction based on the experience of the Soviet state in its first years are all innovatory. In enriching Marxism and raising it to a new stage, Lenin maintained the purity of its ideological principles. The creative innovatory character in Leninism is incompatible both with dogmatism and with ossified theoretical thought, and with revisionist modernism, attempts to ``supplement'' Marxism with the latest innovations of reactionary bourgeois ideology. From the very start of his revolutionary activity, Lenin conducted an uncompromising battle against revisionists in all fields, including philosophy. Revisionists today usually do not give Lenin his due as a philosopher; the same happened at the turn of the century with revisionists in regard to Marx. Right-wing revisionists attack the Leninist theory of reflection identifying it with the theory of reflection of metaphysical materialism. They maintain that any theory of reflection interprets cognition as a process of mechanical, mirror-like representation of objects in the human brain, thereby belittling the active role of the subject in cognition. That is the view, for example, of Vladimir Filipovic who maintains that the Leninist theory of reflection finds no place for a creative relationship of man to nature, and that it 87

suffers from the same defect as pre-Marxian materialism, including that of Feuerbach---i.e., from being contemplative."' The historico-philosophical analogies of Filipovic do not correspond to reality; they are in fact a corruption of Lenin's philosophical heritage. In his philosophical works, Lenin creatively developed the idea of Marx concerning coincidence, the unity of dialectics, logic and a theory of knowledge. He showed specifically that materialist dialectics is Marxist epistemology, that cognition is the most complex, dialectically contradictory process. It is to the credit of Lenin that he gave comprehensive development to the dialectical-materialist theory of reflection (which is qualitatively different from the theory of reflection of metaphysical materialism) by discovering the active role of the subject in the process of cognition on the basis of social and historical practice. Filipovic ascribes "two phases" to the development of Lenin's philosophical thought. The "first phase" which, for some reason, begins in 1904 and ends with the publication of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, is said to be characterised by the influence on Lenin of contemplative pre-Marxian materialism and the "positivism of Engels". The "second phase" began after 1909 and was marked by an uncritical use of Hegel's Science of Logic, which Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks are supposed to bear witness. At the first phase, Lenin is pictured as an epigon of Feuerbach, and at the second---as a Hegelian. It is, apparently, only at the second stage of his philosophical development, when he was under the direct influence of Hegel, that Lenin began to talk of the active role of the subject in the process of cognition. The arbitrary nature of this scheme of development of Lenin's philosophical thought is patently obvious. Naturally, the historical conditions in which Lenin wrote his Philosophical Notebooks differed from the conditions in which he wrote Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. In the * V. Filipovic, Lenjin. Monografija niegove misli, Sarajevo, 1968, p. 138. 102 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 4

88

CRITIQUE</b> OF THE REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST CONCEPTION OF IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION</b> former he developed new aspects of the integral dialecticalmaterialist philosophy of Marxism. His profound materialist re-examination of Hegel's Science of Logic and other works of the classics of philosophy led him to specify and develop the categories of materialist dialectics which served him as a methodological weapon in creating his theory of imperialism, the theory of socialist revolution, in his contention with the sophistic and eclectical opportunist leaders and theoreticians of the Second International. Nonetheless, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is directly consistent with Philosophical Notebooks in setting and resolving the root problems of Marxist philosophy. In particular, in the latter work he develops his idea of the unity and coincidence of dialectics, logic and epistemology of Marxism, presents profound ideas on the dialectical nature of the process of cognition and continues a comprehensive criticism of idealism and metaphysics. In other words, the bourgeois-revisionist myth of "two Lenins" is just as illusory as the myth about "two Marxes" or the idea of a contradiction between the humanism of Marx and the ``positivism'' of Engels. Innumerable versions of the revisionist distortion and denigration of Marxism-Leninism exist. In regard to MarxistLeninist philosophy itself, its paramount feature consists in its structural integrity, its internal unity of all its component parts, in the impossibility of divorcing any aspects of it from the whole, which are necessarily combined in a logically harmonious and strict theoretical system. REVISIONION OF</b> MARXISM-LENINISMUNDER THE GUISE OF DISPELLING IDEOLOGICAL ILLUSIONS</b> Ideology is systematised, conceptual theoretical views (political, legal, ethical, aesthetic, philosophical and religious) which reflect and substantiate the position, interests and objectives of a particular social class, the ways and means of its fight to achieve them, its views of the world, of society and its place within it. Ideology is not born of the whole mass of members of a given social group or class, it is not a result of the direct, sensuous and objectified reflection, in 89

the consciousness of the mass of daily conditions of its life and of empirical experience. It is created by those representatives of a class who theoretically generalise and, in a certain conceptual system, express its interests. The class that dominates economically and possesses, thereby, all the means of spiritual production and influence over society, gains domination of its ideas. Marxism has shown that, ever since the appearance of private property, the division of mental and physical labour and of society into antagonistic classes, the rivalry between different ideologies became an inalienable aspect and important sphere of their struggle, and, consequently, an immanent condition of social development. Marx wrote that in the era of social revolution in ideological forms "men become conscious of ... conflict and fight it out"."" At the same time, * K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 504. 104 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 105 he pointed out ". . .can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life. .. ."* Marxism views ideology in the historical context. It analyses social affairs and the laws of their development and looks at ideology from the standpoint of that objective role which social classes perform in that process. This analysis makes it possible to differentiate revolutionary and conservative, progressive and reactionary ideologies, to elucidate the sources of evolution of ideologies, to discover scientific elements even in ideologies which were by the character of their initial philosophical premises illusory but expressed the interests of the formerly progressive classes. The analysis also discloses the most profound reasons of the cognitive power and genuine scientific nature of the revolutionary ideology of the working class. It is typical of the revisionists that they should deny the objective and law-governed character of the class struggle 90

of the working class and the bourgeoisie, the forces of socialism and imperialism, including the ideological forms of that struggle. Revisionists usually counterpose all manner of reformist theories to the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the revolutionary transformation of capitalism into socialism. They base themselves on the bourgeois conception of `` convergence'', ``industrial'' and ``post-industrial'' society. By such views, directed against the interests of the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle, they play down the role of its ideology and they deny its importance for the revolutionary transformation of society. Fischer, for example, asks the question: "Why is it necessary to change a highly-developed industrial society if the working class there is not starving and if society can satisfy many requirements?"** One may justifiably ask what Fischer understands by the working class? It would appear that "the present-day working man ... is a qualified worker who has gained social rights and has something to lose other than his chains".* But if Fischer has turned the greatest class of the world today into a narrow and sated privileged stratum, if he measures the interests and aims of the entire working class by the yardstick of its consumer psychology, one can hardly be surprised that just such a "working class" does not need a revolutionary ideology. Fischer and other revisionists reject the main element in Marxism---the teaching on the historic mission of the working class, socialist revolution and proletarian dictatorship, socialist and communist construction. They ignore the part played by Marxist-Leninist ideology in resolving the epochal tasks; they favour a ``Marxism'' which ``retains'' philosophy and science, but excludes the theory of class struggle and ideology. The most frank anti-communists and representatives of the most reactionary philosophical views would agree with such an interpretation of Marxism. Unlike Fischer, they do not pretend to misunderstand the links of the philosophy of Marxism with its theory of society and revolution, with its teaching in regard to socialism and communism. In reply to criticism from Friedl Fiirnberg and other Austrian Communists (during discussion on his article "Marxism and Ideology"), Fischer declared that "in an age of practicism and pragmatism it is important to bring this aspect of Marxism [theory of class struggle.---Authors.] to the foreground or to define it as science and philosophy".** In reducing Marxism to a sum total of devices of "scientific analysis" and to "philosophy of practice"*** and by understanding the latter as adaptable activity of the bystander corresponding to the needs of the age, Fischer

91

* E. Fischer, "Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 5, May 1965, p. 356. ** E. Fischer, "Tribune der Diskussion: Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 7-8, July-August 1965, p. 509. *** Ibid. * K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, p. 504. ** E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, Hamburg, 1966, p. 95, 106 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 107 does not simply reject the philosophical class basis of Marxism, he also essentially eliminates it. One should not be surprised^ at this if one bears in mind that Fischer, like Garaudy, Marek, Kolakowski, Zygmunt Bauman and other revisionists, regard the bearer of Marxist-Leninist ideology--the working class---as a force incapable of historical creativity and increasingly becoming integrated into the structure of capitalist production as an equal partner of other social forces. Furthermore, revisionism would have us believe that "genuine Marxism" has never been a class, revolutionary ideology and that what is ``scientific'' in Marxism does not bear an ideological character and that what is ideology is unscientific. All these sentiments are very much contrary to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism and the direct instructions of the founders of Marxism. Marx wrote that "the Socialists and the Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class""" and that "in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece".** Marx concluded that "from this moment, science which is a product of the historical moment, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary".*** Revisionists ignore Lenin's statement that Marxism and scientific socialism are the ideology of the proletariat.**** They claim that the ideas of Marxism, which "from the 92

beginning" have a scientific character became ideological illusions and Utopias to the extent that they spread among the masses by the efforts of the Communist parties. In other words, the revolutionary experience of the working class, * Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow, 1962 p 120 ** Ibid. *** Ibid. **** See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 342. being the source of the emergence of and creative development of Marxism, appears in the writings of the revisionists as an indirect factor hostile to science. Fischer writes that "when ideas are mastered by the masses and become a material force, they are almost bound to become hardened into ideology".* Hence his call to ``regenerate'' Marxism by the efforts of ``intellectuals''. Z. Bauman also believes that any ideology consists of myths, stereotypes and symbols of faith which fulfil a social function. He thereby reaches the conclusion that "the ideology of Marxism has essentially created a class out of them [workers.---Authors.]".** By separating Marxism from the basic interests of the working class and from its class struggle, the renegades of Marxism profess the idea that if ideology is necessary, it is only so in order to realise selfish interests and the aims of a social group striving for power. As the revisionist Mihailo Markovic has said, Marxism is only a reflection of the emotions and interests of restricted social groupings and serves to instil in the working class Utopian ideas about the ``desired'' future.*** But it is precisely by being guided by Marxist-Leninist principles that the working class in several countries of Europe, Asia and America has taken power into its own hands and, in the course of building socialism, has produced great material, social and cultural benefits both for itself and for all working people. The revisionists are in favour of ``humanising'' social institutions under socialism. One of the theoreticians of ``humane'' socialism was Zygmunt Bauman. In his book Ideas, Ideals, Ideologies, addressed to the young reader, he wrote: "An educated person who knows historical science and the mechanism of the world in which he has to live is capable of cognising the structural, genetic and functional relations 93

* E. Fischer, "Tribune der Diskussion: Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 7-8, 1965, p. 511. ** Z. Bauman, Idee, idealy, ideologie, Warsaw, 1963, p. 72. *** M. Markovid, "Nauka i ideologia", Nasa stvarnost, No. 7-8, Belgrade, 1959. 108 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 109 of ideologies that are widespread in his world and of making, on that basis, a choice dictated by reason.... An educated man who is knowledgeable and a thinking being can act in society consciously relying on the dictates of his own reason without being subordinate to superficial fashions and without becoming one of a flock of sheep."* That type of theoretical speculation which calls itself objective is aimed at ideologically disarming the working class, at depriving the teaching of Marxism of any philosophical and class basis and, thereby, opening the flood gates to ideological subversion of imperialism within the communist and working-class movement and in the socialist countries. That is the purpose of revisionist calls to purge the "socialist model" of problems of philosophy, ideology and morality. Dorothea Sellin, for example, declares that one should "restrict socialism to a social and economic organisation of the state. Everything that we have understood as socialism up to now---a new ethics, a new spiritual state and a humanism---does not belong here. This new humanity will develop on the basis of a socialist social order and will therefore constitute part of vision, but not part of scientific socialism".** She is by no means original; long before she wrote these lines, Bernstein was maintaining that one should not combine a teaching of socialism with a philosophy, in so far as this would turn socialism into that very ideology which Marx had criticised. And since one should approach socialism from a position of the most varied philosophies, Bernstein and his followers called for a synthesis of Marxist philosophy with neo-Kantianism and other idealist doctrines.

94

Petty-bourgeois anarchism with its negativism, pomposity and pretentiousness is characteristic of contemporary revi^ sionists. If one were to believe them it would seem there has never been any ``real'' Marxism or socialism. To Fischer, the * Z. Bauman, Idee, idealy, ideologic, p. 112. ** D. Sellin, "Tribune der Diskussion: Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 6, June 1965, p. 428. working class, in fact, "is spoiling" Marxism and "making it dogmatic". That is why he predicates the ``regeneration'' of Marxism on the "criticism of any principle ... as a basic right of every member of the party".* The same claims are made by Garaudy, Markovic and Kolakowski. The latter also called for "radical rationalism" and "open thinking which means a readiness to revise theses, theories and accepted methods", and qualified such arbitrary action in regard to the Marxist theory a "scientific innovation".** This is a call to reject all and everything---from the principles of materialism and dialectics to the principles of proletarian internationalism, class allegiance and party spirit. Thus, in the opinion of Garaudy, the outlook of the Communist party itself, "cannot be in principle either idealist or materialist or religious or atheist", while Fischer arrives at the idea of creating a new party "from Marxists and non-Marxists". One of the revisionist arguments for their thesis that ideology is unnecessary is that since the time of Marx the world has seen "enormous changes" and that "while nature constantly repeats itself, society, on the contrary, is being enriched by new phenomena".*** These thoughts claim to be a dialectical approach to life, to ``substantiate'' the negation of the class essence of radical contradictions in the contemporary world and to bring the reader the idea that, to the extent that the regularities of social development discovered by Marx cease to operate, spiritual life should be ``emancipated'' from the "artificially forced" struggle of ideologies. If the contemporary world, according to the revisionists, is characterised by a consolidation of all social groups around the ideals and values of ``humanism'' and is moving towards an affluent society, while socialism and capitalism are converging as a result of the scientific * Ibid., p. 511. ** L. Kolakowski, "Aktualne i nieaktualne pojecie marksizmu", Nowa Kultura, January 27, 1957. *** E. Fischer, "Tribune der Diskussion: Marxismus und Ideologic", 95

Weg und Ziel, No. 7-8, 1965, p. 511. 110 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 111 and technological revolution, then the noble mission of the proponents of this illusory process is to remove all the barriers in its way and to bring about a situation where their ideas would ``coincide'' and thereby be liberated from the hard and fast confines of class ideologies. That is how Fischer depicts that idyllic picture, calling upon the confused classes to look around and take stock, to feel the spirit of the times and, throwing off ideological strife, to "move with.the times". He writes, "If for a moment we free ourselves from the fetters of ideologies, we immediately find kindred ideas, common values, the possibility and need for competition and interaction.... It is today a matter of concentrating our forces on the battle for the victory of humanism together with all those who are ready to join us".* Thus, down with groundless ideological struggle, supposedly caused by the Communist parties ("it is precisely the Communist parties that created the ideological system and gave it the name `Marxism-Leninism' "**), let us unite with our class enemies for the sake of the victory of humanism! In the light of this attitude, which is as far from Marxism and scientific socialism as the conception of Christian communism or Labour Party socialism, one can understand the ire that the revisionists have for anyone who dares to maintain that the irreconcilable struggle between the bourgeois and socialist ideologies, which is mounting at the present time, has objective roots and is lawgoverned. In the opinion of revisionism, any ideology is illusory and unscientific, while the "new phenomena" arising in the world have passed a death sentence on ideologies---these medieval ``fortresses'', which stifle "living thought". Hence Fischer suggests ``replacing'' the ideological struggle with a contention and mutual enrichment of social ideas. He writes: "Ideologies are fortresses. Ideas operate on free territory, measure their strength in direct struggle, test each other out and become mutually enriched because of these tests; moreover it may even happen that one of the contending ideas will recognise its shortcomings and be 96

corrected by its opponent."* By dividing communist ideology into ``autonomous'' ideas, divorcing them from an integral and conceptual system of views based on a single dialectical-materialist and class outlook, the revisionists thereby ``correct'' them in a spirit of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, so that there is nothing scientific or socialist left in them. Opportunists have always maintained that the class principles of communist ideology are ``dogmatic'' and "divorced from life". While rejecting party spirit in words, they adapt Marxist teaching in deeds to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Lenin's exposure of the ``critical'' orientation in socialism at the beginning of the century is fully relevant to the characterisation of the present-day revisonists. He wrote: "... if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that 'freedom of criticism' means freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.""""" A similar distortion is made in revisionist works of the fundamental ideas on the essence, paths and class forces which implement the revolutionary transformation of capitalism into socialism and the building * E. Fischer, Kunsl und Koexistenz, p. 51. Long before Fischer, Karl Mannheim was writing in the same spirit. Any ideological consciousness, in his opinion, is distorted, falsely reflecting reality: ". . . it hampers and covers up a new spiritual orientation and reaction, a new emergence of a person." (K. Mannheim, Ideologic und Utopie, Bonn, 1929, p. 51). ** E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, p. 51. * E. Fischer, "Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 5, 1965, p. 355. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 355. 112 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 113 97

of communism. These ideas are strictly scientific conclusions from an objective analysis of society, of the laws of social development and fulfil a class and ideological function. By calling for peaceful coexistence of ideologies ("mutual enrichment of ideas"), revisionists are of course far from thinking that socialist ideas can enrich bourgeois ideas in the process. Just the contrary: they believe in the bourgeoisie ``correcting'' socialist ideas. Fischer writes: ". .. we Communists are backward in such areas [i. e., in the matter of ``correcting'' Marxism with the help of the ideas of one's opponent.---Authors.] and we have here much to learn"/^^1^^'' Further, he writes: ". . . we must 'coexist ideologically'. . ."** He then goes on to call for an end to such "damning concepts as `bourgeois', `decadent', `anti-Marxist', `revisionist', `dogmatic', etc."/^^1^^"*"'' Such are the narrow-minded sermons about the need to integrate Marxism and bourgeois ideology or, to be more precise, to dissolve Marxism into bourgeois ideology. Others who refute a class evaluation of social phenomena include James A. Gregor, T. Prager, F. Ernst and Rossana Rossanda. Like Fischer, they call for the ``liberation'' of Marxism from ideology and for peaceful coexistence of ideas. What, then, does one do about politics---the sphere of mutual relations between classes and between states? The immense role belonging to class ideology in working out and substantiating a policy, its objectives and its means, in ensuring the conditions for its implementation, is perfectly obvious. This presents no problem for the revisionists. Just as in constructing "contemporary conceptions" of Marxism, so now their speculative reasoning is not cluttered up with thoughts of the existence of some sort of objective ties and relations between the processes and phenomena of social life. They simply suggest ``basing'' politics on general human values integrated in culture. And as the latter develops, in their opinion, not through classes or nations but only through ``intellectuals'', they draw the conclusions that intellectuals must today give politicians rational recommendations. Rossana Rossanda writes: "It is the wealth of history which returns ideologies to their initial sense of being partial consciousness and forces us to search in the impulse of concrete social processes, which underlie movement, the international unity of politics as a science. The link between politics and culture becomes a problem of method. .. Moreover, the link between `intellectuals' and ``politicians' 98

specifically becomes a link between political action and research. The one guarantees the other."* She further suggests leaving the sphere of ideology and transferring "to a critical knowledge''. These views are essentially a rehash of the ideas of theoreticians of "industrial civilisation" and "post-industrial society"---of Aron, Rostow, Galbraith and Bell. Revisionists exactly reproduce their arguments (and those of Schlesinger, Lipset and Popper) in defence of the conceptions of "end of ideology" and the ``deideologisation'' of politics, science and culture. This should surprise no one. One may recall the words of Lenin that "in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology".** Therefore, those who revise Marxism-Leninism and scientific communism---the ideology of the working class---no matter how much they vow that they are in favour of ``Marxism'', yet do not accept ideology "in general", find themselves in the same camp with bourgeois ideologists, blatant anti-Marxists and anti-communists. * E. Fischer, "Marxismus und Ideologic", Weg und Ziel, No. 5, 1965, p. 355. ** Ibid. *** Ibid. * R. Rossanda, "Le ragioni della cultura. Note e appunti critic! su 'impegno, cultura, ideologia'", // Contemporaneo, No. 2, February 1965, p. 2. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 384. 8---2332 114 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 115 REVISIONIST DISTORTION</b> OF CLASS INTEREST AND SOCIAL COGNITION</b> 99

that, although ideologies are associated with the interests of classes and other groups, nonetheless these same interests are the product of the psychological adaptation of a class to the social environment, of its desire to have some sort of instrument that will help it to orient itself in the complex world, whereas genuine being bears a transcendental character and its cognition is an object of the "sociology of knowledge" (this sociology has to be created) but certainly not of ideology. According to Mannheim, social determinacy of consciousness means that the views of members of a given group are determined by the empirical conditions of their life and the influence of a "spiritual constellation" (i.e., a spiritual state characteristic for a given period), but not the dependence of cognition on interests which have objective foundations associated with the nature of social, ultimately economic, relations. Interests are interpreted by Mannheim and the revisionists in a pragmatic and positivist way. They are arbitrarily reduced either to the striving of a particular social group to gain an ``advantage'' for itself, or to a purely cognitive interest of a particular individual. To the extent that interests are examined in an abstract and unhistorical way, divorced from objective and specific social requirements, it is understandable that the class which is the carrier and expression of the latter---the motive force of social progress---and the reactionary class that has outlived its time are not differentiated from one another either in the orientation and content of their interests or, consequently, in their ability (depending on the character of their interests) to understand the world about them. Such an approach leads to an erroneous evaluation of any class ideologies as phenomena that are similar in their cognitive potential or, what is the same thing, to an affirmation of their mutual inability to base class activity on objective and authentic knowledge. In criticising Marxism, Mannheim wrote that to allow a coincidence of overall development with the desire of a Revisionist attempts to give an epistemological basis to their views on the incompatibility of science, authentic knowledge with ideology, and thereby to bolster up their conclusions on the need to ``liberate'' Marxism from ideology are marked by anti-historicism, metaphysical views and extreme relativism. On this question, revisionists, like those bourgeois philosophers and sociologists who favour an "end to ideology", largely reiterate the propositions and conclusions that are contained in Karl Mannheim's sociology of 100

knowledge. The coincidence of views is so obvious though revisionists keep silent on this affinity) justly ask what it is that could captivate people themselves ``Marxists'' in the bourgeois-idealist of Mannheim. It is the following:

(even that one may who call conception

First, the assertion that science and ideology are incompatible and that social science is created by a "free-soaring" intellectual who stands above class and party interests; Second, the false thesis that any system of ideas shared by a given social group constitutes a combination of truth and untruth, is at best a ``half-truth'', while a system of authentic knowledge is only possible by "evaluating the viewpoints" of all social groups---i.e., a ``synthesis'' of grains of truth contained in the views of each social group; Third, the attempt by Mannheim to explain the illusory and Utopian nature of ``particular'' ideologies by a limited "vision of the world" from the viewpoint of any given social group and to counterpose to that the "rich differentiation" of the contemporary intellectual world, to embrace and explain which is impossible from the viewpoint of a single class; Fourth, the proposition of the "sociology of knowledge" 116 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 117 single class means allowing one-sidedness.* It is clear here that Mannheim is, first, reducing objective class interest to psychologically oriented interest. Second, in his positivist approach to reality, which leads to the negation of objective laws of social development and to the removal of the problem of the class subject of progress, he is not at all interested in what class or what ideology happens to be referred to. Third, Mannheim believes that the Marxist assertion that the interests of the working class coincide with the objective requirements of social development (that is the basis and condition for a scientific social cognition, the scientific nature of Marxist-Leninist ideology), is only some sort of hypothetical ``assumption''.

101

The ``Marxist'' Fischer similarly counterposes to scientific knowledge all class interests and the ideologies that reflect the world through their prism: all manner of interests affect the search for truth. Such influences often hinder rather than help an approach to the truth".** He considers that social truths are reached from positions that are external to classes and ideologies, i.e., ``pure'' science; he maintains that truth can correspond to the interests of a particular class only after it has been obtained by social science, irrespective of any class interests and ideologies. Classes would seem to be on the "parity basis" in drawing conclusions from the overall ``mound'' of science, according to the principle that "one takes what one wants''. Therefore we see that the counterposing of social science to any ideology is associated with revisionism departing from the positions and principles of a Marxist-Leninist theory of cognition and a descent to subjectivist and positivist conceptions of interest and truth. Revisionists maintain that they are for Marxist philosophy and against Marxist ideology; it would appear that a nonparty philosophy of Marxism is possible without an ideology and ideological struggle. It would appear that philosophical knowledge---not only in Marxism---does not have a character of being an ideology or a Weltanschauung. Anyone who divorces Marxist philosophy from the ideology of the working class merely distorts its very essence. After all, Marxist philosophy is capable of being a mighty force of social progress, and of fulfilling the functions of scientific cognition and forecasting, precisely because it arises and develops as the basis of the world outlook of the working class, as a component part of ideology. This philosophy develops because and to the extent that the enrichment of its conclusions and propositions (i.e., the deepening of cognition and a fuller knowledge of the objective truth) is based, among other things, on the generalisation of scientific achievements and, most importantly, on the generalisation of the experience of the struggle waged by the international working class against the bourgeoisie, by socialism against capitalism. Ideological contention is a part of this overall struggle. If one can establish that the genesis of Marxist philosophy, its development and enrichment and its impact on social affairs are ineluctably associated with the vital interests of the working class, with its revolutionary struggle against capitalism, for socialism and communism, then it is absolutely impossible to divorce that philosophy from its 102

class ideological essence and functions, unless one sins against objective truth. It remains a riddle to revisionists and to the bourgeoisie how Marxism-Leninism is able truthfully to reflect objective reality while being connected with the interests of the working class. It is, however, the calling of MarxismLeninism to reflect correctly the objective laws of nature, society and human thought, to apply its scientific conclusions to the objectives of the working-class movement and of the revolutionary transformation of the world. This can only be achieved through the conscious, revolutionary activ* See K. Mannheim, Das Problem einer Soziologie des Wissens, p. 633. ** See E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, p. 56. 118 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 119 ity of the working people led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist vanguard. Marxist-Leninist parties base themselves on the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, on the universal laws of social development which that philosophy has uncovered, and on materialist dialectics. They work out a scientific policy, develop the political consciousness of the working class, organise and mobilise it for the fight against capitalism and conduct immense work in the communist education of the masses within socialist society. Marxist-Leninist philosophy plays an extremely important ideological role in that it acts as a methodological basis for the development of all socialist culture. It is only when account is taken of the dialectical unity of philosophical knowledge and the practical struggle of the working class that it is possible to understand how and why Marxist philosophy profoundly reflects the changing world, and draws world-outlook conclusions from the progress of all the specific sciences and social development, becomes enriched, improves its scientific equipment and thereby keeps in step with life. It is possible to understand why the practical experience itself of the revolutionary-transforming activity of the working class leads to successes in the fight for a socialist transformation of society and why this, in turn, guarantees real conditions for 103

the comprehensive development of every individual. We have seen how science and ideology are inherently integral and mutually penetrative within Marxist philosophy. Marxism-Leninism was able to emerge and develop precisely as a class ideology, continually and profoundly reflecting the essential processes of social development and its laws from a working-class standpoint. This social science and, at the same time, ideology could not have arisen without close contacts of its founders with the class struggle of the proletariat and without the consistent expression of its interests. Consequently, class interest and the reflection of reality through its prism underlie the true and dynamic social cognition from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint and determine, thereby, the supreme meaning and aim of that cognition. Scientific cognition, in turn, presupposes an account for and enrichment of information in realising that interest during the class struggle. Practice acts as the basis of cognition, a condition for its deepening and as a criterion for the veracity of new theoretical conclusions and concepts, and their conformity with objective reality. Lenin once wrote that while Marxism "combines the quality of being strictly and supremely scientific (being the last word in social science) with that of being revolutionary, it does not combine them accidentally and not only because the founder of the doctrine combined in his own person the qualities of a scientist and a revolutionary, but does so intrinsically and inseparably. Is it not a fact that the .task of theory, the aim of science, is here defined as assistance for the oppressed class in its actual economic struggle".* In this light, one can see the whole absurdity of attempts by bourgeois philosophers, sociologists and revisionists to use the views of the founders of Marxism in attacking Marxism itself, and to regard the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat as a sum total of illusory and Utopian views. From Weber to Mannheim, Chambre and Aron, from Bernstein to Garaudy, Kolakowski, Markovic and Fischer--all the "end of ideology" proponents in regard to science and culture and, of course, primarily to Marxism---there have been attempts to use extracts from the works of Marx, taken out of context, as a ``weighty'' argument to substantiate these false positions. Such devices are obviously unscientific. They are associated either with an extremely superficial, phrase-mongering approach to the views of Marx, with a mechanical extraction of individual phrases and evaluations from his works or with a lack of desire to seek the 104

real essence of his ideas, to take into consideration the * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 327-28. 120 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION</b> 121 nature of the connection of the latter with an integral conceptual system of ideas and with the whole logic of premises and argumentation. Marx and Engels were right to refer to ideology as an illusory consciousness---"the illusion of the epoch", a "false consciousness". Bourgeois ideologists and revisionists confine themselves to a mere statement of this fact; the point is to establish which ideology is referred to and precisely why it was termed by Marx and Engels illusory and false. In order to provide answers to these questions, it is important also to bear in mind what was the traditional use of these concepts that were shaped before the time of Marx and Engels, since, when they were criticising idealist philosophy and striving to be understandable to their readers, they naturally could not ignore the meaning which such terms as ``ideologist'' and ``ideology'' had; the more so since of these concepts known at that time to the reader, the latter were closer to the nature of the idealist philosophical system and its approach to reality from certain a priori principles.* That was bound to influence Marx and Engels in calling their work devoted to debunking idealist philosophy from the point of view of Marxist philosophy---The German Ideology. By the very title of the book, Marx and Engels gave the reader to understand that they were looking at ideology not simply as a purely French phenomenon. They took the reader from what he already knew (what is the meaning of the words ``ideologist'' and ``ideology''?) to what he did not know: that not individuals were ``ideologists'', "dabblers in metaphysics", but that all past and present understanding of history, the laws of the origin and development of ideas and theories had an ``ideological'' character ---i.e., it arose not out of reality but from abstract principles which armchair philosophers tried to impose on life. "No specific differences", they wrote, "separate German idealism from the ideology of the other nations."* 105

Marx and Engels gave the old terms ``ideology'' and `` ideologist'' a completely new, philosophical, social and class meaning; they turned them into scientific concepts, into categories of historical materialism. They revealed the meaning of the concept ``ideology'' by an analysis of the origin, essence and qualitative characteristics of the systems of theoretical views based on idealist philosophy. At different stages of the history of antagonistic societies, these systems, while retaining the general principles of their construction, at the same time change their content and specific social functions, insofar as they reflect the world from the viewpoint of the interests of different classes. The criticism of such ideologies by Marx and Engels is a criticism of idealist philosophy underlying theoretical constructions which claim to explain the world out of ideas (such is one meaning of the category ``ideology'' which is met in Marx' and Engels' works). It is no coincidence that Marx and Engels should criticise ideology as synonymous of that common feature in the idealist systems of ideas which permeates the theoretical aspect of social consciousness (above * A group of French economists, natural scientists and philosophers, which included Destutt de Tracy, Cabanis, Volney and Garat, began to refer to their ideas by the term ``ideology'' at the turn of the 19th century. They maintained that they were the first to turn a knowledge of ideas---their origins and functions---into a precise science like physics and mathematics. In fact, their views were mechanistic; they were marked by a vulgar biological and psychological approach to the emergence and development of ideas. The appearance of the concepts was explained by the influence of "internal impressions" that arose in the functioning of the human organism. As so often happens with concepts, the initial meaning of the term (as the title of a school of philosophy) underwent changes over time and began to take on a much wider meaning. At the time in which Marx and Engels were writing, `` ideologist'' was used in literature and in common parlance as a person who approached life from certain metaphysical principles, while ``ideology'' was a means of approaching phenomena by just such an ``ideologist''.

106

K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1964, p. 24, 122 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION</b> 123 all of views on society) in all antagonistic socio-economic formations, which is historically conditioned by the character of reflection in the spiritual sphere of social and, ultimately, economic relations and interests, and which is supported and legalised by all ruling classes. The attempts by bourgeois philosophers, sociologists and revisionists to apply to Marxist ideology that criticism which Marx and Engels made of the non-proletarian, unscientific ideology are precisely associated with their ignoring Marx' and Engels' standpoint on this question. In actual fact, the founders of Marxism, when speaking about "false consciousness", had in mind ideologies founded on an idealist philosophy (i.e., those constructed also from the standpoint of metaphysical materialist ideas on society and on the social nature of thinking and cognition). An analysis of ideology as a historically and socially determined process of thought associated with the elaboration of theory occupies an important place in the works of Marx and Engels devoted to substantiating the dialectical materialist method of cognition, materialist understanding of history and to a criticism of the philosophical and methodological principles of idealism. Engels wrote: "The general results of the investigation of the world are obtained at the end of this investigation, hence are not principles, points of departure, but results, conclusions. To construct the latter in one's head, take them as the basis from which to start, and then reconstruct the world from them in one's head is ideology, an ideology which tainted every species of materialism hitherto existing; because while in nature the relation of thinking to being was certainly to some extent clear to materialism, in history it was not, nor did materialism realize the dependence of all thought upon the historical material conditions obtaining at the particular time. As Diihring proceeds from `principles' instead of facts he is an ideologist. . ."* In this passage, Engels describes ideology as a method immanent in idealism for constructing a theory which turns a real picture of the world upside down and 107

gives it an illusory nature. Marx and Engels criticised various manifestations "of the old favourite ideological method, also known as the a priori method", associated with "the deduction of reality not from itself- but from a concept".* This method distorts the basic, fundamental, causal relations. Hegel, for example, engaged in "ideological perversion"** because he, "from philosophical ideology"*** brings into history certain moving forces ("The Absolute Idea", "The World Spirit"), while he makes the self-movement of the concept an objective basis for development. Feuerbach makes an abstraction of human beings play that role, in that he uses this to develop the theory of love as a special religion and he tries to define ways of improving social life from this standpoint; Proudhon does it by turning categories of political economy into their abstract, extrahistorical definitions and "constructing the edifice of an ideological system. . ."****. He takes the petty-bourgeois idea of equality and attaches to it ``reconstructible'' and `` surmountable'' social relations in the realm of pure theory and thought. Marx and Engels consistently exposed ideological illusions of both their theoretical and political opponents, demonstrating models of party spirit in theory and irreconcilability to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois politics. ``Ideological illusions" are inherent in philosophical theories, based on idealist premises and in the social views of metaphysical materialism, and also in the political, legal, ethical, aesthetic---i.e., certain forms of social consciousness * F. Engels, Anti Diihring, p. 116. ** K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 362. *** Ibid., p. 367. **** K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow, 1962, p. 106. * F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 400. 124 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 125 108

(which Marx called "ideological forms"*) which arise on the economic basis of society along with juridical and political superstructure. Why do "false consciousness" and those "ideological illusions" arise which revisionists ascribe to Marxist-Leninist ideology? "The semblance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain""""" occurs because, with the division of social labour and particularly of mental from manual labour and, then, the detachment of theoretical systems, the latter attain a certain relative independence in relation to one another and to the basis which begot them, and develop according to their specific laws and logic. That semblance occurs also because, in conditions of private-property relations, there inevitably occurs a process of alienation of human beings from the products of their activity (including theoretical activity), and the latter acquire in the mind an independent existence; furthermore, they are perceived as the carriers of a sovereign power over people and their relations. That occurs both in the sphere of production ("commodity fetishism") and in the field of exchange and money relations ("the money market man sees the movement of industry and of the world market only in the inverted reflection of the money and stock market"""""^^1 ^^"). This also occurs in the sphere of political relations; the semblance of the state that stands above classes and the ``universal'' nature of bourgeois democracy are both used by bourgeois ideologists. In the sphere of theoretical (ideological) activity, ideas and principles appear as primary causes of development. This may also be explained by the fact that, in ideological forms of social consciousness, especially those divorced from the basis (in philosophy, for example), ideas and principles expressed in concepts, categories and laws are mediated by numerous levels; they act as abstractions that do not apparently have anything in common with economic relations and class interests. Moreover, if philosophy did not possess a high degree of relative independence, this would preclude the possibility of the principles of a certain idealist orientation being included in the philosophy of the exploiting classes of different historical eras. It would also prevent one class (the bourgeoisie, for example) from using in its interests modernised conceptions of philosophical schools and orientations of different historical eras ( 109

Thomism and Kantianism, for example). Today, the upholders of capitalism inherit from the past and include in their ideological equipment only that which serves their class interests, their reactionary policy, their contention with Marxism-Leninism and communism. At the same time, progressive classes have always inherited and developed the advanced ideas of the past which signified a step forward in scientific cognition. The most advanced class of the present day is the working class whose interests coincide with the objective requirements of social progress; it takes up and develops in its scientific outlook---MarxismLeninism---and in its entire spiritual culture everything that is really valuable in mankind's heritage. The ruling classes in antagonistic societies, especially when they are in decline, strive to counteract the struggle of the progressive class forces and so widen the gap between their own ideology, which is meant to justify the historically doomed social system and reality. This is a law-governed process of making dogmas out of unscientific ideologies, a process associated with certain stages of the history of society and classes. But it has nothing to do with any universal characteristic of a class ideology about which Mannheim and the revisionists after him pontificate. This process of creeping dogmatism in ideological prin* K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 504. ** Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 496. *** Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 489. 126 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 127 ciples and the deepening of contradictions between them and reality are particularly evident at the present stage of the general crisis in the world capitalist system, at a time when both the political and legal views of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its moral, philosophical and aesthetic ideologies which are consciously put at the service of their interests have long outlived their age. The very existence of a genuinely scientific ideology---Marxism-Leninism---is objectively leading to strengthening of the reactionary and 110

narrowclass partisan approach of bourgeois ideology. Marx once wrote: "Once the inter-connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it is absolutely in the interests of the ruling classes to perpetuate this senseless confusion. And for what other purpose are the sycophantic babblers paid... ."* Marxism-Leninism approaches this question in a specific historical way, by contrast with the abstract and dogmatic approach of bourgeois ideologists and their revisionist `` yesmen'' who do not distinguish ideologies according to their cognitive possibilities. While a deliberate distortion of social relations is a distinguishing feature of the ideologies of reactionary classes, the contradictions in ideological systems per se---i.e., between ideas, theories and conceptions---emerge in all class ideologies. But they are resolved in different ways. In regard to the legal ideology of the bourgeoisie, Engels wrote that it not only should "correspond to the general economic condition and be its expression, but must also be an internally coherent expression which does not, owing to inner contradictions, reduce itself to nought. And in order to achieve this, the faithful reflection of economic conditions suffers increasingly."** However, "the repeated breaches [are] made in this system by the influence and compulsion of further economic development, which involved it in further contradictions."* The relative internal harmony of ideas and principles is a common characteristic of ideologies. Yet in the ideologies of reactionary classes it is obtained at the cost of an increasing departure from objective truth, an increasing gulf between theory and practice, since the contradictions in these ideologies are resolved mainly in the sphere of theoretical consciousness. On the other hand, the timely scientific cognition of new features, stimulated by the interests of the working class and ensured by a dialectical and materialist methodology, serves as a source of development of scientific ideology and, consequently, of the resolution of contradictions that periodically arise between its various precepts and new aspects of changing reality. That is why Marxism-Leninism retains its scientific reliability and revolutionary-mobilising power even at the sharpest turns in history; it opens up to the working class and its party the possibility or making true decisions in particular circumstances and of carrying out actions that correspond to the objective requirements of social progress 111

and of the interests of the struggle for socialism and communism. The founders of Marxism-Leninism approached ideology in a many-sided way. They described it as follows: (a) A spiritual (theoretical) aspect of the superstructure arising on the economic basis of society (i.e., as a special sphere of social life bearing a secondary, derivative character and actively influencing the basis which produced it); (b) A specific type---according to the object, manner and form of reflection---of its own theoretical consciousness ( philosophical, legal, religious ideologies, etc.); (c) An integral conceptual system of views of a certain class ("slave-owning ideology", "feudal ideology" or " bourgeois ideology"); * K. Marx and F. Engels Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 419. * Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 492. K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 492. 128 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 129 (d) A special type of thinking associated with the construction of "pure theory" from idealist standpoints ("false consciousness", "ideological consciousness" and `` ideologism''). Out of these descriptions of ideology, bourgeois critics of Marxism and the revisionists usually seize upon only the last and, ignoring the philosophical aspect of Marx's criticism of ideological forms of consciousness, begin to do battle with Marxist ideology. Mannheim, Fischer and Bauman eclectically combine the concept "class ideology" and that of "illusory consciousness"; on that basis, they dogmatically substantiate the formula that "ideology and science are opposed". They are acting just like those theoreticians whom Marx and Engels called the carriers of "false consciousness" and ``ideologisms''. Back in 1890, Engels wrote: "... our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction 112

after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce from them the political, civillaw, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously."* Marxism has not only laid the basis for resolving that task by creating dialectical and historical materialism and having turned socialism from a utopia into a science, but has also made a truly great contribution to the elaboration of problems about which Engels was speaking. Lenin wrote that Marxism "is also the ideology of the labouring class".** In substantiating the idea that Marxism and scientific communism are the ideology of the working class, Lenin was first to introduce the concept "scientific ideology". This has had great importance also for exposing * K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 484. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 394. bourgeois and revisionist speculation in regard to the views of Marx and Engels. Revisionists claim that Lenin turned Marxism into an ideology. In actual fact, when Lenin called Marxism and scientific socialism "scientific ideology" and an ideology of the proletariat, he was stressing fhe integral nature and harmony of that teaching and that it serves as a weapon of the liberation of the working class. This description of Marxism as ideology by no means contradicts the views of Marx and Engels; in fact, Lenin supplements their evaluation of ideology (from the point of view of describing its philosophical basis and presenting it as a system of conceptual views of a certain class) by features inherent solely in Marxism. These features are as follows: (i) An internal harmony, unity and integrity of a system of theoretical views, of all component parts of the teaching based on a dialectical-materialist monism, consistently reflecting the objective world in its revolutionary development; (ii) A strict scientific nature attained by the unity of theory and practice based on a dialectical-materialist method of cognition; (iii) A consistent and frank party spirit related to the conscious service to the working class, which is profoundly 113

interested in a correct cognition of reality in the interests of transforming society on the basis of socialist and communist principles; (iv) An irreconcilable struggle against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, against their manifestations, against revisionism from the ``Left'' and the Right, against dogmatism and sectarianism. Present-day revisionists stubbornly ignore the great contribution made by Lenin to the problems of ideology in general and scientific ideology in particular. They circumvent the criticism which he made of their ideological predecessors. The fact is that Lenin's propositions on the sources 9---2332 130 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 131 of Marxist ideology, Lenin's criticism of positivism with its subjectivist and relativist methodology have supreme importance for exposing contemporary revisionist conceptions. Lenin showed the basic diametrically opposed nature of dialectical materialism 6n the one hand, and subjectivism and relativism on the other; this was particularly marked in the question of the cognitive potential of ideologies. From Lenin's analysis it follows that a resolution of that problem is not predetermined by the nature of ideology "in general", but by the nature of the class adherence of each given ideology, the character of its philosophical basis. The historical determinancy of the parameters and level of knowledge embodied in scientific ideology at each given stage does not imply that this knowledge is not authentic, since there is no impassable border between relative and absolute truth for an ideology based on dialectical materialism. Lenin wrote: "... every ideology is historically conditional, but it is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, for instance, from religious ideology) there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature. You will say that this distinction between relative and absolute truth is indefinite. And I shall reply: it is sufficiently `indefinite' to 114

prevent science from becoming a dogma in the bad sense of the term, from becoming something dead, frozen, ossified; but at the same time it is sufficiently `definite' to enable us to dissociate ourselves in the most emphatic and irrevocable manner from fideism and agnosticism, from philosophical idealism and the sophistry... ."* Any claims to embody truth "in the last instance" are radically alien to Marxist-Leninist ideology. Its scientific nature is ensured by consciously underpinning the whole process of its development by dialectics of absolute, objective and relative truth. Revisionists ignore this dialectic. Subjectivism and relativism, characteristic of the views of * V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 137. Fischer, Kolakowski, Bauman and other revisionists, lead to a metaphysical counterposing of any class ideology to science and scientific cognition. These ``Marxists'' take as their mentors bourgeois theoreticians like Mannheim, whose ``relationism'' differs from the ``ordinary'' relativism as greatly as mauve and purple. The revisionists pay each other compliments; Fischer says that Kolakowski's definition of any ideology as "mystified consciousness" is "up to the point". "What occurs in historical development. . .", he writes, "appears as a struggle of practice and knowledge against the supremacy of ideology. Science, art, philosophical knowledge, although they are influenced by ideology (in most cases to their detriment), nonetheless are essentially nothing but the revolt of reality against false consciousness."* This pretentious scheme is based on a series of utterly fallacious premises: first, on a rejection of the possibility of a scientific ideology; second, on an incorrect idea that the development of philosophical knowledge, social science and art occurs independently of philosophical and, consequently, ideological positions of a scientist and artist; third, that the deliberate serving of any class interests hampers the development of science and artistic creativity. Fischer crudely distorts the history of ideological teachings and of science and culture, the genuine dialectics of their interaction with class ideologies. According to him, the history of cognition and the spiritual life of mankind is rather like two parallel paths, along one of which illusory class ideologies move, while along the other go philosophy, science and art, both gripped in a never ending conflict. Despite the relative independence of laws of development and continuity in the field of culture (especially great in certain spheres, like music, for example), it is clear that there is a dependence of its overall development on the 115

philosophical and aesthetic positions of the artist, while the latter express historically specific forms of ideology. Marxism E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, pp. 44-45. 132 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL COGNITION 133 rejects the view that class ideologies of the past have been completely illusory. It is within the bounds of historically progressive class ideologies, on their soil and from their philosophical and socio-political positions that progressive people in science have made a contribution to the cognition of social phenomena and processes, and that relative truths ``understood'' by them have been used in the systems of generally unscientific ideologies. By contrast with naturalscientific knowledge, which as a whole does not have an ideological character (this does not refer to philosophical aspects of general theories of natural science), the achievements of the past in the sphere of philosophical, social, political and other knowledge have a direct link with ideologies of progressive classes. Lenin wrote: "... socialism, as the ideology of the class struggle of the proletariat, is subject to the general conditions governing the inception, development, and consolidation of an ideology; in other words, it is founded on the ' sum-total of human knowledge, presupposes a high level of iscientific development, demands scientific work, etc., etc."* It follows from this that one should not mindlessly deny the right of all past ideologies to be based on historicallyrestricted elements of objective knowledge. From class, ideological positions of revolutionary peasant democracy, for example, the Russian philosopher Nikolai Chernyshevsky developed profound economic ideas which were highly valued by Marx. In generally falsifying the relationship between science and ideology, the revisionists make every use of an abstraction of ``science'', putting into one basket the various aspects of the given concept. They not only ignore the nature of the relationship between ideology and specific social sciences (by 116

contrast with the interaction of natural science and ideology), but also fail to distinguish between science as a com* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 163. plex social institution and science as objective knowledge. Any social science has its specific logic of development, its own structure, its own particular applied methods, its own technique of gathering material that may not contain their own ideological character. But the main and decisive aspects of social sciences do have ideological features: the philosophical, methodological, social and political principles of selecting, analysing, generalising the material, the conclusions from the investigations and the knowledge which is taken from the specific social sciences and enters the ideological ``arsenal'' of a given class. This specific aspect is greatly determined by the fact that, by contrast with the specific social sciences, the principles and tenets of ideology are spread among the masses directly and are meant to serve as philosophical and political guidelines for their social activity and their social behaviour in the most diverse conditions and relations. At the same time, ideology, taken in its theoretical aspect, embodies and expresses not only the major and determining features of each social science---its philosophical essence, social-class orientation and aim, but also what is in common---theory and methodology---between specific branches of knowledge, merging into a single social science, and determines their connection with sciences about nature. A popular argument in defence of the thesis concerning the difference between science and ideology is that ideology is associated with value judgements, whereas science deals with real facts which it subjects to verification. This is claimed by the revisionists who follow in the wake of Mannheim, Aron, Geiger and other bourgeois philosophers and sociologists. But this argument is wholly based on their subjectivist and positivist interpretation of the problems of ideology and methodologically attaches itself to contemporary scientific conceptions. If, for example, such ideological and value judgements as the "humanity of the socialist system" and the "inhumanity of capitalism" or "the reactionary nature of imperialist policy'', "the irresistibility of what is 134 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 5 THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS 117

OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> new and advanced" are looked upon as divorced from the objective knowledge that lies behind those judgements, then of course it is possible to oppose their scientifically correct aspects to value factors. But, inasmuch as these and other similar value judgements resting on scientific knowledge reflect the attitude of people to events and processes from the viewpoint of objective social laws, then the whole absurdity of such opposition of ideological and scientific elements is patently apparent. Revisionists have never bothered to work out their own philosophical principles. They do not produce either philosophical principles of the theory whose conclusions they distort, or the principles which prompted that distortion. Revisionism itself never poses the questions about its philosophical principles and invariably avoids giving a clear answer to it "skilfully dodging any definite statement of its principles"."" Nonetheless, in its unprincipled way ( inconsistency and uncertainty constantly leading to contradiction between word and deed), revisionism has its own logic which Lenin called the logic of opportunism or sophistry. The philosophy of present-day revisionism is based on idealist principles that are opposed to materialism; revisionists adopt these not in their pure classical form, but in caricature which they take in the conception of philosophers who claim to rise ``above'' materialism and idealism. They take them not directly from classical sources of pre-Marxian philosophy but from "eclectical, cheap" imitations. That is why it is impossibles to identify the principles of classical idealist philosophy in their revisionist ``translation'', which is always a translation of a translation and is never made from the original. In his criticism of Right-wing opportunist revisionists for V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 405. 136 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 137 their attempt to portray themselves as thinkers on a level of Hegelian dialectics, Lenin wrote: ".. .the great Hegelian dialectics which Marxism made its own, having first turned it right side up, must never be confused with the vulgar trick 118

of justifying the zigzags of politicians who swing over from the revolutionary to the opportunist wing of the Party, with the vulgar habit of lumping together particular statements, and particular developmental factors, belonging to different stages of a single process."* Between philosophical revisionism and fundamental philosophical schools there are always certain mediating links in the form of conceptions that claim to ``overcome'' the one-sidedness of materialism and idealism; Kantianism, Humism, phenomenology, existentialism, pragmatism, pluralism, etc. From which `` intermediate'' trends philosophical revisionism takes its idealist principles depends on the specific historical situation and the problems that confront it at various stages of its evolution and which oblige it to change its form. Irrespective of the form it takes, revisionism is always idealism and metaphysics in its philosophical essence. In the attacks of present-day revisionists on dialectical materialism, these principles assume the form of militant anti-materialism and anti-dialectics. The divorcing of dialectics from materialism is a typical device employed by contemporary revisionists to undermine the main theoretical tenets of Marxism and its revolutionary nature. Bernstein rejected Marxist dialectics as idealist (since no other dialectics existed for him), while presentday revisionists accept it as idealist having first ``purged'' it of materialism. The revisionists veil their attack on materialist dialectics by loud proclamation of the need to liberate dialectics of the fetters of "positivist dialectical and historical materialism" and to return to it its revolutionary and critical content which the ``dogmatists'' are said to have extracted. They see * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 412. in that ``liberation'' the only way to create a dialectic which is independent of anyone and anything. With the assistance of such a ``dialectic'', they attempt, as the Yugoslav philosopher Boris Ziherl has correctly noted, to "turn Marx into an existentialist, Engels and Lenin into positivists, and existentialists, Freudians and positivists into Marxists". Here, the recounting of "alien ideas about Marx and Marxism and even the obvious mystification of Marxism" is put out as "creative Marxist philosophy", while "many basic propositions of Marxist philosophy formulated by Marx himself 119

are simply pronounced Stalinist and, as such, are rejected in accordance with the requirements of foregin falsifiers of Marxism".* In words, present-day revisionists are in favour of dialectics, as long as it stands above everything and is essentially critical and revolutionary; in fact, however, they "take completely uncritically all and everything that is put out as contemporary philosophy". This is said to be creative philosophy, "authentic Marxism"---i.e., "a poker is said to be a candle", for that which in fact is written for squaring accounts with Marxism is proclaimed and advertised as a ``development' of Marxism."** Proponents of the fashionable anthropological revision of Marxism refer to philosophical dialectics but interpret it through the "negative dialectics" of the Frankfurt school (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas), the philosophical anthropology of Erich Fromm, eclectically combining Marxism with neo-Freudism. the existentialist criticism of " dialectical reason" of Sartre, the philosophy of utopia and aspiration of Bloch and similar ``dialectics'' that are products of contemporary bourgeois philosophy. While divorcing dialectics from materialism, present-day revisionists maintain that they are not against materialism or dialectics; they are, it would seem, ``only'' against dialec* Marks i savremenost, Belgrade, 1964, No. 2, p. 612. ** Ibid. 138 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 139 tical materialism. Therefore, the prime and direct aim of contemporary, as of any other, philosophical revisionism is to destroy the unity of dialectics and materialism, the unity which is implemented in dialectical materialism and which is the most essential feature of Marxist philosophy, inasmuch as all the features of that philosophy are connected with it and emanate from it. Present-day revisionists prescribe ``materialism'' without matter and dialectics without materialism in place of the unity of materialism and dialectics obtained in dialectical materialism.

120

``MATERIALISM'' WITHOUT MATTER</b> Today's revisionists differ from their predecessors not by their attempt to divorce the philosophy of Marx from materialism (such an attempt was made by revisionism of a Machist orientation), but by their efforts to portray Marxist philosophy as materialism without matter. Not one session of the Korculanske summer school, attended by the most prominent revisionists, passed by without assertions that nature as it is is nothing or something deprived of any of its qualities. This viewpoint, which claims to represent Marx's original approach to nature, hardly corresponds to his real views (his historical conception). Let us note that the revisionists do not have priority either in putting forward this thesis or in ascribing it to Marx. Similar arguments were used by Machists to achieve these aims. The difference is only that the Machists used philosophical and natural sciences terminology, while contemporary revisionists will use terminology borrowed from Hegel and early Marx. Their deliberations do not essentially differ from those, for example, of the Machists: (1) Matter "outside experience" is unthinkable and unknown, it is nothing; (2) The physical world is the creation of man and coincides with "social and organisational experience''. The contemporary revisionists perceive Marxism through the ``spectacles'' of the bourgeois interpreters of Marx. Let us quote a few typical gems from such interpreters which express the essence of the very idea which contemporary revisionists consider a fundamental proposition of "creative Marxism''. ``To ascribe to Marx and Engels materialist metaphysics postulating the existence of matter which is exterior to all experience is to totally misrepresent their intentions. Their real thought is revealed to us in the following phrase of Engels which figures in his manuscript Dialectics of Nature: 'Matter as such is a pure creation of the spirit and a pure abstraction'."* Nature exists only through man and for man.** ``Nature without man has no sense, it has no movement, it is chaos, undifferentiated and indifferent matter, it is therefore ultimately nothing."*'"''* It is true that bourgeois ``experts'' on Marx, as opposed to contemporary revisionists, do not think that Marx has put forward this idea. The catholic interpreter of Marxism Jean-Yves Calvez, for example, says that the anthropocentrist viewpoint is that of rational theology and 121

therefore he simply states that Marx also adhered to that point of view. Marx criticised the abstract naturalist interpretation of nature and opposed to the Hegelian Absolute Spirit a nature that is not removed from human beings but is a sensuousobjectified activity of man as a social being. Contemporary revisionists, however, use this to show that Marx, in overcoming the restricted nature of the conceptions of the old materialists, resurrected the thesis which they had rejected about human beings as the creators and the law-makers in nature and rejected the ideas that they had upheld about the unique essence of nature and the possibility of cognising it * M. Rubel, "Le magnum opus de Karl Kautsky: La conception materialiste de 1`histoire'^^1^^, La Revue socialiste, No. 83, Paris, Jan. 1955, p. 6. ** See K. Axelos, Marx penseur de la technique de Valienation de I'homme a la longuete du monde, Paris, 1961, p. 281. *** J.---Y. Calvez, La pensee de Karl Marx, Paris, 1956, p. 380. 140 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 141 in the way that it actually is. They assert, for example, that Marx criticised Feuerbach for recognising nature as a primary reality. One of them writes: "That for which Marx here chides Feuerbach, refers completely also to dialectical materialism. "* In addressing himself to supporters of the latter, he asks: "But where does that nature still exist which preceded human history---i.e., a nature about which Feuerbach dreamed and about which various dogmatists and romantics dream today? How is it generally possible to cognise such a nature which is remote from man and independent of him?" And imagining that these questions completely disarm his opponents, he answers: "Nowhere and no how.""'* Revisionists refute the conclusion substantiated and affirmed by all human experience concerning the primacy of nature and its independence of human consciousness. They reject precisely that knowledge of nature which " 122

materialism consciously puts as the basis of its theory of cognition". By contrast to Marx, who advocated a union of "nature enthusiasts" and history enthusiasts and who believed that "it is the only alliance by which present-day philosophy can become truth",*** these people oppose nature enthusiasts to history enthusiasts, so demonstrating that practical activity is all and nature is nothing. An interpretation of nature as nothing and defence of such an interpretation as genuinely ``Marxist'', in the opinion of present-day revisionists, "becomes especially important and timely when one considers the work of Engels. . . and also several other interpretations of Marx (Plekhanov, Lenin) in which Marx ultimately is reduced to a level of mechanistic materialism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries".**** Here we have something typical of the anthropologicalhumanist interpretation of Marxism---an attempt to oppose Marx as the "philosopher of practice" to Engels and Lenin as the proponents of dialectical materialism. The latter are accused of ``Feuerbachism'' on the grounds that for them "materialism means the same as in all philosophical tradition---i.e., a direction diametrically opposed to idealism which, to the question of the relationship between being and thinking, matter and idea, object and subject, answers in the classical way that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary".* In regard to Marx, 'the revisionists tell us that he did not continue and improve materialism, but he radically broke with the materialist tradition in general and through identifying nature and man and not through their separation ("as Engels or even Feuerbach did"), "overcame materialism and idealism".** Being obliged to admit that Marx called his doctrine ``materialist'' and ``materialism'', the ``humanist'' critics of ``nature'' nonetheless maintain that "by this he had in mind not materialism as one of the two basic and opposite directions in philosophy",*** but only his interpretation of history that rejects any materialism as " dogmatism and metaphysics of the world in and of itself".**** It is typical of ``humanist'' critics to revise the Marxist resolution of fundamental philosophical problems by reducing dialectical materialism to mechanistic materialism and to make out that they are simply purging Marxism of a mechanistic approach, while in fact purging Marxism of materialism. To deny the difference between the essence of materialism and one or another historical form of it helps bourgeois ``experts'' on Marx and revisionists to reduce all stages in the development of materialism to the least developed forms 123

* Marks i savrcmenost, Belgrade, 1966 No 3, p. 454. ** Ibid., pp. 454-55. *** Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1975, p. 400. **** M Kangrga, Eticki problem u djelu Karla Marxa, Zagreb, 1963, p. 156. ~ A. Pazanin, "Marxovo i Engelsovo shvacanje prirode", Marks i savremenost, 1966, No. 3, p. 448. ** Ibid., p. 452. *** Ibid., p. 447. **** Ibid. 142 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 143 of it. As we have seen, they turn the relationship between Marxist philosophy and mechanistic materialism into the relationship between Marxist philosophy and materialism which is one of the two basic philosophical trends. The Marxist criticism of the contemplative nature of earlier materialism is portrayed as a criticism of materialism in general. They regard the historical conception of Marx not as a way of overcoming the Feuerbachian form of materialism which is the highest form of pre-Marxian materialism, but as an excursion beyond the bounds of materialist world outlook and proof of 'the impossibility of resolving within these bounds the problem of man and his activity. A scientific understanding of history outside of materialism is, however, impossible, just as human history is impossible outside of the history of nature. Marxism was the first philosophy to demonstrate that nature in philosophy is a historical category, insofar as nature is taken and theoretically established by man in the specific historical forms of its manifestation which change in the course of the historical process. People's ideas about nature have formed depending on how man has learned to change nature and on those social forms in which that change has taken place. However, 124

from the fact that man's historical practice always somehow enters into a philosophical definition of nature, it does not follow that in the historical definitions of nature the latter has no reference to man. ``Humanist" critics of nature try to base their ideas on extracts taken at random from Marx which they blatantly falsify. Typical of such a device is the following assertion by Milan Kangrga, which we produce together with a quotation from Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 cited to corroborate it: ``For Marx, nature by itself is nothing: 'nature. . . taken abstractly, for itself---nature fixed in isolation from man--is nothing for man... . Nature as nature---that is to say, insofar as it is still sensuously distinguished from that secret sense hidden within it---nature isolated, distinguished from these abstractions [here Marx has in mind Hegelian abstractions.---M. Kangrga.], is nothing---a nothing proving itself to be nothing---is devoid of sense, or has only the sense of being an externality which has to be annulled."* Firstly, from the assertion that nature taken apart from man is for man nothing, it does not follow that nature, too, by itself is nothing. Secondly, from the quotation from Marx, it is clear that he is referring to the relationship between nature and some sort of "hidden meaning" concealed within it in the form of abstractions. What abstractions are these? As the ``humanist'' who quotes these lines admits, "here Marx had in mind Hegelian abstractions". If that is the case, then Marx in this context is talking about man in a Hegelian interpretation---i.e., about a man reduced to an abstraction of a man, to self-consciousness and, that would mean, of nature as it exists for such a non-object, spiritualist being. Therefore, those philosophers who uncritically apply this view to actual nature and real people at best are reproducing the viewpoint of Hegelian speculation. For them, too, nature is nothing when it "differs sensually" from Hegelian abstractions (i.e., it is nothing precisely as a sensuous nature independent of thought), and that it becomes something only when it merges with these abstractions (i.e., when it ceases to be sensuous and independent of thought). One must ask whether Marx shared this view of nature. An affirmative answer to this question would mean a lack of desire or ability to distinguish Marx's viewpoint from the Hegelian, the materialist from the idealist. Marx's texts irrefutably show that he developed his understanding of man and nature precisely in opposition to the Hegelian view and he firmly opposed his philosophical position to 125

idealism and eclecticism. Unlike Hegel, Marx (incidentally, in works to which the revisionists and ``experts'' on Marx like * M. Kangrga, "O nekim bitnim pitanjima teorije obraza", Neki problemi teorije obraza, Belgrade, 1960, p. 38 (for quotations, see K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow, 1961, pp. 169-70). 144 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 145 to refer) took as his premise man "as a natural, corporeal, sensuous, objective being" for whom "the objects of his impulses exist outside of him, as objects independent of him".* In other words, the starting point for him was a man for whom nature was not nothing but "his inorganic body" with which man "must remain in continuous intercourse if he is not to die" for "a being which does not have its nature outside itself", "is a nullity---an un-being", "something merely thought of (merely imagined, that is)---a creature of abstraction"/^^1^^""' The following critical remark made by Marx about Hegel leaves no room for doubt about Marx's, real attitude: ".. .abstraction comprehending itself as abstraction knows itself to be nothing: it must abandon itself---abandon abstraction---and so it arrives at an entity which is its exact contrary---at nature. Thus, the entire Logic is the demonstration that abstract thought is nothing in itself; that the Absolute Idea is nothing in itself; that only Nature is something."*'"" By affirming that "only nature is something", Marx underlined, first, that what does not belong to nature does not exist and cannot exist and, second, that nature exists by itself, irrespective of how it is perceived by thought. It was precisely in that materialist context that Marx and Engels tackled the question of "human activity in nature". As if foreseeing that some people would try to interpret their ideas about the active attitude of man to nature as a rejection of the priority of nature, they stressed that "in all this the priority of external nature remains unassailed".**** In defining nature, whose primacy in relation to man's practical activity is not something transient, Marx also used the term matter: "Man has not created matter itself. And he cannot even create 126

any productive capacity if the matter does not exist beforehand.""' Irrespective of the impact exerted by people's activity on nature in the products of human labour, "a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man".""* Despite such a clear assertion from Marx, there have been people who maintain: "That natural material substratum which exists and, to the extent that it exists 'without the intervention of man', is for Marx nothing."*** Nature, as we have seen, is portrayed by the revisionists of the anthropocentrist orientation as something absolutely formless, while man is presented as a living being providing form for everything and, in that sense, being. It is not hard to show that this is a complete falsification of the views of Marx who often emphasised that man "can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter".**** The basic form of practical activity (labour) is regarded here as a change in the form of matter, and this is actually so because natural matter has certain forms even without the interaction with man. Thus, it is only possible to understand labour---i.e., the practical transformation of nature, and to understand practice in all its forms as a goal-directed activity, if we take it as material activity which presupposes the existence of objects with their natural qualities. In order to justify their rejection of nature and its laws, present-day revisionists use, besides out-of-context quotations and freely interpreted ideas of Marx, also a number of ``theoretical'' arguments of which the following are most characteristic: (1) Things cannot exist simultaneously both in themselves and for us; (2) It is impossible to know anything about things, what they are in themselves. * K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow, 1959, p. 156. ** Ibid., pp. 74, 156, 157. *** Ibid., p. 167. <SUP>:</SUP> K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, p, 58. * K. Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, 1956, p. 65. ** K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1972, p. 43. 127

*** A. Pazanin, "Marxovo i Engelsovo shvacanje prirode". Marks i savremenost, 1966, No. 3, p. 446. **** K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 50. 10---2332 146 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 147 Such an argument is not new; it inevitably leads to undialectical positions of idealist agnosticism. In his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin has a paragraph entitled "The Thing-in-Itself, or V. Chernov Refutes Frederick Engels". Everything that is said in that paragraph against the empiric-criticism of Chernov is fully applicable to the present-day revisionists who reject "nature in itself". Therefore, in order to understand the real sense of their refutations, we shall put the same question which Lenin put and to which he provided an answer in his criticism of the Machists: "And with whom are they fighting for the sake of that unfortunate thing-in-itself?'' Contemporary revisionists are fighting against Engels, accusing him of retreating from Marx because he admitted that nature exists by itself. Kangrga asserts that "if we are referring to nature in itself which, as such, does not have and cannot have any qualities. . . then it does not in the least differ from the Kantian 'thing-in-itself which, as we all know, is unknowable"/^^1^^" Therefore, nature is first deprived of properties and, as such, is turned into a Kantian abstraction of a thing-in-itself (which already by definition is unknowable), and then the conclusion is drawn that nature by itself---i.e., outside of and irrespective of our abstractions, does not exist and, consequently, it would be ridiculous to speak about cognising it. What "materialism calls matter or nature in itself" is portrayed as a purely rational reflection of a thing-in-itself given an independent existence. Engels is criticised for not understanding that nature "is precisely for us a thing-in-itself; consequently, it from the first has been a thing for us (in our reflection) so that in general it could be a 'thing-in-itself---that it is precisely two similar, identical definitions, simple rational reflections"."'^^5^^"" 128

Thus, revisionists regard "nature in itself" as no more than a rational abstraction to which uncritical dogmatic materialism arbitrarily ascribes reality and objectivity. Here, recognition of nature becomes a necessary condition for its own existence, but this is a version of the old idealist sophism: first we conceive nature and then it begins to exist. Nature exists not because it is conceived; it is conceived because it exists. And this does not in any way contradict the fact that an explanation of nature out of itself is a product of the high level of philosophical thought. Engels considered it a very great service of pre-Marxian materialist philosophy "that it did not let itself be led astray by the restricted state of contemporary natural knowledge, and that--from Spinoza ... it insisted on explaining the world from the world itself...."* It is the application of this principle of cognising nature to cognising human society that led Marx to create historical materialism, replacing subjectivism in views on history "by 'a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops.. .".** The limited nature of old materialism, consequently, lies not in the fact that it required an explanation of the world from the world itself, but in the fact that it was not able completely to implement that requirement---to apply that principle to an analysis of social phenomena. It is possible to be a materialist in one's views on nature while remaining an idealist in one's views on history. But present-day revisionists want, at least in words, to be materialists in their views on history and to reject materialism in views on nature. That is impossible: to deny nature in itself is to deny the natural prerequisite for historical process; it leads not to materialism in views on human society but to a theological, idealist view of the world. * M. Kangrga, Eticki problem u djelu Karla Marxa, Zagreb, 1963, p. 162. ** Ibid., p. 163. * F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1972, p. 25. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 25. 10* 148

129

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 149 All classical philosophers, materialist and idealist, understood full well that the only alternative to the recognition of nature in itself (corresponding to the recognition of the principle of explaining the world from the world itself) is the principle of ``creation''. Hegel wrote: "For if nature is represented as created and held together by another, then it is conceived of as not existent in itself, and thus as having its notion outside itself, i.e., its basis is foreign to it, it has no basis as such. . . ."* Therefore, the difference between "in itself" and "for another" ("for us") from the standpoint of materialism is the difference within the confines of nature. Of course, an abstraction of nature in itself exists only for us, for people, but it does not follow from this that real, infinite nature did not exist without us and cannot exist without our intervention. Present-day revisionists speak a great deal about man as a creative and practical being. But what would happen to human creativity if it were not for the existence of nature in itself? After all, what does not exist in itself cannot come into real interaction with man, and, in general, cannot experience influences and exert them---i.e., cannot take part in natural relations; it does not behave in an objectified way, its being is not something objectified. Therefore, to define human practice as the interaction of man with such nonobjectified and, consequently, impossible things is to deprive human beings of the possibility of intervening practically in the course of things. At the same time, man is defined by some anthropocentrist ``humanists'' as an "active nothing"; but since nature is defined as a passive nothing, it would seem that the practice which is opposed to the materialist principle of reflection is the relationship between the active nothing and the passive nothing---i.e., it is simply nothing, an empty phrase. Just this type of revisionist thinking has come under fire from several Yugoslav philosophers. Vuko Pavicevic for example, has objected to the above-mentioned extracts from Milan Kangrga and other upholders of the ``humanist'' conception of nature, and has written: "Yes, these are obvious truths, but firstly, Kangrga puts them to doubt and, secondly, they do remain basic truths. If we materialists respect the facts, if we believe that facts are not invented, then we must base ourselves on them. If we do not do so, but base 130

ourselves on high-flown phrases that man creates nature, then we are putting man on a pedestal of being a god which, fortunately, he is not, or we are approaching the Fichteian absolute subject who produces from himself the object as a matter of his activity and his obligation. In both cases, we are far from materialism and when Marxism is treated in such a way, we are showing our agreement with Calvez and Merleau-Ponty who maintain that, according to Marx, nature taken in itself is chaos. Kangrga gives rise, mildly speaking, to similar confusion both in his understanding of dialectics and in his treatment of Marx's concept of dialectics."* Present-day revisionists have turned their inability to master the ABC of materialism into a "theoretical argument" against nature---an argument which, incidentally, they themselves contradict at every turn. On the one hand, they assert that nothing can be known about nature such as it is, inasmuch as the situation in which we think about an object, which is inconceivable, is impossible and inherently contradictory. On the other hand, they maintain that they know for certain that nature in itself is nothing. Typical in this respect are the thoughts of Markovic who ascribes to Marx such an idea: "Both individually and socially, it is obvious, it is impossible to know anything about reality outside of practical and any other reality---it is impossible even to conceive of it.""" Some Yugoslav critics of Markovic have rightly remarked that this view is much Quoted from V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 266. * Neki problemi teorije odraza, p. 98. ** Ibid., p. 112. 150 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 151 closer to Carnap than it is to Marx. For Carnap the question of the external reality is insoluble and therefore he regarded as meaningless any utterances which affected some sort of reality outside of a certain logical language system. Markovic tried to adapt his point of view with the following idea, which he also claims to be an adequate interpretation of Marx: "Man has inherited a crude and uncivilised nature. But it does not interest Marx, nothing can be said about it."* This idea, clearly, also affects objective reality existing 131

outside of experience, outside of a creative act and transformation. However, if it is impossible to say anything about nature independent of our experience and our consciousness, then how is it possible to say that it exists, that it is a crude and uncivilised nature? Here we, as the Yugoslav philosopher Bogdan Sesic has rightly noted, "find an inconsistency, a contradiction between a thesis about cognitive meaninglessness of all utterances (I am using Carnap's words) about reality independent of man, and ideas which undeniably claim a cognitive meaningfulness about the same nature of which we evidently cannot say anything".*"" In his first pronouncement on philosophy, Markovic demanded "an end guessing to which of the two basic schools a particular thinker belongs depending on how he ... deals with the basic question of the relationship of being and thinking".""""^^1^^" He is far from being original. Back in the early eighteenth century, George Berkeley said that one should eliminate from materialism ``only'' what the materialists regarded as primary and put at the basis of their philosophical conceptions. He wrote: "The only thing whose existence we deny is that which philosophers [Berkeley's italics] call Matter. . . ."**** Berkeley was right to believe that if one removed the corner-stone, the whole edifice would come tumbling down."" Present-day revisionists try to remove from Marxist philosophy what the materialists call nature in itself or matter. By contrast with Berkeley, however, they maintain that the edifice of materialism does not collapse by removing the corner-stone; on the contrary, it is reinforced; materialism, from so-called materialism "from below", would become materialism "from above". To recognise nature in itself, in their words, invariably leads to a loss of authenticity and originality in human history, takes us back from a truly materialist conception of history to that non-materialist view of history which was held by pre-Marxian materialism, or, more correctly, by materialism which recognised the primacy of being in relation to consciousness. Why is this so? It is so because to recognise nature in itself inevitably leads to recognition of the determining role of social basis in relation to social consciousness (superstructure), the primacy and independence of the laws of social development of people's will and consciousness. "The positivist quasi-scientific historical materialism reduces cognition of society a,nd the place 132

of man in society to cognition of laws and relationships independent of man, and proclaims these laws as the basis determining human consciousness and activity, the basis which affects man and by virtue of its possessing laws of motion independent of man, determines his consciousness.""""' The same ``humanist'' goes on to say that "the positivist historical materialism raises that historical fact [which, in the opinion of revisionists, occurs only in societies where alienation is dominant.---Authors.} to the rank of a basic law of history, a law the discovery of which made it possible to make a `scientific' forecast of the future".*""* Thus, under the pre* Neki problemi teorije odraza, p. 112. ** Ibid. *** M. Markovic, Revizij a filozofskikh osnova marxizma u SSR-u, Belgrade, 1952, p. 68. **** Quoted from V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 29. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 28. ** M. 2ivotic, "Socjalisticki humanizam i jugoslovenska filosofija" Filosofija, No. 1-2, 1968, p. 112. *** Ibid. 152 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 153 text of combating "positivist dialectical and historical materialism", revisionists reject the basic tenet of historical materialism formulated by Marx himself, and thereby also the basis of science of society created by him. Here, in the rejection of Marx's historical materialism is the essence, the basic and ultimate objective of revisionist attacks on the idea of the objectivity of nature. The present-day revisionists portray matters as if a rejection of the existence of nature in itself affects only positivist dialectical and historical materialism, and not the historical materialism of Marx in whose name they believe they have the right to speak. They ignore the axiom that Marx's historical materialism cannot be anything else than dialectical materilaism in the sphere of history. If the reflection of reality in consciousness, "the relationship between thinking and being", is the crux of dialectical materilaism, then the 133

relationship between social consciousness and social being, superstructure and basis, is bound to be of fundamental importance for a materialist understanding of history. Lenin wrote: "Just as man's knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man's social knowledge (i.e., has various views---and doctrines ---philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. ... Marx's philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge."* The fact that Lenin so insistently upheld the general precepts of philosophical materialism, which to many seemed and still seem unconnected with the historical conception of Marx, proves the point that he profoundly comprehended the indissoluble connection between Marx's philosophical materialism and the revolutionary conclusions that he had made on the basis of his study of the capitalist society, revealing within it forces which can---and by their social position must---constitute a force capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new. When, therefore, contemporary revisionists demand that we should judge their adherence to a particular basic school on anything whatever, as long as it is not on how they tackle the question of the relationship between thinking and being, they should remember Lenin's demand for the need to evaluate views of a particular philosopher "exclusively from the standpoint of his materialist consistency"."" The views of contemporary revisionists in regard to nature vary from a rejection of the possibility of cognising nature to a rejection of its existence in general. They stand on a position of Kantian agnosticism because they believe it impossible to know anything about things as they are. By contrast with Kant, however, who admitted that it was possible for things to exist in themselves yet declared them beyond the bounds of cognition, some revisionists go so far as to refute the very existence of things-in-themselves. The argument which they sometimes have among themselves is merely about details affecting the means and tactics of their struggle against dialectical materialism. Differences among them are as insignificant as is the difference between the thesis according to which nature is nothing in itself and the thesis that it is something deprived of any qualities. These insignificant differences that exist within the bounds of their general conception very much depend on the influence on them from particular strains of contemporary bourgeois philosophy. What 134

is common for all of them is a return to "the time-worn argument of subjective idealism, that thought and reality are inseparable, because reality can only be conceived in thought, and thought involves the presence of the thinker".** In the view of Markovic, "any assumptions on the primacy of the objective world and its existence independent of hu* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 25. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 339. ** Ibid., p. 72. 154 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 155 man consciousness", which correspond to the accumulated experience of empirical and scientific activity, are philosophically untenable because of their alleged uncriticality "because it is impossible both individually and socially to know anything about the specific signs of some object in itself existing outside of any connection with man, completely outside the possible grasp of human consciousness and practice".* If one assumes that there are no objects which exist in themselves, outside of a connection with man, then, of course, it would be illogical to say that one can cognise "specific features" of such non-existent objects. Assuming that there are objects that reside completely outside of the grasp of human consciousness, it would of course also be illogical to talk of a thinker comprehending "specific features" of such, by definition incomprehensible, objects. But in the latter case, one loses sight of the important fact concerning the whole development of human practice and cognition that what is today beyond the grasp of human cognition and practice may tomorrow be within that grasp. Lenin wrote: "The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is `beyond' phenomena (Kant), or that we can and must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume) ---all this is the sheerest nonsense, Schrulle, crotchet, fantasy."**

135

According to contemporary revisionists, the materialist idea that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary is based on the absurd view that it is possible to perceive things which exist "utterly beyond the grasp of human consciousness"---in other words, that it is possible to think without thinking. They maintain that "it is unthinkable from the point of view of humanist metaphysics to want to conceive and talk of something which is completely independent of man and human practice. It is unthinkable to say that some utterance could be true if mankind in general did not exist"."'' It is perfectly plain that conscious beings cannot know anything without consciousness. Of course, if mankind did not exist there would be no one to say or think, at least in a human way. No man would want to speak about the veracity of pronouncements which have never been made by anyone. Sophistic variations on a theme of the impossibility of stating something about unuttered statements are not an end in itself, they are only a device to try and reject nature in itself and the Marxist teaching on objective truth---i.e., to replace materialist by idealist principles. It is also hardly worth bothering to show that people make true judgements on what existed before them (consequently, independent of them), not merely about things and forces which have never depended upon them but about those that went out of their control and became a force independent of people. Moreover, "the humanist" conception of nature, treating of the relationship of man to nature, although it is often used as a protest against identifying the self-assertion of man in his objectified activity with alienation, is in fact predicated on the identification of obj edification with alienation---i.e., recognising alienation as a general form of objectified activity. In labour by which man is connected with nature, objects of nature constitute forms of its objedification, but in the bourgeois system, as Marx showed "this realization of labour appears as loss of reality for the workers; objectification as loss of the object"."'* Objedification acts as a loss of the object to the extent that it ``alienates'' from man * M. Markovic, "Osnovi dijalekticko-humanisticke theorije istine", Praxis, No. 2, 1965, p. 184. ** K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow, 1959, p. 69. M. Markovid, Humanizam i dijalektika, Belgrade, 1967, p. 121. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 103. 136

156 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 157 his own body. . . and nature."" Alienated labour changes the relationship of man to nature so that an impression is created that any connection between them has disappeared. Present-day revisionists fall prey to that semblance, which has its extreme expression in the rejection of nature as an object and the instrument of human activity. Thus, this conception of nature is a purely idealist one. In Yugoslavia, where this idea has gained some currency, it is meeting increasingly firm opposition from scholars, particularly from natural .scientists. One critic, Professor P. Radoman of Belgrade University has written: "In my opinion, this philosophy which claims to replace dialectical materialism has no benefit or any meaning for natural science for which it is very necessary to have an understanding that nature possesses its own history before and independent of man and his practice and thinking and that the task of science is to uncover the laws of motion and development in nature."** We therefore see that the "viewpoint of humanist metaphysics" is utterly useless and harmful for science. ``DIALECTICS'' WITHOUT MATERIALISM</b> The basic principles of materialism are, first, the primacy of matter in relation to consciousness and, second, an understanding of consciousness as a reflection of being. Materialism is a monist philosophy and the principle of reflection is central to materialist monism. The question of the unity of the world and its laws is resolved in the theory of reflection. Present-day revisionists focus their attacks on dialectical materialism mainly at this point. At the present time, there is probably not one revisionist who does not try to undermine the general philosophical principles of Marxism by rejecting Lenin's theory of reflection. In a certain sense, therefore, one can say that this is their particular means of combating dialectical materialism, the means most characteristic 137

for contemporary revisionism to divorce Marxist philosophy from materialism, although it was bourgeois philosophy which once more showed the way. Various idealist trends in "Western Marxism", attempts to combine Marxism with Thomism, Catholic personalism, phenomenology and existentialism have appeared by divorcing Marxist philosophy from materialism. Present-day revisionists try to portray their criticism of the materialist principle of reflection as a criticism of something that has been falsely ascribed to Marxism, as a purging of Marxism of ``alien'' elements. They aver that one can be an opponent of the theory of reflection without being at the same time against materialism or dialectics. However, such assertions are rejected by their own conceptions. To reject the principle of reflection is to reject materialism in general and dialectical materialism in particular, in so far as it inevitably leads to a rift between subjective and objective dialectics, to a rejection of objective dialectics. It is typical of all contemporary bourgeois philosophy that it should reject objective dialectics; this expresses the fear of the bourgeoisie in the face of the discovery of the laws of the downfall of capitalist society. How does one explain the change in attitude of contemporary revisionism to dialectics? The authority of Marxism-Leninism has grown not only among scholars but among the population at large; even bourgeois philosophers dread opposing it openly. Bourgeois science, which soon after the death of Hegel sharply opposed the dialectical method as completely incompatible with `` positive'' thinking, in recent decades has been increasingly turning to dialectics. In the wake of bourgeois philosophy, revisionism is also making a turn towards dialectics. But the interpretation given to dialectics by bourgeois philosophers does not extend beyond the bounds of their idealist comprehension of it. Revisionists attempt to keep dialectics within this framework by rejecting the principle of reflection. Why is rejection of the reflection principle directed against objective dialectics? To regard thinking as reflection presup* K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, p. 74. ** Marks i savremenost, No. 3, 1966, p. 618. 158 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 138

159 poses the existence of an object of reflection. That is the basis of the materialist resolution of the principal issue of philosophy. But the question of the relationship of thinking to being also appears as a question of the relationship of subjective dialectics to objective dialectics, the dialectics of our thinking to the dialectics of the objective world. Revisionists today make nature dependent upon human practice, make practice the only true reality. They assert that nothing happens without and outside practice. Kangrga writes: "Thus, dialectics occurs in human history only as practice, so that apart from the activity of man or outside it there is no dialectic, because apart from and without man nothing happens that would be humanly essential, accessible to man and commensurable with him."* By taking a stand of extreme anthropocentrism, present-day revisionists ignore the following questions: How is it possible to explain the appearance of man and his society without recognising dialectics in the evolution of nature? How is it possible to justify the material unity of the world and materialist monism without recognising the objective dialectical process of development, and the dialectical theory of development as a reflection of that process? After Kangrga has reduced nature to nothing, he concludes: "To speak of `dialectics' of that nothing which is confirmed as nothing and remains such ... is not only impossible but it is meaningless."''^^1^^"* By thereby rejecting objective dialectics, the present-day revisionists reduce everything to a dialectic divorced from materialism and inevitably come to recognise a dialectic derived from subjectivist and voluntarist understanding of human practice. "Dialectics," they say, "is not self-motion (of matter, nature, things, objectivity, actuality or a spirit, idea, thinking, absolute), but the creative activity of a historical man. The campaign by revisionists against materialist monism is designed to destroy materialist dialectics as a scientific method. Marx had stressed that only the materialist method is scientific. They attempt to sever the indissoluble link of the scientific character of the dialectical method from its materialist character by rejecting the materialist foundation of dialectics. They do this primarily by taking Marxist philosophy out of the mainstream of materialist tradition and presenting it as a rejection of the philosophical position of materialism. They oppose to the latter a system of views which is supposed to prove that Marxist philosophy either is not monist or its monism must be sought in something different 139

from that in which pre-Marxian materialists saw it. Materialist monism is opposed, moreover, in the name of Marx, either to a pluralist conception or to ``anthropocentrist'' monism of practice. Kangrga maintains that "Marxism is monism of practice and not monism of matter". Kolakowski echoes him in saying that Marxism replaced materialist monism by ``anthropological'' or ``anthropocentrist'' monism. Only by rejecting materialist monism, according to these revisionists, could Marx create his humanism. They ignore the fact that Marx revealed the basis and criticised the philosophy that revisionists, in spite of the truth, try to put out as authentic and Marxist. Marx wrote that "only under capitalism does nature become merely an object for man, only a useful thing; it ceases to be recognised as a self-contained force"/^^1^^" The materialist Feuerbach, about whose deficiencies the revisionists say so much, showed that the anthropocentrist attitude to nature was no more than a theoretical expression of utilitarianism. "The view of nature or the universe as something made, created, a product of will is a theoretical expression of that egoistic, practical view that maintains that nature is nothing in itself."** * K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie ( Rohentwurf) 1857-58, Moskau, 1939, Bd. I, S. 313. ** L. Feuerbach, Das Wesen des Christenthums, Stuttgart, 1903, p. 135.

* M. Kangrga, "0 nekim bitnim pitanjima teorije odraza", Neki problemi teorije odraza, p. 38. ** Ibid. *** Ibid., p. 40. 160 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 161 From an anthropocentrist position and within its framework, the problems of the practical activity of people and human history remain scientifically unexplained, the actual ! activity of human beings and classes is replaced by the "ac- ; 140

tivity" of abstractions like "man in general" or "human being in general''. Present-day revisionists constantly repeat that the "unity of man with nature consists in practice", but they are not [ at all concerned with how it is possible to speak of the unity ' of man with nature if nature does not exist by itself. They base ' themselves on the idea of man as a prerequisite for everything else; they therefore regard nature as exclusively a product of man's free, creative activity. With such an approach, actual practice turns into a mystical act of creativity or embodiment to which revisionists ultimately reduce dialectics. According to Marx, labour is above all a process that takes place between man and nature. It is apparent that this process can only occur if nature exists before its practical transformation. On the other hand, man himself can effectively act on nature only because he belongs to the same substance or matter. Practical activity would be impossible without the materiality of nature and of man. These are the "natural conditions for the existence of the producer" which "initially cannot themselves be produced, cannot themselves be the results of production".* Marx recognised the unity of the world in its materiality ---i.e., he viewed it from the standpoint of materialist monism. Therefore, to counterpose the "monism of practice" to the "monism of matter" is not an improvement on material- 1) ist monism which makes it possible to understand man's activity in nature, it is a retreat from materialist philosophy, primarily from the materialist view of society, because monism rejecting the independence of nature from man precludes a materialist and scientific explanation of historical phenomena. Scientific dialectics is unacceptable and alien to contemporary revisionists who represent themselves as "humanist universalists". For them, as for Sartre, dialectics is a labyrinth without Ariadne's clew. Revisionist theories concerning the "inexplicability and unforeseen nature of anything new", about the impossibility of forecasting the appearance of anything new on the basis of an analysis of existing things are based on a rejection of nature and its dialectics. Thus, "humanist dialectics" has naturally arrived at agnosticism. Contemporary revisionists depict their opposition to dialectical materialism as a battle between creative Marxism and so-called dogmatic Marxism. By the latter they refer to philosophers who believe that the "question of the relationship of matter to consciousness is the basic issue of 141

philosophy" and who believe that "dialectical materialism is the philosophy of Marx", philosophers who also "defend the theory of reflection" and "uphold the partisan principle in philosophy". By contrast with these, "creative Marxists do not accept those ideas in any well-known interpretation''. The line drawn between Marxism and contemporary revisionism actually passes through these points---i.e., points enumerated by G. Petrovic, a contributor to Praxis, between the basic philosophical schools---the materialist and the idealist. Present-day revisionism began by rejecting the `` ideological'' nature of Marxist philosophy under the pretext of upholding its scientific nature. Then it went on to reject the scientific character of Marxist philosophy under the guise of combating its ``dogmatism'' and upholding its critical and revolutionary spirit. By depriving Marxist philosophy of its world outlook and scientific content, therefore, the revisionists have inevitably arrived at a rejection of it as a general theoretical basis of scientific communism. But communism deprived of a support in scientific philosophy becomes at best abstract and Utopian dreams about a better future for mankind. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that they should accept the slogan of the Frankfurt school "from science to uto* K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie ( Rohentwurf) 1857-58, Bd. I, S. 389. 11---2332 162 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 6 FUNDAMENTAL INADEQUACIES</b> OF REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION</b> OF SOCIALISM</b> pia". But, "to demand the renovation of socialism in a spirit of Utopia" and "to demand a return to Utopian socialism"* is, in present conditions, reactionary. This is patently evident when one compares it with the practice of building socialism. Historical experience shows that revisionism breeds national ideology. That fact has been stated, in particular, by the Yugoslav President, Josip Broz Tito, who stressed in his speeches that departure from Marxism-Leninism had caused 142

an ideological crisis within the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and had encouraged nationalist and chauvinist ideas. He called upon the LCY to resist any revisionist distortions of the Marxist-Leninist theory. The revisionists distort the reality of socialist society in two main ways. First, they ascribe to socialist society qualities and features immanent in capitalist society. They regard the action of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites under socialism as simple continuity of its operation under capitalism. They ignore the fact that under socialism this law, like other laws of dialectics, acts in the social sphere, which is qualitatively different from what it was before and, therefore, the law manifests itself in completely new forms. Second, they highlight either concocted contradictions or contradictions which do not play any marked part in socialist society and, in any case, are not a motive force of its development. Under the guise of "objective science", the revisionists advocate rejecting partisanship in investigating problems of socialist society, although partisanship is equally necessary both in investigating both capitalism and socialism. SOCIALISM AND THE CRITICAL ESSENCE OF DIALECTICS</b> To the minds of revisionist philosophers, the task of any objective investigator into socialism is to analyse concealed contradictions "about which politicians still often talk only by allusion so as to conceal them as much as possible".* M. Dzuric, "Dvosmislenost utopije", Praxis, No. 1-2, 1972, p. 26. * H. Lefebvre, Problemes actuels du marxisme, Paris, 1958, p. 164 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 165 ``Marx," writes K. Kosik, "used materialist dialectics to reveal and critically examine the contradictions of capitalist society. But when Marxists analyse their own theory and practice, they replace materialism by idealism, dialectics by 143

metaphysics, criticism by apologetics."* The prime challenge of revisionists, as with all foes of socialism, is to subject socialist society to the most withering criticism. This approach, in their assertion, emanates from the very essence of Marxist dialectics, which is said to demand a merciless criticism of everything existing, of the whole social being of socialism. With this idea, Marxist dialectics is reduced merely to a criticism of human activity, to a criticism of social orders, especially the socialist. In the opinion of Svetozar Stojanovic, at the present time "Marxism has to a large degree exhausted its potential as a critique of bourgeois society".** Therefore, it can retain its revolutionary critical features only by criticising "the society which calls itself (!) socialism. Only that approach enables us to enrich and make specific the programme of Marxism".*** Julius Strinka writes in the same vein. In his words, a stringent criticism of socialism is necessary "in order to fulfil the urgent task of contemporary Marxism---to work out a critical revolutionary theory of contemporary socialism". The dialectics of socialist development, he continues, demands not the development of its existing model but its replacement by a new and more adequate model of socialism.**** " Contemporary socialism", he writes, "is not the dialectical surmounting of capitalism as Marx expected of socialism, but its metaphysical negation. Contemporary socialism is a negative copying of capitalism."***** One can see the futility of revisionist attempts mechanically to apply to socialist society Marx's ideas he voiced in a letter to Arnold Ruge in September 1843, in which he called for a ruthless criticism of everything existing, reactionary, outmoded, particularly a criticism of the Prussian order ---the German state, its economic and political system, morals and religious ideology. Lenin warned about a one-sided approach and stressed the need for a concrete analysis of social phenomena, pointing out that the dialectics of bourgeois society for Marx was only an individual case of dialectics in general. In the same way, the dialectics of socialist society is also an individual instance of dialectics in general which undoubtedly presupposes a strict account for the specific manifestation of laws, depending on conditions in which they operate. It would be wrong to reduce the task and essence of Marxist dialectics (science of the most general laws of development of 144

nature, society and thought) to their separate, ``critical'' feature. By taking this particular aspect of dialectics, the critical aspect, revisionists ignore its paramount role as the basis of revolutionary change and transformation of the world. Marxism-Leninism takes into consideration the specific forms of action of dialectics which change with the changing historical situation. In the beginning, for example, proletarian revolution has a predominantly destructive orientation, insofar as it overthrows capitalist society and its principal institutions. But after the proletariat has taken power, creative tasks come to the fore: the creation of the socialist basis and political superstructure, economic and cultural development. Under communism, the revolutionary critical side of dialectics does not vanish, rather its direction changes. It becomes directed not towards destruction but towards increasing creativity. The experience of building socialism in the USSR---industrialisation of the country, collectivisation, cultural revolution, resolution of the national question and, to* K. Kosik, "Dijalektika morala i moral dijalektiki", Smisao i perspektive socijalizma, Zagreb, 1966, p. 287. ** S. Stojanovic, Izmedu ideala i stvarnosti, Belgrade, 1969. p. 12. *** Ibid., p. 13. **** J. Strinka, "O dvostrukom shvacanju dijalektike socijalizma", Filosofija, No. 1, 1966, pp. 37-38. ***** Filosofija, No. 2, 1969, p. 72. 166 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 107 day, communist construction---shows that after the victory of the socialist revolution creative tendencies became dominant, and after the building of socialism they became basic. The last really great and essential destructive act was to abolish exploiting classes and elements in town and country.

145

The fight against vestiges of capitalism is also, of course, destructive, but in that process the educative functions prevail over the repressive. Facts prove that the vestiges of capitalism in people's minds and the remnants of old bourgeois morality and religion are eliminated in socialist society through the gradual re-education of people, the steady overcoming of the negative phenomena inherited from the exploiting system. Revisionists try to replace the Marxist approach by the " negative dialectics" of such enemies of socialism as Adorno and Marcuse.* Dialectics helps to uncover shortcomings and to eliminate them as communism is being built. It helps to combat conservatism and any attempts to preserve in socialist society manifestations and traits of past, outmoded views that prevent the whole society from scaling new heights of social progress. In that sense, its critical orientation remains a powerful weapon for the CPSU and the Soviet state. Experience of building socialism and communism, of struggle against all adverse phenomena inherited by socialist society, the fostering of the shoots of the communist future teaches us to differentiate healthy criticism of our deficiencies by those who are honestly fighting for the victory of communist principles from the nihilist criticism of the very basis of the socialist system by its enemies. The democracy inherent in socialist society gives full scope for criticism from those who are striving to reinforce it. But socialist democracy does not give free rein to those inimical forces which are striving to destroy it. The reference by revisionists to the critical essence of Marxist dialetics is nothing but an attempt to impose on the socialist countries conditions in which the enemies of socialism could freely slander socialism and undermine its political and economic foundation. SOCIALISM AND ANTAGONISTIC CONTRADICTIONS</b> Revisionists say that in the socialist state it is impossible to indicate a certain stage of development at which antagonistic contradictions would not exist. These contradictions, they say, can only disappear spontaneously and unnoticed. The process of their demise is long and, possibly, would end in advanced communist society.

146

In their opinion, collectivisation of agriculture and abolition of private property in the economy do not liberate socialist society from social antagonisms. These measures ( without which socialism is unthinkable) can, they allege, only tone down the acuteness of antagonistic contradictions, but cannot eliminate them altogether. In the words of Danko Grlic, it is impossible to imagine the action of any contradiction in socialist or communist society without social opposites, without conflicts. "Why do we," he asks, "in communism (and according to some assertions, in socialism too) replace the dialectics of conflict and contradiction by peaceful harmony of a logical satisfaction of all requirements? Why do we stop history where it should begin?"" Stojanovic goes even further; he maintains that Marx "betrayed his dialectical method", as soon as he dealt with the dialectics of the communist formation, removed dialectics from the life of communist society (i.e., reconciled con* In their approach to the dialectics of socialism, the revisionists also rely on E. Bloch's relativist `principle': that which exists cannot be true. Socialism allegedly prossesses the truth only to the extent that it remains a goal, that it is not realised, when it has already arisen and ceased to be a social utopia, one should fight for its disappearance, for it should exist no longer. * D. Grlic, "Socijalizam i kommunizam", Smisao i perspeklivi socijalizma, Zagreb, 1966, p. 29. 168 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 169 tradictions), and took a relativist stand. Marx, he claims, "describes communism as a society in which all basic contradictions, including those between existence and human essence, must disappear"."" He continues: "All basic contradictions are reconciled in the teaching of Marx about communism in the same way as they are in the Hegelian Absolute Spirit".** 147

In their distortion of Marxist philosophy, revisionists reach a stage where they reject the very existence of "non-antagonistic contradictions". In the opinion of Oleg Mandic, every contradiction in its essence is antagonistic, insofar as there are no contradictions without antagonisms. He writes: "The term 'non-antagonistic contradictions' was introduced by Soviet authors with Stalin in the lead, in order to prove the absence of antagonistic conflicts in the internal contradictions of the Soviet Union and to show that these conflicts could only take place in regard to external contradictions, in regard to the capitalist world."*** Joze Goricar approaches the question in a similar way. "The thesis of a conflict-free society is profoundly antiMarxist because, as is well known, the Marxist theory of society and social progress takes the view that any development occurs through the conflict of opposites, while the conflict of opposites is nothing other than social conflict."**** For V. Hadjistevic, the thesis concerning lack of conflict in socialist society is far from true. "By contrast with this bureaucratic fairy tale, socialism is an arena of a major social conflict. It cannot be otherwise, for socialism is the transitional period from class to classless society and, consequently, one of the two great revolutions that we know."***** * Stojanovic, hmedu ideala i stvarnosti, Belgrade, 1969, p. 30. ** Ibid., p. 32. *** O. Mandic, Pregled dijalektickog materijalizma, Zagreb, 1964, p. 107. **** Sec NIN (Nedelne Informativne Novine], Belgrade, February 20, 1972, p. 38. &raquo;&raquo;*** y Hadjistevic, "Osnovi drustvenog sukoba u socijalizmu j hjihova osnovica", Nase teme, Zagreb, No. I, 1971, p. 21. As we can see from these statements, revisionists identify dialectical contradictions with antagonism which is a particular instance of opposites. They confuse two completely different concepts---antagonisms as a specific form of the relationship between phenomena or aspects of a phenomenon and contradiction as a certain inter-relationship between 148

mutually-exclusive opposites of one and the same phenomenon or a group of phenomena. In fact, any antagonism is an opposite, but not every opposite is an antagonism. Antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions are various types of social contradictions, arising in diametrically opposed social conditions. The antagonistic contradictions inherent in capitalism arise on the basis of private capitalist property which engenders an irreconcilable class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Contradictions inherent in socialism arise in conditions of social ownership of the means of production which exclude any appearance of social antagonisms. Social antagonisms in Soviet society disappeared together with the disappearance of exploiting classes and human exploitation, together with the erasing of the antithesis between mental and manual labour, between town and country. Of course, non-antagonistic contradictions have remained. Antithesis as an aspect of a non-antagonistic contradiction, as opposed to an antagonistic contradiction, arises on the basis of the conformity of the relations of production to the character of forces of production, in the circumstances of social, political and ideological unity of society. In their analysis of this, as of many other questions, revisionists deliberately ignore the salient requirements of Marxist-Leninist dialectics: to examine every social phenomenon in a specific historical context. Lenin focussed attention on the historical nature of dialectics, on the inevitable change in the nature and character of contradictions during the transition from capitalism to socialism. He wrote that antagonism and contradiction are by no means one and the same 170 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 171 thing. The former disappears, whereas the latter remains under socialism.'^^1^^" The revisionist conception of indentifying contradictions with antagonism, rejecting changes in the manifestation of the law of unity and conflict of opposites in socialist conditions, completely merges with the ``theories'' of the open enemies of Marxist-Leninist dialectics from the camp of the 149

bourgeois philosophers. The latter also propound the thesis that socialist development ceases if antagonistic contradictions disappear, while the disappearance of these contradictions signifies the end of dialectics. Thus, Henri Chambre maintains that any claim that antagonistic contradictions in the USSR have disappeared is at variance with the teaching of Marx, who allegedly contended that the motive forces of development vanish with the disappearance of antagonistic contradictions. The prominent ``expert'' on dialectics, Gustav A. Wetter, also writes that the concept "non-antagonistic contradictions" means an "uncontending struggle" of opposites, and those contradictions from the standpoint of dialectics are meaningless because there are no uncontradictory contradictions. Consequently, where there is no antagonism, there is no contradiction and no dialectics.*^^5^^'" The revisionists try to back up their thesis that socialist society cannot abolish antagonistic contradictions because different classes remain in it and that those contradictions will exist until complete communism has been built by frequent allusion to various pronouncements by the founders of scientific communism, largely referring to what Marx had to say in his work The Poverty of Philosophy ("no antagonism, no progress".***) Here, too, they, at best, freely interpret Marx, quoting him out of context. The quotation to which revisionists and * See Leninsky sbornik XI, Moscow-Leningrad, MCMXXXI, p. 357. ** G. Wetter, Sovjetideologie heute. I. Dialektischer und hislorischer Materialismus, Frankfurt on Main, 1962, p. 235. *** K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 58. bourgeois writers like to refer in Marx to justify their thesis about the permanency of antagonisms, as motive forces of progress, is as follows: "The very moment civilization begins, production begins to be founded on the antagonism of orders, estates, classes, and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labour and actual labour. No antagonism, no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to our days. Till now the productive forces have been developed by virtue of this system of class antagonisms. To say now that, because all the needs of all the workers were satisfied, men could devote themselves to the creation of products of a higher order---to more complicated industries--would be to leave class antagonism out of account and turn 150

all historical development upside down."* From what Marx says, it is clear that he is talking not about social progress in general but about the progress of societies divided into opposite classes. In other words, he is referring to slave-owning, feudal and bourgeois societies. In fact, if one looks further in the same work at the analysis of feudal and bourgeois societies made by Marx, it is stressed that their development is determined by class antagonisms: ". . .feudal production, to be judged properly, must be considered as a mode of production founded on antagonisms." Further on, he refers to the role of antagonisms in bourgeois society: "In the course of its historical development, the bourgeoisie necessarily develops its antagonistic character, which at first is more or less disguised, existing only in a latent state. As the bourgeoisie develops, there develops in its bosom a new proletariat, a modern proletariat; there develops a struggle between the proletarian class and the bourgeois class."** Marx also indicates the antagonism of accumulated labour and actual labour. This, too, refers only to exploiting societies, insofar as within any exploiting society actual labour is the labour of the exploited---a slave, serf and worker, while accu* K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, pp. 58-59. <SUP>f</SUP>* Ibid., pp. 117-18. 172 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 173 mulated labour---i.e., labour that is materialised in the producer and consumer goods---belongs to the exploiter (the slaveowner, landowner or capitalist). Therefore, that antagonism is obviously a class antagonism. When he talks about socialist society, Marx indicates that antagonism of classes disappears in it and that consumption will no longer be determined by the minimum of time necessary for production. In other words, Marx foresaw that class antagonisms would disappear with the victory of socialism. He wrote: " Meanwhile the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its highest expression is a total revolution."* 151

Some revisionists agree that the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has disappeared with the victory of socialism, but they maintain that this does not mean the disappearance of other class antagonisms. Such assertions have nothing in common either with Marxism-Leninism or with the reality of socialist society. Marx said: "An oppressed class is the vital condition for every society founded on the antagonism of classes."** The victory of socialism occurs on the basis of the abolition of exploiting classes and the liberation of the downtrodden from tyranny and exploitation. And that means, as Marx foresaw, the abolition of the "vital condition" for the existence of class antagonisms. SOCIAL UNITY AND CONTRADICTION</b> When they analyse the contradictions of capitalism, revisionist philosophers stress social unity and ignore the struggle of opposites; yet they concentrate on the conflict of opposites when they examine the contradictions of socialism and exclude unity or reduce it to naught. Experience shows that real social unity has never existed * K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, pp. 167-68. ** Ibid., p. 167. &#8226; under capitalism. It is different with socialism, where social unity is an inalienable attribute of the life of society at all stages of its development ever since the victory of socialist relations in town and country. Social unity under socialism is based on the conformity of the social character of production and social ownership of the means of production, the forces of production and the relations of production, the basis and the superstructure. Ideological unity of all strata in society, single world outlook based on Marxism-Leninism are crucial elements that constitute here the basis of social unity. Marxist-Leninist ideology unites the working people of socialist society in a single family, irrespective of their class or nationality. Revisionists put the question dogmatically: either unity and conformity or contradiction. According to their assertions, if society possesses social unity and conformity, that puts an end to dialectics, inasmuch as that society has no place for contradiction and, therefore, it lacks a motive force. 152

If there is conformity between the relations of production and the character of forces of production, they reason, then the prime motive force disappears and society ceases to develop. But conformity between relations of production and the character of forces of production under socialism does not preclude a contradictory interaction of those two aspects of socialist social production. Dialectical contradiction between the forces and relations of production remains the main moving element of the production process even here. The fact is that this conformity in socialist society does not mean a direct identity. If they were to be identical, there would be no contradiction and, consequently, no development. Under socialism, as under other socio-economic formations, the unity of opposites is relative, and their struggle is absolute. The major difference here is only that under socialism the struggle of opposites does not assume the form of antagonism. In other words, as the forces of production of society develop, socialist relations of production are gradu174 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 175 ally improved, but they are not abolished or replaced spasmodically by some other new relations of production. The crux of the matter is that the struggle between the progressive and conservative, the new and the old under socialism takes place within the framework of the social, political and ideological unity of socialist society. Since unity here acts as a progressive aspect, the struggle of opposites which advances the whole process of development, does not destroy the unity but affects the process through it. The dialectics of socialist society is free from the social upheavals and cataclysms that inhere in an antagonistic society. The conformity of forces and relations of production under socialism is not something static. It always remains a mobile, developing conformity which has its own contradictions. By virtue of these contradictions, this conformity gives way to a more progressive conformity, but without any explosion. The negation of one conformity by another, which is more perfect in form and more profound in content, takes place constantly but gradually. The constant improvement of all facets of social life under socialism takes place through this 153

progressive process. SPONTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSCIOUS ACTIVITY</b> Revisionist philosophers claim that the operation of the law of unity and struggle of opposites takes place under socialism just as spontaneously as it does at all previous stages of history. They explain this by saying that the economic laws of socialism are as spontaneous as are the laws of preceding socio-economic formations. If there is some sort of difference, it is of no consequence, affecting quantitative and not qualitative relations. Socialism differs from capitalism on this issue, they maintain, only by degree, the scale of the correlation between the spontaneous and the conscious, the subjective and the objective. While under capitalism spontaneity prevails over consciousness everywhere, under socialism consciousness may prevail only in certain processes of development. The attempt to reduce spontaneity in socialist countries to a minimum, in the opinion of revisionists, is unrealistic. They maintain that in the process of their activity, people not only cannot eliminate spontaneity as such, they cannot even subordinate it to themselves. Indisputably, consciousness cannot exist or continue without an objective factor. But it is also true that the less spontaneous the process of development in socialist society, the quicker and'"less painlessly" this process occurs. Analysing communist society from the viewpoint of man's emancipation from spontaneous social forces, Marx and Engels wrote: "Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals . . . The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals. .. ."* According to the logic of philosophising revisionists, cognition and mastery of the laws of socialist development lead not to an enhanced freedom of the individual but to less freedom. D. Rodin writes: "Contrary to Marx's expectations, it is now obvious that the conscious control of the production processes under socialism does not guarantee the advent of the realm of freedom; it establishes the realm of absolute monopolisation of everything there is.""" 154

The revisionist notion of the spontaneous overcoming of contradictions in socialist society stems from erraneous views about the system of economic laws of socialism and the part played by the subjective factor. Of all the specific laws of * K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, pp. ** Politico misao, No. 4, Zagreb, 1969, p. 529. 5-87. 176 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 177 socialism, the revisionists recognise, with reservations, only the action of the law of distribution according to work. But they pervert the mechanism of action of that law. They look upon the law of planned, balanced development as not being able to operate at the first phase of communism, first, because the presence of two forms of property does not enable socialism to extend planning to all aspects of economic life of a given country; second, as a result of the law of commodity production (law of value), it is not possible for the law of planned, balanced economic development to operate. Either the operation of one, or the operation of the other law--that is the alternative posed by the revisionists. The fact that planning comprises one of the principles of economic development in the socialist states and that it is a law of communist society in general does not seem to concern them. They do not wish to see the interconnection and interdependence of laws of socialism. Distribution according to work would be impossible if it were not for the law of planned and balanced development. The operation of the fundamental economic law of socialism is also unthinkable without other laws of socialism operating. The law of planned, balanced economic development, the law of distribution according to work and other laws of socialism, in turn, interact with the fundamental economic law of socialism. In the opinion of Georg Lukacs, the formulation of the basic economic laws of socio-economic formations contradicts the requirements of science and vulgarises it. Furthermore, 155

recognition of the existence of basic laws "automatically removes the intermediate links in the chain of laws on which the process of development depends". Recognition of the fundamental law of socialism, he maintains, engenders illusions among the builders of the new life that they know everything beforehand and leads to a sham well-being and conceit.* The fundamental law of socialism determines the essence of socialist production, its aims and means. Without cognition of that law and its operation, socialist economic management on scientific lines would be impossible. Cognition ot the laws of socialist economic development serves as a powerful weapon in the battle against valuntarism and subjectivism. It is the best guarantee against conceit and ostentation. By rejecting the objectivity of the law of planned, balanced development, the revisionists actually identify the objective character of the laws with the spontaneous manifestation of their operation. While, under capitalism, the objective character of economic laws is mainly expressed through their spontaneous operation, under socialism spontaneity is a specific manifestation of objective laws. The economic laws of socialism are increasingly becoming a cognised necessity. Therefore, the degree of acuteness and range of manifestation of the spontaneous aspect of development may be taken into consideration by a communist party and a socialist state and may even be reduced to a minimum. Cognition of objective laws therefore enables people to foresee and render harmless adverse aspects of spontaneity and, consequently, to restrict its sphere of operation. Social progress under socialism takes place through the people's conscious activity, not in a spontaneous way. The theory and practice of building socialism and communism go to show that socialist society can develop successfully only if this conscious popular activity conforms with cognised objective laws.'"' * The Yugoslav philosopher Lj. 2ivkovic has subjected to a thorough criticism metaphysical and revisionist treatment of the relationship between spontaneity and consciousness under socialism. He has shown that both Right and ``Left''-wing opportunism, both in theory and in practice, violates the elementary requirements of Marxism on the questions of scientific management of social processes. "The 156

whole art of scientific policy, the entire ability of a revolutionary leadership of socialist society consists in a rational combination of the two elements---not to allow an overestimation of consciousness that could lead to voluntarism, utopianism and adventurism, not to allow an overestima12---23S2 * G. Lukacs, "Pismo o staljinizmu", Nase teme, No. 12, Zagreb, 1962, p. 1904. 178 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 179 tion of spontaneity which could lead to objectivism, fatalism and the domination of spontaneous forces hampering the process of development, and to various unforeseen and undesirable deformations" (Lj. 2ivkovic, "Obelezja svesnog drustvenog razvitka u socijalismu", Socijoloski pregled, No. 2-3, Belgrade, 1965, p. 18). P. Vranicki, Covjek i historija, Sarajevo, 1966, p. 143. 12* SOCIAL CONTRADICTION AND THE STATE</b> In revisionist writing, the bourgeois state is said to be an institution standing above classes that is both necessary and useful for social progress, it ``controls'' social relations for the purpose of overcoming the contradictions in social development. The socialist state, however, is said to be the main obstacle in the way to overcoming social contradictions, it acts as a brake on the rapid growth of socialist society. In their opinion, the capitalist state can successfully resolve many contradictions while the socialist state can only exacerbate unresolved problems by its intervention in economic affairs; it is said to be a vestige of the old within the new, an element of old relations of exploitation within the new socialist society. In conformity with that notion, the socialist state is both a nucleus of all the contradictions of socialism and is 157

fraught with irreconcilable internal contradictions. The theory of the ``contradictory'' nature of the socialist state serves revisionists as a justification for their slanderous assertions that an antagonistic contradiction exists between the socialist state and the people, between individual and collective interests, between the administration of people and management of things (alienation of the individual), etc. Looking into his crystal ball, P. Vranicki ``predicts'' the above-mentioned antagonisms that socialism is said to possess will soon be joined by new contradictions engendered by the scientific and technological revolution---"the contradiction between conceptions and trends in self-administration and technocratic conceptions and trends", between the working people and the technocrats. He explains this by saying that with the growth in the part played by science and technology in the processes of production, a powerful group of scientists and engineers is coming on to the social stage. They comprise a techno-economic elite which would form an alliance with the bureaucrats and together create a bureaucratic-technocratic socialist society in which the individual would be a simple cog in a cybernetic machine.* Such contradictions actually exist in an exploiting society to a greater or lesser extent. In any exploiting society, the state stands opposed to the labouring classes, insofar as it is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class (slave-owners, feudals or bourgeoisie) for suppressing class enemies, a weapon for the exploiting minority against the exploited majority. Only in socialist society does the state become a weapon of the labouring classes, a dictatorship by the working class expressing the interests, first, of the overwhelming majority and then, after the abolition of expoiting classes, a state which expresses the interests of the whole people. Contradictions between individual and collective interests do exist under socialism. But the vital difference between socialism and capitalism here is that these contradictions do not have an antagonistic character under socialism and are ultimately resolved on the basis of the conformity of basic interests of the individual and of society. As regards the contradictions between the administering of people and management of things, this contradiction in socialist society, due to the lack of social antagonisms, does not become destructive. In a capitalist society based on private ownership of the instruments and means of production, that contradiction becomes a social antagonism, as a result 158

of which control of things often becomes a higher goal than control of people. In this situation, the law of things, the law of the owner, defending the material interests of the private-property owner becomes in exploiting society the cornerstone of the entire legal system---something that cannot happen under socialism.

180 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 181 The formation of a technocratic elite that stands opposed to the working people is typical of capitalism, not socialism, since in bourgeois society such an elite serves state-monopoly capital. Today, as never before, one can observe the merging of this elite with the powers-that-be, because the bosses of monopolies often themselves become large shareholders, while the monopolists, in turn, produce from their midst managers (administrators and technical directors) of monopolies. Under socialism, administrative and technical personnel come from the workers, peasants and intellectuals. The whole of their activity is intimately concerned both with the interests of the socialist state of the whole people and the interests of the labour force of a particular enterprise. There are no conditions here for forming a technocratic or any other elite. The revisionists see the major contradiction in socialist society as being between state power and the working people. That ``contradiction'' is alleged to exist in all socialist countries. It is apparently inevitable for all countries which take the socialist road, because an "economic and socio-political base" for its existence is created immediately after the proletarian revolution. This base is said to be the public ownership of the means of production, the inevitable class struggle "between the bureaucracy---the new class---and the working people''. To the minds of the revisionists, this supposedly major class contradiction in socialism cannot be resolved within the framework of the socialist system. In that connection, Kangrga emphasises that political, economic or scientific ways 159

and means are quite inadequate to resolve that particular problem. It can only be resolved "by a radical change and transformation of the existing state of society as a result of the struggle between the proletariat and the bureaucracy, the destruction of the bureaucratic (essentially still class) system"/^^1^^" Ota Sic shares these ideas: "Only one way exists to * M. Kangrga, "Sta je u stvari postvarenje," Praxis, No. 56, 1967, p. 594. defend socialism---to change at root its economic and political model."* Wherever a state owns the means of production, the revisionists assert, there can never be real socialism for the simple reason that state-capitalist relations are created and the "producers are removed from the means of production''. Mandic writes: "When the state controls economic relations and has at its disposal nationalised means of production, we have a period of state capitalism.. . . That remnant of the 'old class system' is based on opposition between the bureaucracy (which disposes of and controls the means of production and the coercive apparatus) and the direct producers who have no access to control."** The revisionist ``theory'' of the bureaucratic system and bureaucracy in socialist states testifies to the fact that these decriers of Marxism are not concerned with a specific analysis of any social phenomenon; they work solely to `` substantiate'' their theoretical ideas by distorting historical facts and by extreme arbitrary methods in their interpretation. Bureaucracy is a product of an exploiting society. It is alien to the very nature of the socialist system. Lenin examined the essence of bureaucracy in capitalist society and wrote that "every bureaucracy, by its historical origin, its contemporary source, and its purpose, is purely and exclusively a bourgeois institution".*** State ownership is not by itself a factor engendering bureaucracy. In exploiting society, bureaucracy was born and developed at a time when there was no state ownership or when it did not have the importance it has today. Nationalisation of the principal means of production under 160

socialism, development of socialist state property, although they are connected with a numerical growth in the administrative apparatus, nonetheless do not entail a growth in * 0. Sik, La venite sulla economia cecoslovacchia, Milano, 1969, pp. 14-15. ** O. Mandic, Uvod u open socialogiju, Zagreb, 1962, p. 321. *** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 420. 182 &#8226;RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 183 bureaucracy, insofar as the main point lies not in the quantitative aspects of the administrative apparatus but whether there exists a vital link between that apparatus and the masses or whether that apparatus acts as a force opposed and alien to the masses. Under capitalism the administrative apparatus, big or small, is opposed and alien to the masses, because it serves the exploiting class. Under socialism, a new administrative apparatus is created which serves people's power. Its main function is to safeguard the interests of the working people, the whole of society. On the basis of socialist state ownership, there is no partition between the ``administrators'' and the ``producers'', for both are associated with that property which in equal measure belongs to both---to the state and to all the people. Under socialism both workers and administrators of a state enterprise are equally interested in promoting production and improving economic performance. They are just as interested in that as is the whole of society. When it is said in socialist society that the resolution of a particular problem has state significance, what is meant is that not one single person or a single group of people but the whole of society, the whole nation, is interested in that question. Socialist society emerged from the womb of capitalism and therefore still bears the birthmarks of bureaucracy. It cannot, however, have bureaucrats as a special social caste with 161

particular interests that stand opposed to those of the people. But there still exist incorrect methods of management and remnants of bureaucracy and outmoded methods of bureaucratic administration. The communist parties and working people of the socialist states constantly fight against the vestiges of bureaucracy in the state and party apparatus and endeavour to do away with them.-They see the main means of eradicating bureaucracy in the complete observance of Leninist principles of state and party construction, the further improvement of socialist democracy and the complete involvement of all citizens in administering public affairs. The assertions of revisionists that socialist state ownership engenders state capitalism merely reiterate bourgeois and social-democratic fabrications. Capitalism in conditions of a dictatorship by the working class or a socialist state of the whole people, capitalism without capitalists---are simply ridiculous notions, the brainchild of the foes of socialism aimed at compromising the socialist system. Revisionists allege that socialism cannot exist without public self-administration, and that it presupposes the removal of state ownership and all the antagonisms that flow from it. I. Djordjevic maintains that "socialism begins where there is no state ownership and economic etatism".* According to revisionist logic, state and social ownership are two quite different categories, different forms of property. Vranicki writes: "State and social- ownership are not one and the same thing. Social ownership presupposes social control of those means, the liberation of the producer and his independence".** Djordjevic, similarly, writes: "State ownership can serve only as a condition or a base for the appearance and development of social ownership, but it cannot replace it because state ownership does not contain a conformity between the character of production and ownership."*** In actual fact, the circumstance that state property is run not by an enterprise's collective but by the state or, rather, by representatives appointed by it, does not alter its character as social property. It also represents, by comparison with all other forms of social property, a higher form of socialisation, hence the leading form of public property. According to revisionists, the socialist state is a major source of contradiction between individual and collective

162

* I. Djordjevic, Socijalizam i demokralija, Belgrade, 1962, p. 34. ** P. Vranicki, Historija marksizma, Vol. II, Zagreb, 1971, p. 380. *** I. Djordjevic, Socijalizam i demokratija, p. 34. 184 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 185 interests. This negative role of the state, they maintain, is due to (a) state ownership of the means of production, (b) centralised state control of economic and political affairs, and (c) "the function of state public power"---i.e., state power as a "force standing above society".* What does it mean to abolish state ownership of the principal means of production and to reject state management of economic and political affairs, "state public power"? It means disarming the working class and other working people in the face of the class enemy, giving up their basic weapon in the fight for socialism, i.e., the socialist state. The state is not simply a means for upholding the gains of the socialist revolution, a powerful means of involving working people in the battle for the victory of a new social order. To debilitate the socialist state and weaken its role in society would politically disarm the working people as they fight for the victory of socialism and communism. The metaphysical views held by revisionists on the place and historical role of the socialist state in social progress is patently clear in their analysis of the state of the whole people. In his criticism of the scientifically-grounded proposition concerning the dialectics of the state of proletarian dictatorship developing into the state of the whole people, Djordjevic writes that "the theory of the state of the whole people is not based on an analysis of actual changes in the relationships of people in the process of production and distribution of material goods, the individual and power, directive and executive functions in the process of labour and resolution of political issues"."""* He maintains that it is still premature to talk of the state of the whole people in the USSR. Backing up this notion, R. Lukic stresses that the " 163

opposing nature of interests within socialist society sometimes takes acute forms, as a result of which the state cannot equally defend the interests of all people belonging to different strata in the population"."" At the same time, these strata "embrace large masses of people, as a consequence of which the conflicts of interests between them cannot be in any circumstance conflicts between the individual and society or between small groups of people, but conflicts between large social groups similar to classes"/^^1^^""" As long as the state exists, he concludes, it remains an organ of physical coercion and for that reason cannot be the state of the whole people."''"""'' It would seem that the revisionists believe nothing has changed in the past fifty years in the political organisation of Soviet society. Antagonistic social groups and classes have remained, the class struggle is continuing, the state remains a weapon of a certain ruling class, it remains a state in conditions of social conflict. All these are the dismal notions of the revisionists. But, after the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR, the proletarian dictatorship state became a political organisation of the whole people with the working class having the leading role; it became the state of the whole people. From being a weapon of the bulk of the population, the state became a weapon of all the people; but it did not become classless. Both within the country and in relations between the two world systems, the Soviet state, in common with other socialist states, acts as a class state. Its home and foreign policy always has a class orientation. In speaking of Soviet foreign policy, Leonid Brezhnev has emphasised: "As we see it, it is the purpose and mission of our policy on the international scene to side unfailingly with those who are fighting imperialism and all forms of exploitation and oppression, for freedom and human dignity, for democracy and <SUP>:</SUP>'~ F. Muhic, "Etatizam i socijalizam", Odjek, No. 21, Sarajevo, 1971, P. 5. ** I. Djordjevic, Politicki sistem. Prilog nauci o coveku i smoupravljanju, Belgrade, 1967, p. 211. * P. Lukic, "Pita opshtenarodne drzhave", Arkhiv za pravne nanke, Belgrade, 1967, p. 606. ** Ibid., p. 605. *** Ibid., p. 606. 164

186 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALISM 187 socialism. . . . Our foreign policy has always been and will be a class policy, a socialist one in content and aim."" The correctness of that proposition is patently apparent. At the same time, the Soviet state of the whole people is not an "organ of physical coercion" of one social stratum by another. The function of suppressing the resistance of exploiters in the USSR has long faded away. Measures of state compulsion are applied only to those members of society who act against social interests and violate state laws. The conceptions of some revisionists about the emergence in socialist conditions of a bureaucratic "new class" and the idea that the bureaucracy, comprises "one of the poles" of an antagonistic contradiction of socialism have been justly criticised in the magazine Socijalizam. In an article entitled "The Working Class, Bureaucracy and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia", the writer has said that bureaucracy has never been and cannot be a class, that a class forms not in the sphere of administration or politics but in the sphere of production of material goods, as a result of contradictions in the relations of production, that the basic contradiction of the transitional period from capitalism to socialism is not a "class antagonism" between the bureaucracy and the working class, but a conflict between the working class and remnants of the old society, that socialist development depends not on the resolution of such imaginary contradictions/^^1^^"* The ``neo-Marxists'' of Praxis claim that their negative and destructive criticism of socialism is merely a ``friendly'', scholarly argument in the interests of "authentic Marxism" and does not have any political overtones. There cannot, however, be any criticism of socialism unconnected with politics. In the words of Vladimir Bakaric, Presidium member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the magazine Praxis by its criticism has opened the doors to nationalists in Croatia,"" whose actions were condemned by the party conference as counter-revolutionary. In a speech at Belgrade University, the Chairman of the LCY Tito described the views of proponents of "criticism of everything existing" as being alien to socialism.""*

165

Present-day revisionists do not simply misunderstand the dialectical course of socialist development, they deliberately distort it. Typically, while examining the contradictions of capitalism, they deny the need for a radical change in the existing system, yet in the resolution of any contradiction of socialism they demand the destruction of everything existing up to and including the fundamentals of socialism. All this is done under the false slogan of the struggle for humane socialism and the re-establishment of the ``authentic'' thought of Karl Marx. * L. I. Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 41. ** Socijalizam, No. 1-2, Belgrade, 1968. * Komunist, No. 1, (Belgrade), 1972, p. 8. ** See Borba, May 31, 1972, p. 2. CHAPTER 7 REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL</b> UNDER SOCIALISM.</b> SPECULATION IN REGARD</b> TO THE PROBLEM OF "ALIENATION"</b> REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SOCIALISM 189 The devaluation of labour and, as its consequence, selfalienation of the personality of the worker, are typical of bourgeois society. But the revisionists ascribe these features to socialist society, although material production in socialist states is developing in completely different conditions and according to different laws. Ernst Fischer, for example, identifies the status of the individual in socialist and capitalist society by referring to the fact that division of labour exists everywhere within the bounds of a "single industrial society" both in the world of capitalism and in the world of socialism. He ignores the radical difference of this process in the two worlds. In his words, "man who has become a human being through labour is dehumanised as a result of this labour. Division of labour necessary for the all-round realisation of the abilities of man has doomed him to a one-sidedness."* 166

P. Vranicki considers that division of industrial labour in socialist society, too, is one of the main reasons for the alienation of the worker from his labour: ". . .the problem of socialism is modern industrial production, which has led to extremes of specialisation and the division of labour, thus alienating workers from their jobs, which are monotonous, uncreative, and boring."""* One should add that bourgeois sociologists arrived at similar conclusions much earlier than revisionists, and the latter openly pay homage to their bourgeois mentors, while these in turn pay compliments to the ``topical'' and ``fresh'' exposition of the problems by their revisionist pupils. Thus, Leszek Kolakowski, in an article entitled "The Fate of Marxism in Eastern Europe", writes about the reinterpretation of Marxism in a humanist spirit: "In these efforts at reinterpretation one can trace either the impact of contemporary existentialist phenomenology or the spirit of Hegelian historicism, ... revision in philosophy spread in all directions, and the impact of non-Marxist philosophical traditions became apparent."* In turn, the American magazine Slavic Review, an openly anti-communist and anti-Soviet organ, regrets Kolakowski's being exposed in Poland as a revisionist: "It is tragic that his voice has been stilled among the Polish intellectual community, whose conscience he represented for twelve years (1956-68)."** The views of contemporary Right-wing revisionists on the status of the individual under socialism are based on crude distortions of the essence of the socialist system. They base themselves on a vulgar interpretation of technological achievements and bourgeois positivism, pervert the dialectics of scientific, technological and social progress, and absolutise similar features in scientific and technological progress under capitalism and socialism, and they ignore the radical changes in society and in the status of the individual which occurred with the victory of socialism. The status of the individual under socilism is directly opposed to that of the individual in bourgeois society. The victory of the socialist mode of production, of new, humane relations of production uncovered hitherto unknown paths of physical and cultural improvement of the individual, the all-round development of his spiritual potential. The reality of socialist society is the best refutation of the revisionist notions concerning the alleged spiritual crisis of the individual in the world of socialism.

167

Revisionists reject the qualitative difference in the status of the individual in a system of material production under socialism and that under capitalism. They maintain, for example, that the technology of contemporary industrial production with its impersonal and bureaucratic structure, and the contemporary industrial division of labour, irrespective of the social system, all preclude any creative activity of a working man and make his labour exhausting, monotonous, stereotyped and uncreative. * E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, p. 86. ** Socialist Humanism. An International Symposium, New York, 1965, p. 286. 190 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SOCIALISM 191

Bourgeois sociologists do not conceal that,many of their conclusions, including that of the status of the individual in socialist society, are based on speculations by revisionists in regard to the early works of Marx and especially on the question of ``alienation''. The American sociologist Murray Yanowitch, for example, writes: "The fact that the young Marx's writings have provided intellectual support for various `revisionist' groups yearning for a 'humanistic socialism' in European Communist countries has also undoubtedly focused attention on these works in the West.. .. Much of the literature stimulated by this renewed study of Marx has been concerned with the extent of continuity (or discontinuity) between the early and later views of Marx and the relevance of his concept of alienation to modern industrial societies."*** The category of ``alienation'', inherited by Marx from Hegel and Feuerbach, was substantiated in Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. This work belongs to the period of Marx's formative philosophical thought and he is here still under the powerful influence of the ideas of Feuerbach and his terminology. Nevertheless, by contrast with Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx examines alienation as a manifestation of the essence of social relations existing in a class antagonistic society. * Slavic Review, No. 2, June 1970, Vol. 29, p. 179. 168

** Slavic Review, No. 3, September 1969, Vol. 28, p. 481. *** Slavic Review, No. 1, March 1967, Vol. 26, p. 29. Marx shows that human alienation comes both from human nature or from a man's psycho-physiological make-up. In certain historical conditions, the results of people's activity become an independent alien power over them. What are these conditions? They are primarily relations of private property. Marx wrote that "if the product of labour does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If'the worker's activity is a torment to him, to another it must be delight and his life's joy. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man"."" Alienation is a historically transient phenomenon. Under capitalism, a class-conscious part of the working class and working people struggle for a socialist transformation of society. New relations arise in their midst that are opposed to the inhuman essence of bourgeois society, although that does not remove alienation under capitalism, it only creates conditions for destroying it. Alienation is a process in which people, as members of particular classes and social groups, appear to be deprived of their power and capabilities, activity and its results; the latter acquire a relative independence and obtain dominance over the people who produce them, exerting a destructive and oppressive influence upon them.** The concept of ``alienation'' in its social content and essence in that respect may be applied only to an analysis of an antagonistic society founded on private property; it expresses antagonistic relations between classes. The concept of "alienated labour" applies to capitalist society, expressing the highest degree of ``alienation'' and, at the same time, coinciding with the beginning of the struggle to remove it altogether. In the works that preceded Capital, alienation * K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, p. 79. ** See ``Kapital'' Marksa. Filosofia i sovrcmennosl, Moscow, 1968, p. 470. 192 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

169

REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SOCIALISM 193 was regarded as a process affecting mainly industrial capital, a process whose subject was capital or the capitalist. Marx reveals in this concept the basic contradiction of the capitalist mode of production---a contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriation. Marx often stressed that the social nature of alienation in the production process, which engendered various forms of alienation in political and ideological affairs, depended upon the historically determined mode of production based on private ownership. The state of alienation as a product of the private-property economic set-up is manifested under capitalism in the alienation of the means of production and products of labour from the producers---the working people, in the alienation of culture from the people, in split consciousness, in the contradiction between individual and social consciousness, in the non-conformity of individual objectives and ideals with the values and ideals of society. The abolition of private property is a necessary condition for overcoming alienation. Only on the basis of social ownership does labour become a free manifestation of human activity and a self-assertion of the human individuality. Marx shows that to overcome alienation it is not enough merely to comprehend and describe it; it is necessary to destroy the system which gave birth to alienation, to create a new world in which there will be no conditions for alienation. Alienation as understood by Marx is a set of different conditions of the alienation of labour under capitalism which is destroyed under socialism. ``Experts" on Marx attempt to present his views on alienation as some moral postulate that emanates from the `` immutable'' essence of man in general. Present-day revisionists like Garaudy, Petrovic and Fischer agree with this approach. In contemporary bourgeois and revisionist literature, the problem of alienation has become an idee fixe. T. Pavlov has rightly remarked: "In fact, many regard alienation as the fundamental law governing the development of human society in the past, present and future."* Revisionists declare alienation to be a basis of Marxist philosophy in general and Marxist teaching about man in particular. According to 170

Fischer, the category of ``alienation'' was central for Marx both in the formative period and in his later works.** Alienation, a product of a certain stage of historical development, is said to be an eternal phenomenon that cannot be eradicated in any social and political system. Such is the thesis on the basis of which the most blatant merging of revisionist and bourgeois ideology in their interpretation of the status of the individual takes place. In the words of Pesic-Golubovic, Marxism and existentialism use alienation to express a mode of human existence and its historical reality. Alienation, in his view, is the only possible historical way to realise human being. Milic, in turn, claims that the philosophical importance of alienation is that it expresses the "conflict of the human, historically vital anthropological structure and specific historical social conditions in which a person lives".*** Kolakowski sees alienation as the key to understanding the status of the individual in modern society, his interrelations with social and political institutions. Such categories as the laws of historical development, classes and class struggle, in his opinion, have only a small amount of theoretical and practical value in regard to an analysis of the personality structure. He writes: "The people interested in Marxian philosophical anthropology seem to share the use of the category of `alienation' as encompassing in a general way the inability of man to master the institutions of his social life, as well as a general tendency to interpret social phenomena by seeking to study changing conflicts of interest and to identify in the conflicts of ideas reflections of certain social conflicts. Such a least common denominator would not include a belief in immutable his* World Marxist Review, Nos. 10-11, 1968, Vol. 11, p. 2. ** E. Fischer, Was Marx wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1968, p. 47. *** Humanizam i socijalizam, Zagreb, 1963, Vol. 2, p. 123. 13---2332</b> 194 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SOCIALISM 195 torical laws, the idea of the inevitability of socialism, or 171

the notion that class differences or class struggle may explain all the phenomena of the `superstructure'."* The idea that alienation is an eternal aspect of man whose importance increases in the process of industrial development, that it is inherent in all social systems, including socialism, is a prominent feature of bourgeois philosophical literature. Erich Fromm, for example, has written that alienation in the form in which we observe it in modern society is virtually universal; it permeates the attitude of man to work and to things which he uses, to the state, to his contemporaries and to himself.** In the annotation to the volume Socialist Humanism edited by Fromm, it is stressed that the Marxist category of `` alienation'' provides the most complete explanation of the crisis of the individual both in the West and in the East, caused by the development of modern industrial production and technology. The attempt to deprive Marxist analysis of the individual of its class and partisan basis, to ascribe the evils of capitalism to socialism, clearly underpins these proclamations and illusory recognition by bourgeois sociologists of the Marxist theory of alienation. Recognition of a global, all-embracing and extra-historical character of ``alienation'' serves the revisionists as a `` justification'' for the false conclusion that overcoming alienation is an important trait of socialist society. Vranicki maintains that "contrary to the thesis of the superfluity of the problem of alienation under socialism, we must advance the thesis in the most decisive manner possible that the problem of alienation is the central problem of socialism".*** Right-wing revisionists' attempt to justify their claim that alienation exists in socialist society by the argument that since socialism does not immediately abolish the state, classes, money circulation and "hierarchical status", it is based on these "alienated forms". In their words, state and other social institutions are subordinated to the political sphere, while the latter is a sphere of partial human existence. They maintain that "society which tries to abolish the alienation of man and human practice must overcome the hegemony of political standards".* The revisionist notions that politics in socialist society is a source and form of ``alienation'' are fully supported by 172

bourgeois sociologists. These propositions are advantageous to anti-communists. The American sociologist Howard J. Sherman, examining the conclusions of advocates of " decentralized or market socialism", who are against the leading role of the socialist state in politics and economics, maintains: "Surely, if alienation is interpreted as the feeling of helplessness before impersonal forces, the argument could be turned around to say that central planning can cause alienation even under socialism.' ** The revisionists claim that ``alienation'' of the individual under socialism robs him of all freedom. This distorted picture of the status of the individual under socialism is ``justified'', first, by denying the democratic essence of the socialist state, identifying its essence and functions with those of the capitalist state; second, by distorting the dialectics of the relationship between personal and social interests under socialism; third, by identifying any centralism, including, and especially, democratic centralism, with bureaucracy. Experience shows that a combination of personal and social interests occurs only under socialism and that it is based on the completely new social essence of the socialist state, which serves the interests of the people and not the exploiters. The socialist state develops as a vital social organism, the supreme goal of which is the flourishing of the personality, * Slavic Review, No. 2, June 1970, Vol. 29, p. 181. ** See E. Fromm, Man Alone, New York, 1967. *** Socialist Humanism, pp. 280, 286. * Praxis, No. 4, 1966, p. 408. ** Slavic Review, No. 3, Sept. 1968, Vol. 27, p. 476. 196 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SOCIALISM</b> 197 the formation of a harmoniously developed personality. All for the sake of man and for the good of man is the real meaning of all activity of the socialist state. At the same time, within socialist society, man appreciates and internalises the idea that his well-being and wholeness as an individual greatly depend on the extent to which the socialist state will 173

be powerful, the extent to which the plans outlined by the state and society for social and economic socialist development will be successfully implemented. It is apparent to any unbiased student of society that the victory of socialism destroys the economic and social class roots for the ``alienation'' of the individual. Socialism put an end to relations of exploitation and subordination, radically changed the social essence of political institutions, brought them under popular control, and established genuine popular power. Social and political institutions under socialism express the interests of the people and operate exclusively for implementing these interests. The flourishing of a socialist personality enhances and the gradual improvement of socialist democracy opens up unseen prospects for the growth of the political and other social activity of human beings. In such circumstances, the harmonious development of the individual is an objective law, a historical need and the crowning of social development. Real, live socialism emancipates man from exploitation, poverty and indignity, from racial, national and spiritual oppression. Immense opportunities for developing creative powers open up before him. The right to work, to choose an activity corresponding to individual inclinations, free medical assistance, freedom of speech and conscience, greater material well-being and culture, active participation in running society are all real guarantees of the free and comprehensive development of the individual under socialism. The socialist system lays the basis for harmonious interaction between society and the individual, overcomes both bourgeois individualism and crude "barrack-room communism" imposed, for example, by the leaders of the CPC in China. A socialist state cannot be undemocratic, since the basis of its multi-faceted activity is extensive participation in state administration by the working people, the involvement of workers, peasants and intellectuals in the resolution of everyday tasks of state policy, in administering all spheres of political, social and economic life of the country. State and the individual in socialist society are not opposed to each other as something alien. The mechanism of interaction of the individual and society under socialism cannot be compared with the situation within bourgeois society. The social basis of that mechanism under socialism does not divide people, does not set the individual against society; on the contrary, it does everything to encourage the unity 174

of members of society and, in that development both of the individual integral moral and political unity a firm foundation for the integral

connection, harmonious and of society. The of socialist society serves as nature of the individual.

The stated position of Communists in regard to harmoniously developed person is dictated by the objective requirements of building communism, including the creation of the material and technical basis of communism. Higher productivity of social labour and the development of social production as a whole decisively depend on the level of development of the major productive force of society---the working people. As communism is being built, only a highly-educated, creative working man, who is acquainted with the scientific basis of production, can ensure high labour productivity. Implementation of measures to advance production leads to an abundance of material benefits. Thus, every person being free from daily concern about the means of subsistence can increasingly focus his efforts on creative activity in various spheres of material and cultural production, successfully master the attainments of science, technology and the arts, develop and improve his ability and talent. Under socialism, and even more so during the transition 198 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY to communism, the growth of society both in a material and in a cultural respect serves as a decisive prerequisite for the development of every individual, while development of each individual becomes a condition for the development of all. Social relations under socialism not only permit, they demand that a person should be of supreme value and the whole object of development. People change their own nature, their attitude to each other and society as they alter the nature of the social system and build socialism. PART II REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE STATE OF THE MODERN WORLD</b> AND THE TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM</b> </BODY> </HTML> 175

</HEAD> <BODY> CHAPTER 8 CRITIQUE OF REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY</b> An evaluation of the nature of the contemporary era and its essence occupies a place of paramount importance in the ideological struggle. Lenin attached great importance to an ability to define what a particular age means. He pointed out that it was important to define its basic content, the main direction of its development and the major features of the historical situation; it was also important to establish which class stood at the centre of a particular epoch and to which class the leading role belonged. It is impossible to determine the prospects for mankind's development, to foresee the turn of international events and to work out a correct strategy and tactics for the working class without just such a scientific approach. In analysing the nature of our epoch, which began with the Great October Socialist Revolution, Lenin wrote: "The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set in."* The transition from capitalism to socialism constitutes the content of the contemporary epoch. Lenin emphasised that, in this epoch, the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie in the advanced capitalist states would coincide with a whole number of democratic, revolutionary, national liberation movements. Lenin's analysis of the contemV. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 392. 202 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 203 porary world has been borne out and made specific by the communist movement, summarised in the documents of the Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, I960 and 1969. In 1957, the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties 176

of the socialist states noted: "The main content of our epoch is the transtion from capitalism to socialism which was begun by the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia... . The tremendous growth of the forces of socialism has stimulated the rapid extension of the anti-imperialist national movement in the post-war period. .. . The progress of socialism and of the national liberation movement has greatly accelerated the disintegration of imperialism.... In the imperialist countries society is rent by deep-going class contradictions and by antagonisms between those countries, while the working class is putting up increasing resistance to the policy of imperialism and the monopolies, fighting for better conditions, democratic rights, for peace and socialism."* In 1960, the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties developed this definition as follows: "Our time, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is a time of struggle between the two opposing social systems, a time of socialist revolutions and national liberation revolutions, a time of the breakdown of imperialism, of the abolition of the colonial system, a time of transition of more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale. "It is the principal characteristic of our time that the world socialist system is becoming the decisive factor in the development of society."** The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union also contains an extensive description of the world today. It stresses that at the centre of the contemporary era stand the international working class and its main creation---the world socialist system.* The Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting made the point that events of the past decade had borne out the MarxistLeninist evaluation of the character of the present epoch, its content and major trends.** REVISION OF LENINIST</b> ANALYSIS <b>OF THE WORLD TODAY</b> Present-day revisionists attempt to replace a scientificallygrounded definition of our epoch by their own definitions which have nothing in common either with science or with reality. Garaudy, for example, advertises his book The Great Turning-Point of Socialism as an attempt at a new 177

analysis of the modern world necessary "to create new strategies for revolutionary forces".*** However, the range of issues examined in the book is inadequate for the task which the author proclaims. He is unable to reveal the essence of the contemporary era because of the narrowness of the questions he takes for investigation, their restriction to the confines of the world capitalist system and his refusal to use a scientific, Marxist-Leninist method of approach. Today, an analysis of the problems solely of one social system, of capitalism, which is descending rather than ascending in its development, cannot present any prospects for the social development of mankind, cannot serve as a sufficiently solid basis for defining the character of the contemporary epoch. A scientific analysis of the world today based on an objective study of specific historical processes must, firstly, include both world systems---the socialist as well as the capitalist--in their interaction and their contention; secondly, it must * The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963, pp. 6-7. ** Ibid., p. 38, * See The Road to Communism, p. 449. '"' See International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, p. 12. *** R. Garaudy, Le grand tournanl du socialisme, Paris, 1969, p. 13. 204 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 205 contain a scientific definition of the major trends in the development of each of these two world systems. It must establish in which direction (up or down) each of them is developing and to which of them the future belongs. Garaudy, having set himself the task of "creating new strategies for revolutionary forces", seems to think that 178

revolutionary forces today either do not have a strategy or have a wrong strategy. His numerous utterances in recent years show that he is not satisfied with the strategy at present being used by revolutionary forces. But that does not mean the revolutionary forces do not possess a strategy or have a wrong strategy, as the renegade Garaudy, advocate of capitulation, tries to convince us. Garaudy is led to the false belief that capitalism is the dominating world system because he ignores the world socialist system and its progressive development, on the one hand, and, on the other, he neglects undertaking a scientific study of the contradictions in capitalist development. In fact, capitalism is no longer a leading force of the present day. The world socialist system has become that force and contemporary capitalism must do all it can to adapt itself to conditions of competition and struggle between the two world systems. In their attempts to revise the definition of the contemporary era, revisionists are motivated by the need to return to the analysis of capitalism given by Marx, by the need "to give to the forces of production the role which Karl Marx discovered for them".* Under the guise of pseudo-scientific attempts to ``restore'' the rights of Marxism in the realm of theory, which they say have been usurped by Leninism, the revisionists maintain that the capitalist system continues to occupy the dominant position that it occupied at the time of Marx (when capitalism was still going through the stage of establishing itself and prevailing over feudalism). In casting out Leninism, including its teaching on imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalist development, the contemporary revisionists are distorting the real picture oi the modern capitalist world. When Communists attach immense importance to a scientific evaluation of our epoch, they base themselves on the fact that today the struggle between the two world socioeconomic systems (capitalism and socialism) is the determining factor. Without account for that struggle, it is impossible to comprehend either the content of our epoch or the processes that characterise the development of each of these two systems. An analysis of conditions in the world today shows that the prospects for capitalist development and, consequently, the prospects for socialist revolution in any country cannot be derived solely from an examination of the internal processes of the given country or even from an examination of the development of contradictions in the world capitalist system as a whole. One must take into consideration not simply the situation within a particular country, the situation within the capitalist world as a whole, but 179

also the impact of the socialist system on capitalism and the entire world situation. In exposing Garaudy's claim that he is giving a new analysis of the contemporary epoch and a new strategy, the Political Bureau of the French Communist Party has justly noted that a radical revision of the conception of historical materialism is concealed behind his attempt to modify the tactics and strategy of communist parties which, he claims, is based on an analysis of the character of the world today and which he wraps up in formal references to the works of Marx and Lenin.* The ideologists of capitalism have put forward a whole number of theories that distort the social meaning of the contemporary scientific and technological revolution. The revisionists have begun to follow them. Garaudy, for example, proposes a "common reflection on the great initiative necessary to respond to the fundamental changes in our R. Garaudy. Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 13. Bulletin &pound; information, No. 1-2, 1970, p. 80. 206 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 207 epoch".* But we examine the hypothesis that he puts forward, we see that his much-promised declaration boils down to an examination and, essentially, a distortion of the social meaning of the scientific and technological revolution. He associates the ``fundamental'' changes typical of our era merely with scientific and technological progress. Such profound changes of worldwide importance as the appearance and development of the world socialist system, its decisive impact on the entire course of historical development, the unprecedented upsurge in the international working-class and national liberation movements, which have dealt crushing blows to the capitalist system, the transfer of .historical initiative to the forces of peace, socialism and progress are all changes to which Garaudy turns a blind eye. No superficial and one-sided treatment of eclectically chosen material can provide anything valuable for theoretical thought or can elucidate new opportunities for the revolutionary movement.

180

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND SOCIAL PROGRESS</b> Garaudy ascribes to the scientific and technological revolution the significance of "fundamental mutation"""^^51^^" and makes both technological and social progress directly dependent upon it. He puts forward a "new historical law": ". . .the more a country is economically and technically advanced, the more its economic and social progress depends directly on the progress of science."*** It would therefore appear that a country which is the most advanced technically and economically is also the most advanced in social progress. According to this strange logic, one must recognise that the most technically advanced countries, irrespective of their social system, are the most progressive. Consequently, the * R. Garaudy, Le grand tonrnant du socialisme, p. 16. ** Ibid., pp. 24-38. *** Ibid., p. 27. most progressive country in the contemporary world must be the USA. Garaudy actually goes so far as to make a direct apology for US imperialism. That is hardly surprising, since his notion ultimately represents a form of reconciliation with the capitalist system. The basis of scientific conclusions on a historical scale can only be a comprehensive analysis of social phenomena and not any treatment of the development of production that is isolated from socio-economic and socio-political processes. One cannot reduce one's analysis to banal conclusions that "scientific progress is becoming a motor element of the development of production"* or that the "cybernetic principle is replacing the mechanical principle"** or that "qualitative factors, intensity of development (the application of science. the modernisation of equipment, the raising of qualifications, the rationalisation of management) are prevailing over quantitative, extensive factors (growth in the number of machines and the number of workers)"*** Such an analysis cannot reveal the essence of the processes which occur within contemporary capitalism and which are bringing its demise closer. Moreover, such reasoning can only encourage illusion in the minds of working people, can give them the idea that contemporary capitalism is able to ensure their participation in managing production, in programming, decisionmaking, regulating and controlling production. Indeed, Garaudy asserts that the "cybernetisation of production as of management tends to place man outside direct 181

production and to give him a role ... of analysing and programming ... of decision-making and . . . controlling, multiplying the regulating functions of workers",**** that, in the light of these processes, the working people control and programme the production and management.***** * Ibid., pp. 26-27. ** Ibid., p. 28. *** Ibid., p. 30. **** Ibid., p. 28. ***** Ibid., p. 30. 208 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 209 In the face of the facts that testify that the bourgeoisie use every means possible to prevent workers' participation in factory management, the revisionists sow reformist illusions in the working-class movement, illusions which Rightwing Social-Democrats have long and unproductively been harbouring. Garaudy declares that, on the basis of an analysis of the scientific and technological revolution and its effects, he is attempting to find hitherto unknown contradictions in capitalist countries. In fact, however, his ``search'' is not so much in a direction of uncovering new contradictions as "to prove" that capitalism is overcoming the old contradictions through the scientific and technological revolution. Further, on the basis of an assertion that scientific progress has become the motor of production, he concludes that "social relations are being harmonised with the new development of the forces of production'"^^1^^" as a result of the scientific revolution. Thus, by his attitude to the scientific and technological revolution, Garaudy, in fact, tries to remove the question of the socialist revolution. He is moving in the realm of utopia without seeing the prospects for revolutionary struggle against the capitalist system. In his own words, today, thanks to electronic computers and the progress of means of information, one can dream ... of some sort of permanent 182

plenary assembly of all the people where each individual opinion will be instantly registered and consigned, totalised, and where each piece of information will be programmed and diffused".** To ignore the contention between the two world systems, which constitutes the decisive factor in the development of the contemporary situation, is immaterial to Garaudy, who advocates world unity "through an integration which would permit one to realise a symphonic unity".*** The whole trend of Garaudy's ideas concerning the scientific and technological revolution confirms that he is making his analysis without account for the essence of the contemporary epoch and the specific historical conditions of the two qualitatively different socio-economic formations. He is ignoring the qualitatively different social consequences of the scientific and technological revolution within capitalism and socialism. This revolution is radically changing the technological basis of production through the latest attainments of science, automation, revolution in production management through the use of calculating machines and computers. Comprehensive automation is connected also with improved electric power industry, sophisticated chemical industry and the development of many branches of scientific knowledge. Of course, both under capitalism and under socialism, scientific and technological revolution produces similar processes in promoting technology and techniques of production, influences the vocational composition of the working class and causes a growth in the number of white-collar workers. Yet, a scientific, dialectical-materialist approach to this revolution gives no grounds for abstracting oneself from specific socio-economic and socio-political conditions of its development, from socio-economic aspects of the process itself in different circumstances, from its social consequences which are also different in different conditions. State-monopoly capitalism creates material prerequisites for transition to a new socialist system. Lenin, in analysing the major features of state-monopoly capitalism, made the point that the process of "combining the colossal power of capitalism with the colossal power of the state into a single mechanism" brings "the beginnings of state-controlled capitalist production",* permits some control of all economic affairs from a single centre,** and this actually creates * R. Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 31. ** Cahiers du communisme, February-March 1970, p. 215. 183

*** Ibid., p. 85. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 403. ** See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 210. 14---1332</b> 210 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 211 the technological possibility for a centralised administration of social production/^^1^^" Lenin's analysis of these features enabled him to conclude that "state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism.. .".** In the world today, the level of concentration of capitalist production and the extent of its socialisation require not only supervision and accounting of the production but also centralised control of production and the programming of its development. There are two trends inherent in these processes; on the one hand, they help to reinforce the power of the monopolies and the capitalist state. subordinate to them; on the other, they testify to the erosion and undermining of the very basis of capitalism, they testify to the possibility of restricting, by unity of anti-monopoly forces, the power of the monopolies and implementing a wide programme of profound democratic reforms that would create conditions for a subsequent resolution of the tasks of socialist revolution. The basis for a further development of the revolutionary process in capitalist countries is to be found not in the scientific revolution as such but in its social consequences, in the growing conflict between the forces of production and the relations of production, in the changes to the basis of social production which have to be carried out. An intensification of concentration of production during the scientific revolution under capitalism has a contradictory character. On the one hand, it intensifies monopoly domination while, on the other, it turns the giant firms into a single production unit and encourages socialisation of production and labour. 184

An analysis of these aspects of the concentration of production shows that each of them bears, within itself, its own trends and consequences. While the enhanced domination of the monopolies as a result of the concentration of production holds back further development of the forces of production, the socialisation of production and labour opens up fresh possibilities for them. Socialisation of production, in particular, opens up an opportunity for eliminating old forms of ownership of the means of production and creates conditions for a higher organisation of production and for new forms of its control and management. This process under capitalism creates certain conditions for the victory of the new, socialist system. Material prerequisites are created on this basis for higher forms of organising production on a nationwide scale, for its control on a national scale, and for centralised planning. Of course, the implementation of this is possible only if socialist ownership of the means of production is established. An analysis of these phenomena demonstrates that the possibility of the working class having an effect on public economic planning is increasing. The more capitalism is obliged to develop the socialisation of production by means of promoting intermonopoly forms of control and development of state economic planning, the wider becomes the objective foundation for making a reality of the above-mentioned opportunity. To the extent that the growth in state-monopoly capital is bound to lead to greater socialisation of labour and production, capitalism extends the sphere of socialisation and is bound to create the material basis for public control of production, distribution, exchange and consumption. The material basis for public control is created with the development of forms of state economic administration. Highly-centralised production, like the monopoly-created control and accounting mechanism over production, are meant to ensure the monopolists maximum profit. At the same time, they testify to the formation of certain material conditions for socialism within the framework of capitalism. It is impossible to explain this process by ignoring the social consequences of the scientific revolution. Today, science, together with technology (the tools and means of pro* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 329. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 359. 212 185

RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY</b> 213 duction), is becoming a specific element of the forces of production. But to examine that element in isolation from live and direct labour which determines the social aspect of the production process cannot explain its effect on the development of social relations. When the Right-wing revisionists look at the scientific revolution without account for the interaction of the component parts of the process of production (forces and relations of production), they deny historical materialism and end up by being vulgar materialists and even idealists. Garaudy's highlighting of the scientific revolution in analysing contemporary society is a device that he uses to distort the real nature of the capitalist system and, at the same time, the nature of the basic trends in the world today. Marx called the focus on objective elements of production and the overestimation of their importance by comparison with ``subjective'' elements, with live, direct labour, an attempt to have a "technological justification for the specific social form---i.e., the capitalist form, in which the relationship of labour to the conditions of labour is turned upsidedown".''^^1^^' Without an analysis of social and economic conditions, it is impossible to spotlight contradictions and antagonisms in contemporary capitalism or to determine the basic trends of its development. The use of computer techniques in banks and industrial enterprises makes it possible to carry out calculating and analytical work in monopoly companies with a high degree of efficiency. But capitalist conditions preclude the use of the opportunities presented by the scientific revolution on the scale of the whole of society to the extent that it is possible in the conditions of individual firms and monopoly corporations. Highly-efficient calculating and analytical work on a national scale presupposes the establishment of the optimum conformity between all aspects of the process of production, branches and spheres of the economy. It also presupposes proportional distribution of economic resources (labour power, means of production, etc.), which is excluded in capitalist conditions. The contradiction between organisation of production at enterprises and anarchy of production on a 186

nationwide scale is reflected in the gap between opportunities for employing, computers at enterprises of monopoly corporations, on the one hand, and on a nationwide scale, on the other. This contradiction exposes the antagonistic nature of state-monopoly capitalism and thereby shows the working class and all working people the lack of conformity between capitalist relations and the objective requirements of social development. The increasing intervention of the bourgeois state in the economy paves the way for the organisational and technological possibility of centralised control over social production. But the use of state fiscal resources for the enrichment of the monopolies cannot encourage proportional economic development for the country as a whole. On the contrary, the allocation of enormous resources to unproductive spheres and the militarisation of the economy lead to disproportions and a one-sided development of individual branches of production. State intervention in the economy contains diametrically opposed tendencies. State financing of capital investment in the projects of big corporations and the stimulation of concentration of production cause a higher level of socialisation of production, increase the need for giving production a planned basis on a nationwide scale and for converting the state into the nerve-centre of the economy. A shift of the centre of gravity and several functions from the major banks to the state encourages the process of amalgamation and control over production as well as centralisation. Lenin pointed out that thus the technical condition is created for central control over social production. One cannot comprehend all these contradictory tendencies, which confirm Lenin's conclusion that imperialism is * K. Marx, F. Engels, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part III, Moscow, 1971, p. 276. 214 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 215 the eve of socialist revolution, if one ignores, as the revisionists do, social and economic factors which are 187

intermediate links between the scientific revolution and the abovementioned tendencies. This revolution affects the course of social development mainly through such important intermediate links as forms of ownership of the means of production and relations of production. The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties made a profound study of the latest processes at work in the world and came to the following conclusion: "The scientific and technological revolution accelerates the socialisation of the economy; under monopoly domination this leads .to the reproduction of social antagonisms on a growing scale and in a sharper form. Not only have the long-standing contradictions of capitalism been aggravated, but new ones have arisen as well. This applies, in particular, to the contradiction between the unlimited possibilities opened up by the scientific and technological revolution and the road-blocks raised by capitalism to their utilisation for the benefit of society as a whole... This is the contradiction between the social character of present-day production and the statemonopoly nature of its regulation. This is not only the growth of the contradiction between capital and labour, but also the deepening of the antagonism between the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation and those of the financial oligarchy."* There are two different sociological types of scientific revolution in the objective situation today: one type is discernible in the conditions of capitalism, the other in the conditions of socialism. We refer here to the social processes connected with the scientific and technological revolution and not simply its technological and scientific content---i.e., a revolution in the techniques of production, the natural sciences and control of technical processes. In reality a scientific and technological revolution does not take place in isolation from its specific socio-economic and socio-political conditions and consequences. This is precisely what is ignored by revisionist ideologists who isolate scientific progress from its qualitatively different social foundation. Typical of the scientific revolution in capitalist conditions is the following. 1. Worsening of the major contradiction in capitalism (between the development of forces of production and the private capitalist relations of production). This is due to the fact that production based on the latest scientific and 188

technological achievements requires concentration and centralisation, a high degree of organisation, a mass scale and continuity. Thus, the requirements of the scientific revolution are just one more proof of the fact that the capitalist system as a whole has matured for the social revolution of the proletariat and it objectively demands socialist relations of production, the domination of public property and scientific planning and control over the economy. In contemporary conditions, people in the capitalist countries, even those far from being Marxists, sometimes acknowledge that the blind forces of the market are no longer capable of tackling the complex problems of present-day society, while state-monopoly capitalism is incapable of ensuring the all-embracing scientific co-ordination of the economy in the interests of the working people. 2. The scientific revolution worsens the social conflict between the bourgeoisie and the working class that is organically inherent in capitalism. This is most apparent in the increase in mass unemployment, in deep-going conflicts associated with mass re-training, changes in wages, price increases, inflation, etc. 3. The scientific and technological revolution in capitalist conditions encourages a differential process among intellectuals. Increasingly wide groups of intellectuals, whitecollar workers and young people in capitalist countries under the impact of the scientific revolution are moving into a situa* International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 19. 216 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 217 tion that objectively encourages their coming closer to the working class. The social basis of the anti-monopoly struggle, therefore, is extending during the scientific revolution. 4. The scientific revolution enhances rather than devalues the leading role of the working class in the campaign to transform the world in a revolutionary way. The experience of class struggle confirms that the working class, the most consistent and powerful opponent of monopoly power, is the 189

centre of attraction of all anti-monopoly forces and expresses their radical interests. 5. The wide-scale introduction of scientific and economic achievements into the economy of state-monopoly capitalism creates new opportunities for the misuse of the fruits of scientific progress in the interest of militarism and exploitation. The conflict deepens between the opportunities which scientific and technological achievements open up and the obstacles in the way of realising these opportunities, obstacles being created by capitalism. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties pointed out: "The scientific and technological revolution offers mankind unprecedented possibilities to remake Nature, to produce immense material wealth and to multiply man's creative capabilities. These possibilities should serve the general welfare, but capitalism is using the scientific and technological revolution to increase its profits and intensify the exploitation of the working people."* 6. Under the impact of the scientific revolution, a tendency towards international economic integration grows. But because these processes take place on a capitalist basis, they invariably worsen the interimperialist contradictions and, simultaneously, encourage greater unity of the international movement of working people. The development of the scientific and technological revolution under socialism has completely different characteristics. 1. The nature of the socialist system, its socio-economic and socio-political nature create the objective possibility for planning and controlling scientific and technological development on a nationwide scale, for setting the priority order in research and development and making the necessary allocations, organising a corresponding system of personnel training and job allocation. 2. The scientific and technological revolution ( comprehensive mechanisation and automation, electrification, etc.) promotes a high productivity of labour which enables the country to resolve the vital social problems of communist construction. The development of this revolution in socialist conditions is a decisive factor in creating the material and technical base of communism which is the historically necessary condition for a transition to a single communist form of ownership, for the gradual effacing of the essential 190

differences between mental and manual labour, between town and country, and for the all-round development of the personality. 3. In the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, the working class remains the leading force in the building of communism and the part it plays is enhanced. "The working class has been and remains the main productive force of society. Its revolutionary spirit, discipline, organisation and collectivism determine its leading position in the system of socialist social relations.""" 4. The very large army of scientific and technological personnel working in industry, agriculture, science and state administration becomes even closer allied to the working class and the collective farmers, the Communist Party and the socialist state as the scientific revolution develops. 5. In socialist society, in which the basic interests of all social classes and groups, individual members of society and society overall coincide and where the most favourable situation exists for ensuring these common interests, an oppor* International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 19. 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. ; 218 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 219 tunity is created for using the results of the scientific revolution for the good of man and society as a whole. As Alexei Kosygin said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, "only thanks to socialism, and only within the framework of our social system, does the scientific and technological revolution attain its full and comprehensive development, whose results go to all the working people"."" Higher productivity on the basis of the scientific revolution creates conditions for a considerable growth in people's well-being, and for an increase in their free time. Under socialism, these opportunities are used in the interests of the all-round development of people.

191

The possibilities of the scientific revolution in creating material benefits are used for the harmonious and all-round development of the human personality, the enrichment of its spiritual, cultural and moral qualities only in conditions of socialism and communism which make it their objective to ensure "full well-being and free, all-round development for all the members of society".** The development of the human personality, in turn, leads to a greater creative force of human beings for the good of the whole socialist society. By combining scientific, socio-economic and cultural progress, the Communist Party directs social development towards accelerated building of communism. 6. The socialist system accelerates and extends the scientific and technological revolution through use of the opportunities for international socialist economic integration which enables it considerably to enhance the efficiency of production in each socialist state and, at the same time, to increase the rate of economic and scientific progress throughout the socialist community. The coincidence of vital national interests of the peoples in every socialist country with the international interests of the whole world socialist system greatly multiplies the potential possibilities of the scientific and technological revolution under socialism. * 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 148. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 54. This specific examination of the characteristics of the scientific and technological revolution under two different systems shows the difference in their objective laws. As in all major processes of social development, however, there also arises the question of combining objective conditions and possibilities, on the one hand, and the subjective factor, on the other. Socialism creates all the objective conditions for combining the scientific revolution and its social aspects, such as is impossible for capitalism. This can greatly accelerate the whole course of the world struggle between the two systems, and is increasingly obvious proof of the worthlessness of the capitalist system as a social basis for promoting the forces of production (the main element of which is working people) and a genuinely humane form of life. That is why the 24th Party Congress put forward the proposition concerning the combination of the attainments of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist economic system.*

192

The complete unity of scientific and social progress under socialism is demonstrated clearly by the implementation of this task through the scientific and planned administration of the Communist Party and through an upsurge in the creative activity and knowledge of the working class, collective farmers, intellectuals and young people---all the working people of socialist society. Under socialism, scientific and social progress mutually determine one another, because in the socialist states the scientific revolution helps to create and improve the material base for socialism and communism. It consolidates the positions of world socialism in the historical rivalry between the two systems. Scientific progress on the basis of capitalism is also in close association with the process of social development; but the mechanism of this association and its content bear quite a different character than in socialist society. The contradicSee 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 69. 220 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 221 tory nature of this link is expressed in the fact that, on the one hand, imperialism strives to employ scientific achievements to consolidate the capitalist system and to contend with all the powers of the world revolutionary process. On the other hand, the scientific revolution helps to bring to maturity the objective and subjective conditions for socialist revolution and is its powerful accelerator. Revisionist theoreticians ignore this important law and, consequently, the real paths of scientific and social progress. Nobody can deny the fact that, under the impact of the scientific revolution in capitalist society, the confines of hired labour extend, exploitation increases and the political and ideological tyranny of imperialist reaction grows. At the same time, the social activity of the working people greatly rises, as does the quantitative and qualitative level of the class struggle. These progressive processes, however, are accompanied by numerous difficulties. New phenomena in the social structure of capitalism demand a thorough investigation. A serious analysis of such phenomena has been given in the documents of the international communist 193

movement and this cannot be denied by any revisionist ideologists speculating about new social phenomena in contemporary capitalism leading to opportunist, capitulation policies of rejection of socialist revolution. REJECTION OF THE LEADING ROLE OF THE WORKING CLASS</b> According to revisionists like Garaudy, Fischer, Marek, Eugen Loebl and Leopold Griinwald, "the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is no longer the only decisive problem", insofar as, on the one hand, the working class in contemporary capitalist society has become `` bourgeoisified'' and ``deproletarised'', and, on the other, the scientific revolution, as a result of which "an economy occurs on labour power only at the expense of the working class", has made the intellectuals a ``primary'' power in society. The intellectuals are said to be increasingly a standard-bearer of the interests of the entire nation and we should therefore talk not about a proletarian revolution but about an intellectual revolution whose social support should be "a new historical bloc" headed by the intellectuals, not an alliance of working people headed by the working class/^^1^^" To pose the question that way distorts the real phenomena of contemporary capitalism, interpreting them in a spirit of contemporary bourgeois notions. What are the real changes taking place in the social structure of capitalism caused by the scientific re'/olution? They are changes in the vocational composition of the working class; the growth in number of workers, their significance and leading role in society; the growth in size and the role of the intellectuals and white-collar workers and the coming together of a large part of them with the working class; a marked rise in the share of hired labour in all advanced capitalist countries. They are all narrowing the social base for monopoly power and helping to mobilise the common people for the struggle against monopoly capital. The intensification of the class struggle is taking place as exploitation and social oppression increase. In this struggle, the workers are increasingly joined by the peasants, intellectuals, office workers and students. The opportunities for the anti-monopoly struggle, therefore, are increasing. The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties came to the conclusion that "in the citadels of capitalism the working class, as recent events have shown, is 194

the principal driving force of the revolutionary struggle, of the entire anti-imperialist, democratic movement" * The imperialist bourgeoisie and its ideologists try to refute the Marxist-Leninist idea concerning the historic role * See R. Garaudy, Pour un modele fran^ais de socialisme, Paris, 1968, p. 22; E. Loebl, L. Grunwald, Die intellektualle Revolution, Vienna, 1969, pp. 95-96; Neues Forum, February 1970, Heft 194/H, p. 145. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 24. 222 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 223 of the working class. Hence the theory of ``deproletarisation'' whose advocates try to show the numerical contraction of the working class, which is said to be leading to its disappearance, to the ``integration'' of the working class in the capitalist system and its loss of revolutionary spirit. These and other ideas are purported by reformist Social-Democrats and bourgeois ideologists. Revisionists are actually putting forward bourgeois, social reformist theories like that of "white- and blue-collar workers", replacing the division of a certain part of society into workers and employees and thereby distorting the actual numerical size and composition of the working class. Bourgeois sociologists attempt to prove that the working class is growing smaller; they do so by classifying skilled workers as "white-collar workers" and excluding them from the working class, including only those doing manual work in the body of "blue-collar workers". Garaudy reiterates this bourgeois notion of the growing preponderence of ``white-collar'' over ``blue-collar'' workers---i.e., technicians, employees, salesmen, etc., over manual workers, and of the fall in numbers of manual workers"" as an argument in support of his conclusion that the working class is diminishing to nothing. Ideologists of the imperialist bourgeoisie try to dissolve the working class into a diverse conglomerate of numerous 195

strata. Galbraith, for example, includes in the working class people with administrative, co-ordinating and planning talent, scientists and engineers, sales executives, salesmen, those learned in the other arts of persuasion and those who programme and command the computers.** Revisionists like Fischer write in the same vein that "the technocrats are merging with the working class", that the majority of the intellectuals in advanced industrial countries "are objectively included in the working class", that the intellectuals "in their majority are integrated in the presentday working class.""" In the opinion of Garaudy "in our epoch the concept of the working class is extending to new live forces of the nation, notably to those groups of intellectuals who are organically engendered and developed by the advance of science, technology and the economy" .** Garaudy portrays this diverse conglomerate as a "new historical bloc",*** in which, in his opinion, the scientific intellectuals are to play the leading role. Distorting the well-known Marxist-Leninist proposition for his own purposes, Garaudy writes that "one of the fundamental principles of Marxism is to consider as 'ascending classes' destined to direct the country, the social classes that are most directly connected to the advanced productive forces and developing with them``/'"*** To associate social progress, however, merely with the development of the forces of production means ignoring the relations of production---which is typical of technocratic reformism. Bourgeois writers put forward the theory of "scientific management" and pin their hopes on "competent managers" capable of ensuring the development of "regulated capitalism". In like vein, Garaudy asserts that "the organised intellectuals are becoming the principal productive force",**""** and that "without any doubt, in this assembly [i.e., in the new historical bloc.---Authors}, engineers, technicians, employees, a large .number of intellectuals will play a primordial role".*) Thus, Garaudy disputes the role of the working class as the leading forces of social progress. This is the essence of his notion of a "new historical bloc''. The upholding of the idea of the transfer of the leading role in social progress from the working class to the intellec* E. Fischer, Die Revolution ist anders. Ernst Fischer stellt sich zehn Fragen kritischer Schiller, Harburg, 1971, pp. 21, 22, 27.

196

** R. Garaudy, Pour un models francais du socialisme, p. 22. "'<SUP>!:</SUP>"' R. Garaudy, "Sur trois questions", Cahiers du communisme, No. 2-3, 1970, p. 230. **** R Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 77. ***** Ibid., p. 75. *) Ibid., pp. 80-81. * R. Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 76. ** J. K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, Boston, 1967, p. 238. 224 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 225 tuals, to the technocratic elite, is a device aimed at disuniting the various social strata, diffusing their common struggle against economic and political domination of the monopolies. What argument do the revisionists use to back up this proposition? Garaudy maintains that "in an epoch when science is becoming an immediate productive force, as Marx has foreseen, an increasing number of intellectuals (notably engineers and research-workers) are objectively part of 'a collective labourer', and have class criteria corresponding to those by which Marx defined the working class".''^^1^^" A study of Marx's works, however, reveals that the Marxist concept of the "collective labourer" provides no grounds for combining workers, employees and intellectuals in the concept of the "working class". For Marx, the concept " collective labourer" had a technological and production content reflecting the presence at enterprises of the subject of production---i.e., all production personnel participating in the production of a material product.** He did not base this concept on a social class content. Moreover, Marx, in using the concept, did not identify it with the working class, but pointed out its social heterogeneity.*** In referring to engineers as productive labourers, Marx abstracted them from the features that differed them in a social respect from the working class as a section of the intellectuals.**** In the French translation of Capital edited by Marx himself, the term Gesamtarbeiter is everywhere translated as le travailleur collectif, while the 197

concept "working class" is translated as la classe ouvriere. To the extent that the intellectuals are not a class but a social stratum, their main criteria are their place in the social division of labour---professional employment in complex mental labour, and also the specific role in social organisa* R. Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 245. ** See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, pp. 327, 344-45, 346, 348-49, 349-50, 361, 418, 461-62. *** See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, pp. 508-09. **** See K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part I, Moscow, 1969, pp. 411-12. tion of labour---i.e., the carrying out of special, specific functions in production and other spheres of social life. Marx wrote that in bourgeois society "all these applications of science, natural forces and products of labour on a large scale, these applications founded on social labour, themselves appear only as means for exploitation of labour, as means of appropriating surplus labour, and hence confront labour as powers belonging to capital.* Thus, Marx does not adduce any reasons for defending the idea that the working class and the intellectuals actually merge. At the same time, an analysis of contemporary capitalism gives grounds for concluding that a large part of mental workers---intellectuals and employees---is increasingly coming closer to the working class. This process is due both to the general law of the contradictory development of intellectuals under capitalism and, in particular, to processes caused by the general crisis of capitalism and the scientific and technological revolution. At the end of the last century, Lenin remarked: "In all spheres of people's labour, capitalism increases the number of office and professional workers with particular rapidity and makes a growing demand of intellectuals."** Lenin also noted the objectively determined process of differentiation of intellectuals. He wrote that they "occupy a special position among the other classes, attaching themselves partly to the bourgeoisie by their connections, their outlooks, etc., and partly to the wage-workers as capitalism increasingly deprives the intellectual of his independent position, converts him into a hired worker and threatens to lower his living standard".***

198

The trend in differentiation of intellectuals and their approximation to the working class is especially marked today. The 1969 International Meeting stated: "In this age, when science is becoming a direct productive force, growing numbers of intellectuals are swelling the ranks of wage and salary * K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part I, pp. 391-92. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 202. *** Ibid. 15---2332 226 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THEWORLD TODAY</b> 227 workers. Their social interests intertwine with those of the working class: their creative aspirations clash with the interests of the monopoly employers, who place profit above all else. Despite the great diversity in their positions, different groups of intellectuals are coming more and more into conflict with the monopolies and the imperialist policy of governments. The crisis of bourgeois ideology and the attraction of socialism help to bring intellectuals into the anti-imperialist struggle. The alliance of workers by hand and by brain is becoming an increasingly important force in the struggle for peace, democracy and social progress.. . ."* In describing these processes, Leonid Brezhnev said: "Many aspects of work with the intelligentsia, especially with that section of it which together with the working class is engaged in industry and is being subjected to growing exploitation, should be seen in their new context. The professions requiring mental work are becoming more widespread. The engineering and technical intelligentsia in the capitalist countries is now being drawn not only from the bourgeoisie but also from the middle sections and in part from among the working people as well. To a considerable extent all this is changing the intelligentsia's attitude to the capitalist system and bringing its interests closer to those of the working class."** An important part in bringing the progressive intellectuals closer to the working class belongs to political, ideological and moral factors. Capitalism is increasingly demonsrating its 199

reactionary nature, its historical outmodedness as a social system. Progressives among the intellectuals understand this. The forecast of the founders of Marxism is being justified that "in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour. .. a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole".* This complex process often ends in protests by scientists, intellectuals and young people merely against the most reactionary manifestations of domestic and foreign policy of the most reactionary imperialist circles. Back in 1922, Lenin wrote: "In all the countries of the world there is growing--more slowly than one would like, but irresistibly and unswervingly---the number of representatives of science, technology, art, who are becoming convinced of the necessity of replacing capitalism by a different socio-economic system. .. ."** But precisely because of these processes, the importance of the leading role of the working class is increasing in contemporary social development. The scientific and technological intellectuals cannot take on the leading role in social progress not only because they comprise a minority by comparison with the working class; not only because they do not constitute a class but a social stratum which is extremely heterogeneous, but because of certain specific characteristics of them to which Lenin pointed: "No one will venture to deny that the intelligentsia, as a special stratum of modern capitalist society, is characterised, by and large, precisely by individualism and incapacity for discipline and organisation . .. and this trait of the intelligentsia is intimately bound up with its customary mode of life, its mode of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects approximates to the petty-bourgeois mode of existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc,)."*** In his analysis of the dual character of behaviour of that social stratum, Lenin pointed out that the intellectuals are bound to rebel against police tyranny, which persecutes * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 25. ** Ibid., pp. 150-51. * K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 117. 200

** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 552. *** Ibid., Vol. 7, p. 269. 15* 228 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 229 thought and knowledge, but material interests attach them to the bourgeoisie, make them an inconsistent group, concluding compromises, selling their revolutionary and opposition passions for state remuneration or for a share in profits or dividends. The late French communist leader, Maurice Thorez, examined the question of the engineers and technicians in France and noted that, in an economic sense, they comprise part of hired labour, but the nature of their activity, their standard of living and social origin put the majority of them closer to the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. As a result, "neither the peasants, nor in general the petty-bourgeoisie, nor the creative genius of scientists and engineers, nor the intellectual elite in general can constitute the social force directing the renovation of the world".* The peculiar feature of the contemporary historical situation is that the people of advanced capitalist states are faced by profound social problems which are bound to worry not only the working class but all social groups of hired employees, including the intellectuals. The anti-national character of the policy of monopolies and their power, consisting in the fact that foreign firms and cosmopolitan groups are allowed to establish control over factories, key sectors of the national economy and national resources, is presenting a serious threat to the whole basis of a country's national independence. At the same time, the domination of a small group of monopoly forces in decisive areas of the national economy marks increased exploitation of the working class and all working people, supression of the creative initiative of intellectuals. In his analysis of various categories of intellectuals in the capitalist world today and, in particular, in 201

France, the French communist leader, Georges Marchais, said in his report to the 19th Congress of the French Communist Party that "direction of economic affairs and all effective participation of scientific and technological intellectuals are increasingly diminishing. The intellectuals have less and less opportunity to exercise responsibilities corresponding to their vocation and level of education". This is happening because of "the concentration of decision-making centres and essential responsibility in the hands of a few big henchmen of the monopolist oligarchy".* All these problems make up an objective basis for combining various social strata, rallying them around the working class as the most organised and powerful political force having at its disposal a theoretically armed vanguard. As a consequence, a certain part of the intellectuals, whose interests are close to those of the working class, is coming closer to it, accepting its ideas, slogans, demands and methods of struggle and, thereby, increasing the opportunities for a successful struggle of all anti-monopoly forces. It is precisely this that worries both the bourgeoisie and the revisionists. The notion of the formation of a "new historical bloc" led by the intellectuals distorts, in a petty-bourgeois reformist way, the essence of the anti-imperialist alliance that is forming today. Assertions that the leading role of the working class is being transferred to the intellectuals has the purpose of undermining the influence of the working class, shaking the confidence of its allies in it, sowing doubt among the working people about the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist proposition concerning the leading role of the working class, and it is objectively to the detriment of the struggle against imperialism. Brezhnev has said: "Contrary to the current anti-Marxist theories that the scientific and technological revolution allegedly leads to the narrowing ot the ranks of the working class, or even to its disappearance, reality testifies to the contrary---the scientific and technologi* E. Fajon, "Rapport sur la discussion et I'adoption des Theses du Parti", Cahiers du communisme, No. 2-3, 1970, p. 213. * G. Marchais, "La lutte contre la pouvoir des monopolcs ct le rassemblement des forces ouvrieres et democratiques pour unc democratic avancee et le socialisme", Cahiers du communisme, No. 2-3, 1970, p. 51. 202

230 RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISMTODAY</b> REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF THE WORLD TODAY 23d cal progress leads everywhere to the growth in the size of the working class due, in particular, to the emergence of new professions engendered by modern production."* While in the industry of advanced capitalist states, the working class at the beginning of the century comprised no more than 30,000 people, its size has now grown to 100,000,000.** Palme Dutt has written: "Certainly the scientific and technological revolution of the present era has speeded up the whole pace of social change, thrown old established industries into the discard, with wholesale displacement of workers, brought into being new industries, and transformed the structure of the employed population."*** But the working class still retains the main place within that structure. The scientific revolution has not brought a numerical contraction of the working class; on the contrary, in the USA, for example, between 1961 and 1966 the working class grew by 15.5 per cent, while the total population grew by 9 per cent. The French working class comprised 9,000,000 people in 1970 out of 15,000,000 able-bodied wage-earners, and its proportion is rising. In 1970, it constituted 44 per cent as against 40.3 per cent in 1954. As regards the technical intellectuals, despite their growth, they amount only to some 2,000,000 people---i.e., about 10 per cent of the able-bodied population. Therefore, as the French Communist Party has stated, "it is incorrect to employ the expression 'new historical bloc'. ... It is in terms of alliance that the relations of the working class and intellectual workers should be posed".**** The leading role of the working class in social progress does not depend only on its size. Lenin once said: "The * L. I. Brezhnev, Resheniya XXIV s'yezda KPSS---boyevaya programma deyatelnosti sovietskikh profsoyuzov, Moscow, 1972, p. 16. ** See Nauchny kommunism i falsifikatsiya yeyo renegatami, Moscow, 1972, p. 14. 203

*** World Marxist Review, No. 1, January 1971, Vol. 14, p. 10. **** G. Marchais, op. cit, pp. 51, 52. strength of the proletariat in any capitalist country is far greater than the proportion it represents of the population", because it not only economically dominates the centre anS nerve of the entire economic system of capitalism, but it economically and politically "expresses the real interests of the overwhelming majority of the working people under capitalism. The Russian Revolution confirmed this statement. The working class of Russia, comprising a minority in the country, attracted to its side the overwhelming majority of working people because of its high degree of organisation and political consciousness and its revolutionary enthusiasm. It then led them in an attack on the capitalist system and ensured the victory of socialist revolution. The working class today has nowhere lost its revolutionary spirit. In the class clashes with monopoly capital it continues to demonstrate its revolutionary potential, initiative, ability, determination and readiness for revolutionary struggle. The working class shows by its class struggle, together with other working people, against the policy of monopoly capital its leading role in the social, economic and political battles. In the decade, 1960-1970, the number of strikers amounted to 360,000,000, against 150,000,000 in the preceeding 14 years.** While in 1970, the total number of those taking part in strikes in the capitalist states amounted to 65,000,000 people, in 1971 the figure had risen to almost 70,000,000.*** The working-class movement is increasingly acquiring a nationwide political character. The concessions which monopoly capital is forced to make, the partial satisfaction by the monopolies of the workers' demands are testimony that the class battles are becoming more acute and more organised and that the demands of the working class and all working people are becoming increasingly profound. The veteran Communist Waldeck Rochet said: "What was characteristic of the move* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 274. ** See Nauchny Kommunism, Moscow, 1972, p. 113. *** See New Times, No. 18, 1972, p. 6. 232 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> CHAPTER 9 204

REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b> ment in May and June 1968 ... was tliat in addition to advancing its immediate economic demands, it directed a blow against the domination of national life by the monopolies and their state power. It sought deep-going democratic change in the social, economic and political spheres. It showed that the ideas of socialism have been accepted by broad sections of the working people."* The formation of the world socialist system, the creation, with the help of the international working class, of numerous democratic organisations, national and international (trade-union, youth and women's) has led to a situation today where the international working class, being at the centre of the contemporary stage, is playing an increasingly decisive role in the progressive development of human society. More and more anti-monopoly groups are uniting around the international working class. The ideology of the working class and its revolutionary demands are exerting a powerful influence on the entire anti-imperialist struggle. The increasing influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology is a result of the growing impact of the world socialist system, the international working class and the communist parties on the whole course of history. The deep-going influence of the international working class is also apparent in the fact that the slogan of united action by democratic forces, proclaimed in 1935 at the 7th Congress of the Comintern, and, later, at the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties is increasingly finding its embodiment in concerted actions by working people on a national and international scale. The working-class movement in capitalist countries is conducting great class battles against the monopolies. Other social groups which oppose the very basis of the capitalist system are uniting around the working class. Right-wing revisionists are particularly concerned to distort the Marxist theory of the objective basis for revolution, the historical meaning of socialist revolution and the ways that it is implemented. REJECTION OF THE OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b>

205

The concept of social revolution has clear-cut historical bounds. It applies only to that period of human history whose basic motive force is the class struggle. But if "the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production" * then the source or basis for revolution should be sought not in the development of production in general but in the development and replacement of modes of production resting on private ownership of the means of production. It should be sought in the contradictions inherent in these modes of production. Such are the contradictions in the form of class antagonisms between the developing forces of production and the ownership relations that are becoming a brake on social progress. Insofar as the ownership relations express the conditions of domination of a particular class, they can be removed only during * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 112. <SUP>t:</SUP>" K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 528. 234 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b> 235 the class struggle by that class which is the carrier of higher economic relations. Social revolution has always been a mode of historical affirmation of the new socio-economic formation by the transfer of power from one class to another. The specific contradictions in the capitalist mode of production provide the objective basis for socialist revolution. By eliminating capitalism---the last antagonistic form of social production, the socialist revolution is, at the same time, the final historical form of social revolution. With mankind's transition to socialism, the era of social revolutions comes to an end. Marx wrote: "It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolution will cease to be political revolutions."* Today, the problem of social revolution is above all that of socialist revolution. Capitalism does not suit both the working people of the advanced capitalist states and the peoples of newly liberated countries and those fighting to remove colonial oppression. The national liberation struggle is 206

becoming a struggle against exploiting relations, both feudal and capitalist. It goes without saying that the tasks of carrying out a socialist revolution is a task facing countries in which an exploiting system prevails. Revisionists challenge this axiom and present matters as if the problem of socialist revolution is one not so much of capitalist and, in prospect, developing states, as of countries of the world socialist system. Their arguments rest on a revision of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the economic basis for socialist revolution. One of the main trends of the present-day revision of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution consists in divorcing it from the economic contradictions which necessitate it (and whose resolution it is), and in taking it beyond the bounds of the class struggle that emanates from these contradictions. Such emasculation of the socio-historical and class nature of socialist revolution is done in various ways. An understanding of revolution as means of transferring from one socio-economic formation to another rests on a certain periodisation of human history. Therefore, the revisionists begin their re-examination of the economic basis and historical place of socialist revolution with attacks on the Marxist periodisation of social development which they call ``dogmatic'' and reject as inconsistent with Marx's historical view. They criticise it as "a scheme of stages of development in social history which has simplified and vulgarised this whole question to the greatest possible extent".* We refer here to the well-known periodisation of social history into five basic economic formations: primitive-communal, slaveowning, feudal, capitalist and socialist systems, each having a quite definite type of production. They suggest replacing the concept of economic formation by that of ``epoch''. "The concept of epoch for Stalin does not exist in general and, consequently, the transitional period from one great epoch to another does not exist."** It was Marx and not Stalin who formulated the concept of socio-economic formation. Stalin, incidentally, did not reject the concept of ``epoch'' and used it in his works. Right-wing revisionists, as the Yugoslav philosopher B. Ziherl has justly noted, proclaim as Stalinist not only the concept of socioeconomic formation, but also "many fundamental propositions of Marxist philosophy formulated by Marx himself . .. and as such, they reject them in complete accord with the requirements of foreign falsifiers of Marxism".***

207

Socialist revolution is, of course, a transition from one epoch to another---from the epoch of exploiting societies to that of a classless society. It is precisely for that reason, by opening up a new epoch, that it takes society beyond the confines of an outmoded social formation into a new social formation. A metaphysical counterposing of the transition from * A. Dragicevic, Potrebni rod i visak rada, Zagreb, 1957, p. 294. ** Ibid., p. 295. *** Marks i savremenost, Belgrade, 1964, Vol. 2, p. 612. * K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 168. 236 RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 237 epoch to epoch to the transition from formation to formation can have only one aim: to create the appearance of a possibility of transferring from epoch to epoch without transcending a particular formation. The revisionists often counterpose to the ``dogmatic'' periodisation Engels' technological periodisation of society into savagery, barbarism and civilisation. But there are also no grounds for that, because, in his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Engels focuses attention mainly on processes associated with the disintegration of primitive society and he does not set himself the task of describing each of the subsequent socio-economic formations. The focus of contemporary works of revisionists is to reexamine the periodisation of recent history; they do so either by reducing or by augmenting the number of phases or stages of social development. Lenin divided capitalism into free-competition capitalism and monopoly capitalism. He saw monopoly capitalism, or imperialism, as the highest and last stage of capitalism, the last antagonistic social formation which had to be replaced through socialist revolution by a higher social system---socialism. The revisionists, at least in words, also recognise that socialism begins where capitalism ends. But if one asks where exactly capitalism ends, it becomes clear that the answer 208

they give is aimed against the fundamental principles of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. As opposed to the Leninist theory of imperialism, the revisionists divide monopoly capitalism into two stages: private-monopoly capitalism and state capitalism. The latter, in turn, is divided into two phases: state-monopoly capitalism and state capitalism. Where in this series of phases does socialist revolution come? It is either placed between the phases of state capitalism and regarded as a transition from one phase to another, or it is taken beyond the bounds of state capitalism, or, to be more precise, it is regarded merely as a means of removing the second phase of state capitalism. In the first instance, socialist revolution becomes something that does not go beyond the bounds of state capitalism, inasmuch as it does not ablosh capitalism, but is only an aspect of its inner evolution. The reformist-opportunist nature of such a proposition is patently clear. In order to understand the reactionary nature of the second proposition, it is important to bear in mind that state capitalism is regarded as a special period in the development of society which has one of its ``halves'' in classical capitalism and the other in socialism. The first ``half'' is just state-monopoly capitalism. In regard to the second ``half'' it would seem to coincide with the social system which exists in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. They call this social system "state socialism" and look upon it as a variety of state capitalism. Andrija Kresic, for example, maintains that "in the USSR and in other countries which call themselves socialist, one of the forms of state capitalism prevails".* Since the socialist revolution means the end of capitalism, it must, by that ``logic'', be the abolition also of its higher phase which exists in the Soviet Union. Hence the direct conclusion that the task of implementing socialist revolution is one that faces the countries of the world socialist system first and foremost.** Here we have an obvious example of how the question of revolution becomes a question of counter-revolution, how under the pretext of making the theory of revolution more specific, the revisionists provide an ideological platform for counter-revolution and demand its implementation. The concept of state capitalism serves here to apply the essence of capitalism to socialism, to portray the social order in socialist countries as ``bourgeois'' and thereby to ascribe to it the contradictions and problems of contemporary capitalism. It is worth mentioning the criticism of this notion 209

by the Marxist L. Zivkovic. He has criticised attempts to Filosofija, No. 2, 1969, p. 34. Ibid., pp. 31-34, 40, 42, 58-60, 53-60. 238 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 239 ascribe laws of bourgeois revolutions to socialist revolutions. Such notions, he writes, are characteristic in divorcing the phenomena of class and exploitation from their relationship to the means of production. In that way, he says, exploitation and class division of society are taken beyond the bounds of bourgeois society and are potentially perpetuated. One cannot allow the second, no less reactionary aspect of the matter to pass without comment. By applying the category of capitalism to a system which is its actual negation, the advocates of this notion are making a revision of the Marxist theory of capitalism. They are obliged to recognise that there is no capitalist class in the socialist states, and therefore find themselves advocating the ridiculous theory that capitalist society is possible without one of the two basic classes of that society, without capitalists! Furthermore, they follow the reformist Right-wing socialists in including contemporary capitalist society in the notion of state capitalism. To their minds, state capitalism is a kind of universal form of contemporary societies, irrespective of their actual social system. Both socialist and capitalist countries are said to have a certain common class structure. They differ from `` classical'' capitalism in that today the state takes the place of the bourgeoisie in playing the part of middle-man between the workers, on the one hand, and the means of labour, on the other. They claim that as a result, the state apparatus, together with the economic administrative apparatus, is becoming a new ruling class. The contradiction between capitalists and workers gives way to a contradiction between `` bureaucrats'' and workers. This is represented as the major contradiction of present-day society on whose resolution depends the abolition of alienation and the transition to a ``true'' (``democratic'', ``human'' and ``self-governed'') socialism.

210

It is true that revisionists are not united in their interpretation of the society existing in the USSR and other socialist states. Some insist that it is a variety of state capitalism; others suggest it should be regarded as a completely new form of post-capitalist class society that arose out of historical development which Marx had not been able to foresee. However, they all say that this society is ``exploitative'' and, consequently, ripe for revolution. To prove this they even declare inapplicable to the socialist states the law of the decisive role of economic relations. S. Stojanovic, for example, writes: "The specific nature of etatist classes consists, inter alia, in the fact that their economic force comes from political power, while with the bourgeoisie it is the other way round. We have to admit that Marxism did not have sufficient flair for that political determinism."* One can hardly agree that similar notions, at odds with the fundamentals of Marxist philosophy and the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution, are authentic Marxism. Marx scientifically proved that the capitalist system is the last form of class antagonistic society. The revisionists are ``discovering'' a new type of class system resting on etatist ownership. Marx deduced the need for socialist revolution from the nature of contradictions in the capitalist mode of production. The revisionists remove this real basis from under the socialist revolution and replace it by an imaginary contradiction between the etatist class and the working people.** Marx saw the historical place of socialist revolution in the transition from capitalism to classless society. The revisionists place a new social formation between capitalism and socialism and transfer the socialist revolution to inside that formation as a means of resolving its contradictions. Such a revision of the economic basis for socialist revolution is ultimately reduced to divorcing the socialist revolution from the basic economic and class contradiction which determines the need for it, the motive forces and historical objective. Objectively, this is a position between reformism and counter-revolution. When the revisionists take revolu* S. Stojanovid, Izmedu ideala i stvarnosti, p. 55. ** "And in regard to the etatist class, one should talk in a Marxist way about the prospect for expropriating the expropriators and socialising the means of production" (S. Stojanovic, op. cit., p. 54). 240 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY 211

REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 241 tion beyond the confines of the countradictions of ``classical'' capitalism (thereby leaving them as they are), they are acting as mighty reformists. When they look at the need for socialist revolution "in countries which call themselves socialist", they are playing the part of advocates of counter-revolutions. The rift with Marxism in theory is bringing them to a counter-revolutionary policy in practice. Transfer of the problem of revolution to the plane of abstract humanist reasoning is another means of blunting the basic contradiction of the epoch and thus revising the objective basis for socialist revolution typical of the revisionists. Kangrga tries to show that, from the standpoint of Marx, revolution is something much more profound than any political and social changes. In social revolution, he reasons, one is referring only "to the replacement of one social structure by another", while "the resolution of the essential issue of human existence as an issue of the purpose of human life and existence (i.e., reality) or, in modern philosophical language, the question of the truth of man's being, is not exhausted by the social sphere". It is not exhausted because "it is precisely man who changes that very social structure", and he could not change it if its essence did not coincide with that structure. Kangrga goes on to assert that Marx found an answer to the "decisive question of how and why---i.e., whence such a change or revolution---as revolutions in general---are possible at all", in interpreting revolution as spontaneous self-development or self-movement of human self, which forms the real "foundation of the human world". Therefore, revolution is possible because it is carried out, and it is carried out because such is human self. He asserts that "it was utterly clear to Marx that revolution as revolution---i.e., a substantive or epoch-making revolution he was referring to, is possible only because it is carried out at the foundation of the human world.... Speaking philosophically, revolution is, consequently, a justification of why history exists, why the human world and man himself exist.. . . This world is permanent revolution as a true form of human existence"/^^1^^" 212

We see that with the help of "modern philosophical language", revolution is taken not only beyond the bounds of class relations, but also beyond the bounds of historical epochs. Differences in modes of production and social formations, class antagonisms and class struggle all disappear, are dissolved in the stream of "permanent revolution". "For it is precisely revolution that is an inexhaustible and irreppressible source of creativity, a stimulator to action, real foundation for the spirit, the opening of a vista for the exercise of human talents and possibilities, real ferment of the meaning, a historically vital, creative and spiritual pivot which breaks through 'the hard skin of natural' and all that is stale, and it is that mole which constantly digs away of which Hegel spoke, calling it dialectics."** That "inexhaustible and irreppressible" fountain of highflown philosophical phrases is one of those typical panegyrics of revolution through which its concept is deprived of any scientific and historical meaning. The reader seems to learn about revolution everything (that it is "a source", "a stimulator", "a foundation", "a ferment", "a pivot", etc.), except what is most important---that revolution means the resolution of certain class antagonisms, the overthrow of the domination of one class and the establishment of the dictatorship of another class. The real basis for social revolution is here replaced by contradiction between "human self" and "social structure" fulfilling the role of some sort of skin which from time to time human ``spontaneity'' casts off, like a snake shedding his old skin. Class interest is replaced by "the most intimate human stimulation", the revolutionary class by "any human being", and revolution, from being the decisive strug* M. Kangrga, "Marxovo shvacanje revolucije", Praxis, No. 12, 1969, pp. 25, 26, 27, 31. M. Kangrga, op. cit., pp. 25-26. 16---2832 242 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALISTREVOLUTION</b> 243 gle of the ascending class, is turned into "a nucleus which 213

necessarily any human being carries in himself"."" Authors of such drivel imagine that they are freeing the Marxist concept of revolution from restricted dogmatic interpretations, they are purging it of everything which contradicts the humanist essence of Marxism. One must admit that thereby the concept of revolution really is liberated, primarily of the restrictions imposed upon it by materialist understanding of history. It really is purged of any real content and becomes just a phrase. "At the basis of that human world, our modern world," we learn, "revolution resounds as a motive force of history and as the irreppressible and intimate human stimulation and search for the meaning of human life."** The powers-that-be certainly have nothing to fear from such a ``resounding'' revolution! If it is no more than "intimate human stimulation'*, any such stimulation (and action coming from it) can be presented as revolution. Clearly, we can see what sort of ``vistas'' open up for political demagogy and speculation on the revolutionary mood oi the working people. Vilmos Sos develops the notion of ``total'' and `` permanent'' revolution: "Revolution is not only a single act after which we should only maintain and strengthen its results. Retaining an existing revolution and strengthening socialist power can only mean that we should never stop a revolution but that we should make it permanent and overcome each of its results in a revolutionary manner."*** The reactionary nature of such an idea is immediately evident as soon as we ask: "How should we treat such a result of socialist revolution as doing away with human exploitation and class inequality, what would be 'the revolutionary overcoming' of that result?'' In general, the idea of a so-called ``fundamental'', "radical" or ``essential'' revolution, opposed to the political and social changes as its partial and restricted manifestations, serves simply to push aside specific tasks of reconstructing society by portraying them as something petty and inconsequential by comparison with the ``permanent'' revolution at the "foundation of the human world". The real lessons of the past and the practical tasks of coming revolutions are surrounded by streams of high-and-mighty phrases about searches for new yardsticks of humanity",* of spontaneous leaps into something new which "cannot be taken from anything existing in the old".** Another typical device of modern revisionism is to dissolve 214

the concept of social revolution into that of the worldwide crisis as a result of which socialist revolution is reduced to an indefinite sum of movements and actions different in their tasks and direction. It turns out that revolution is not a way out of a crisis (in which the capitalist world finds itself) through a conscious and organised class struggle, but the crisis itself that characterises the spontaneous process of world development. Here, the main contradiction creating and worsening the crisis is masked by all manner of derivative contradictions that do not concide with class demarcation. Fischer, for example, writes: "This is a contradiction between that which contemporary forces of production are capable of doing for human progress and what the misuse of them by their owners who control them is turning into misfortune for the people, not only for the poor but for the rich." He continues, "An insufferable contradiction arises in the rich countries primarily for the thinking and persistent younger generation between an abundance of commodity goods and a spiritual bankruptcy, between material consumption and spiritual immaturity, between words and deeds."*** They divorce revolution from class antagonisms by replacing the demands expressing the class interests of those * Filosofija, No. 1-2, 1968, p. 119. ** Praxis, No. 5-6, 1967, p. 627. *** Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 37. * M. Kangrga, op. cit, p. 31. ** Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 34. *** V. Sos, "Totalna revolucija", Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 280. 16*</b> 244 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b> 245 being exploited by abstract humanist declamations about "a spiritual, moral productive force which revolts against inhuman relations, against the power of the apparat and freedom of hypocrisy"; they laud "the militant movement of young intellectuals" as a vital element "in world revolution which worries the world of fathers"/^^1^^" By pseudo-radical turns of phrase about rulers and violators, about the struggle between David and Goliath, and such like, they completely disguise the objective class basis of socialist revolution.

215

The slogan "resounding criticism of everything existing" serves the same end and is part of the equipment of the "authentic Marxists". The Yugoslav philosopher Prvoslav Ralic was right to stress that the principle of criticism of everything existing, for the so-called "authentic Marxists", completely deprives it of the specific historical and class content which Marx invested in it and is directed against socialism and the real class interests of the proletariat. THE MAIN CRITERION AND RAISON D'fiTRE OF SOCIALIST REVOLUTON</b> By contrast with old revisionism and its formula of " movement is everything, the objective is nothing", modern revisionism concentrates greater attention on questions of a socialist ideal, a model of ``true'' socialism which opens up the prospects for "fresh possibilities and a higher form of human life". This new aspect of revisionism reflects the fact that the question of a socialist ideal and a concrete content of socialist social change is becoming an increasingly burning issue of the day. Marxism-Leninism differentiates the revolutionary processes taking place in the world, which have worsened the crisis of world imperialism, from socialist revolution as a special historical stage whose essence consists primarily in the transfer of state power from the capitalist class to the working class. One has to distinguish the general crisis of the capitalist system and the revolutionary situations arising on its basis from revolution itself which is a way out of the crisis and actually resolves the contradictions that have matured. Despite the continuity of historical process which creates conditions and elements of a new system within the framework of the old society, the transition to socialism is impossible without a ``leap'' which socialist revolution actually is. What exactly is this ``leap'' and what are its objective characteristics and criteria? What is the historic meaning of the socialist revolution? The revisionists distort the scientific resolution of these questions by revising the essential boundary that separates socialist from capitalist society. They either completely erase this boundary and talk of the ``gradual'' transition, which leads them to an actual negation of the need for social revolution as a special historical act, or they confuse it and draw it where it does not run historically. In the first instance, the beginning of socialism is 216

associated with social changes and actions which do not affect the foundation of the capitalist system (the capitalist relations of production) and, consequently, do not go beyond the bounds of that system---i.e., the boundary at which socialism ``begins'' remains essentially inside capitalism. The social revolution, interpreted as a "radical change", "a decisive leap", etc., is regarded as a spontaneous result of such phenomena in the development of contemporary capitalism, which testify only to the development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism (nationalisation of industries, state programming of production, measures of social manoeuvring, the formal involvement of workers in management, etc.)"'. By this means, socialist revolution is reduced to processes as a result of which the material and technical conditions are created for socialism, it is reduced to social reforms carried out within Ibid. * Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, pp. 52-53. 246 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 247 the framework of capitalist social relations under the control of the bourgeois state. In the second case, the transition to socialism is associated, on the contrary, with certain traits of mature socialist society. They see the criterion for implementing a socialist revolution in such social changes as characteristic of a relatively high degree of development of socialism. Thereby, the boundaries between socialism and capitalism are actually transferred to within socialism. Such an approach is used to denigrate the existing society in socialist states as not being yet socialist, as a society in which a socialist revolution has still to be carried out.* In those circumstances, the revisionists make socialism out to be capitalism. This is the aim of their concepts and theories. It is precisely within the context of that theory, according to its authors, that the problem of the meaning of the socialist revolution must be decided, consisting in overcoming "the power of the substantive world", "the power which, from 217

without, prevails over people and controls them", consisting in "creating the scope for human spontaneity".""* Revisionist ideas concerning the meaning of the socialist revolution as a means of abolishing any power and any state are an eclectical mixture of reformist and anarchist propositions supplemented by the ideas of abstract humanism. Indeed the world today is defined as an epoch "of alienation and total materialism"; its main contradiction is said to be " between the existing world of manipulative organisation and the necessary scope for human spontaneity", while revolution is treated as a rejection "of existing world organisation".*** There is no room here for any reference to the two rival social systems that are contending in the world. Any difference between them is completely erased by phrases about "a world utterly mechanised, organised and automated". The abstract, non-class interpretation of the basic contradiction in the contemporary world leads to just such an abstract, non-class understanding of the task (historical meaning) of a socialist revolution. Where the object of revolutionary negation is taken not as class exploitation but as "the very structure of our world of technology and knowledge", there the subject of that negation is not the class, whose historic task is determined by its economic status, but "any human being who wishes to cast off from within himself and around himself the immense and unbearable pressure of the mechanism of the extremely institutionalised, planned and rationalised world".* Revisionists put forward the idea of "a self-governing society" of an association of free producers as an alternative to "existing world organisation" as an alienated form of being. The meaning of socialist revolution according to this notion, is that it puts a self-governing association in the place of existing state organisation. Thus, the introduction of selfgovernment is regarded as the initial criterion for carrying out a socialist revolution and as the main feature of advance towards socialism. That means that they avoid and ignore the basic feature---from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist theory---of any revolution: the transfer of power from one class to another and, at the same time, the basic feature of socialist revolution: the conversion of the proletariat into the ruling class, the establishment of working-class dictatorship. In associating socialist revolution with the formation of "self-governing society", the revisionists regard the socialist states as having had, at best, a political but not a social revolution. Even the Russian Revolution, in their opinion, is an example of a revolution that has remained at the level of

218

* The Czech philosopher Julius Strinka has demanded the revolutionary abolition of those models of socialism which exist in the USSR and other socialist states. He thinks the first act of revolutionary reform of them should be a radical overhaul of the political structure---abolition of proletarian dictatorship (see J. Strinka, "Misli o democratskom socijalizmu", Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, pp. 254-59) ** Praxis, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 31. *** Ibid., pp. 32-33. Ibid., p. 31. 248 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b> 249 political change. Theoretically, this notion goes to the metaphysical extreme, because self-government is divorced in it from the economic basis corresponding to it. Introduction of ``self-government'', artifically opposed to the institutions of the state, is by no means the main feature and prime task of socialist revolution. That task is the abolition of capitalist ownership as the basis of exploitation and class inequality; this cannot happen without taking state power from the exploiting class. Lenin wrote, ". . .the passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term."* History invariably shows that the path to socialism is opened up by the transfer of political power to the working class, by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The historical meaning of socialist revolution consists in the abolition of the economic and political conditions for class exploitation, in the establishment of a state power capable of ensuring the victory of socialist social relations. Engels once wrote: "All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. 219

But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? . .. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? ``Therefore either one of two things: either the antiauthoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."* This evaluation is completely applicable to the contemporary anti-authoritarians. But their appeal for self-government as the first true sign of socialist revolution has a new sense in contemporary conditions. Certain forms of selfgovernment (as for example, collective agreements, workers' councils) today exist in several capitalist countries. This is admitted by A. Dragicevic, who produces data to show that so-called self-government fits very well into the capitalist system. "In a number of countries", he writes, "such as Burma, Ceylon, the Philippines and New Zealand, one can still speak of the workers gradually coming closer to running factories. Certain other states---Australia, Great Britain, Canada and the USA---provide for the possibility of forming 'mixed production councils' by means of individual agreements between the interested parties. The formation of workers' councils by the conclusion of collective contracts among organisations of engineers---which are class organisations--exist in Denmark, Italy, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland."** The idea of self-government is thus included in the reformist idea of transforming, spontaneously, capitalism into socialism. Indeed, the criterion of socialist revolution is regarded as that which exists (and is even legally introduced!) within the framework of contemporary capitalist regimes. The revisionists take as an essential and specific feature of socialist revoiution that which is compatible with capitalist class exploitation. Genuine socialism, it would seem, is born within present-day capitalist society. If that is the case, then the question of socialist revolution within the latter loses all justification and meaning. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 44; Vol. 28, p. 220

32; Vol. 32, * K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 2, p. 378-79. ** A. Dragicevic, Potrebni rad i visak rada, p. 306. p. 340. 250 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 251 We see that the idea of self-government as the main criterion of socialist revolution also serves to reduce existing socialist society to the level of an exploiting society by its lack of self-government and, simultaneously,.to pass capitalism for socialism, to present the adaptation of contemporary capitalism to new historical circumstances as its transformation into socialism. This notion turns the facts upon their heads; it finds bourgeois society within existing socialism, and socialism within bourgeois society. It advocates the need for socialist revolution in countries which have already had such a revolution and actually denies the need for such revolution in countries where it is knocking at the door. i Being stuck with the opposing of ``etatism'' to "self-government", the revisionists lose real historical perspective, and ability to determine an objective direction of historical process in the labyrinth of contemporary history. Self-government as a special form of social organisation, replacing the state order in a developed, classless society, does not appear out of thin air, it presupposes the existence of conditions which only gradually form in the course of development of communist society. Without that, it either becomes some formal element of social organisation or it is simply unrealisable. Insofar as revisionist advocates of self-government do not demand the abolition of the economic basis of capitalist exploitation, they remain captive to the reformist apology for capitalism.

221

To the extent they talk about real socialist association and deny or keep silent about the conditions which only can make it possible, they remain within the realm of utopia. letariat and the building of socialism. The major proposition of the theory is the thesis according to which the destruction of capitalist exploitation is impossible without revolutionary violence which would deprive the ruling class of economic and political conditions for its domination. At the same time, a paramount feature of the theory is the recognition of the many different ways and means of gaining political power. Marx wrote, ". . .the worker will some day have to win political supremacy... . But we have by no means affirmed that this goal would be achieved by identical means."* In his work "Guerrilla Warfare", Lenin underlines that "Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle"."""" He also appealed for people to approach the question of forms of gaining political power in a historical way, depending on concrete conditions, time and place. The forms of struggle are referred to in the same spirit in the documents of the three International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties and in the programmes of Marxist-Leninist parties. One should add that the founders of Marxism-Leninism, when speaking of the possibility and need for multiple forms of gaining political power, had in mind both a peaceful and a non-peaceful path of socialist revolution which can also take various forms. They conceded the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism through the parliamentary system or otherwise. In the 1870s, Marx and Engels called the British and American working class to gain political power by legal means through universal suffrage, while Lenin in March-June 1917 outlined in Russia the Soviet form of peaceful development of socialist revolution without the use of parliament. He also enthusiastically greeted the attempt by the revolutionary government of Hungary in 1919 to take WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING SOCIALIST REVOLUTION</b> The Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution is a theory of the revolutionary abolition of capitalism during the class struggle, which leads to the dictatorship of the pro* K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 2, p. 292.

222

** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 213. 252 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 253 power peacefully, but also without using parliament. At the same time, Lenin soundly criticised sectarian elements in communist parties for refusing to utilise the bourgeois parliament and electoral campaigns in the interests of the working class.* Before the formation of the world socialist system, however, opportunities for using the parliamentary form for the working class to gain political power were limited, did not exceed the bounds of the struggle for democracy, participation in elections for the bourgeois parliament and activity of workers' factions in that parliament. Only the radical change in the balance of class power in the world and within each capitalist country since the last war has opened up that possibility, as mentioned at the 20th CPSU Congress and the 1957 and 1960 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties. They made the point that the sphere of using the parliamentary form not only has immeasurably widened, but it also has a qualitatively new content; it may be used both at the democratic and at the socialist stage of the struggle for power. Accordingly, a number of communist parties, like those in the USA, Britain, France and Italy, have produced programmes for a peaceful transition to socialism in which they regard the parliamentary form of the working class gaining political power as the most probable form in their conditioins. The communist parties of these countries believe that the working class, at a given stage, can and must, relying on the mass revolutionary movement, win a solid majority in parliament and turn it from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a weapon of genuinely popular power, create conditions on that basis to ensure the implementation of radical social change. Right-wing revisionists approach in an absolute and metaphysical way the historical facts on which the international communist movement revealed the extensive possibility for using parliament as a form of implementing socialist revolution; they therefore reject the idea of revolutionary violence 223

in the transition from capitalism to socialism. They try mainly to show its absolute inapplicability to the contemporary situation in capitalist states. They prescribe for the labour movement a path without a violent revolution, which they present as the only real way today to move from capitalism to socialism. In their opinion, the present-day labour movement may be only a reformist movement, while present-day workers' parties are only parties of reform implemented through the bourgeois states machine. The fact that communist and workers' parties recognise the possibility of peaceful transition to socialism is interpreted as confirmation that only the reformist path corresponds to the essence of contemporary capitalism to which the labour movement is obliged to adapt itself. The recognition of the right to use political coercion in regard to exploiters---a point that is retained in the communist and workers' party programmes--is regarded as a dogmatic survival of Marxist theory. The Right-wing revisionists ignore the vital circumstance that imperialists can attempt to retrieve lost positions, can use military means on a national and an international scale, can organise counter-revolutionary coups, as happened in Chile in 1973 where the people completely supported the government of Left-wing forces that had taken the anticapitalist path. In such circumstances, revolution which began with the peaceful use of parliament is obliged to resort to force against counter-revolution, otherwise it will inevitably fail. In orientating the revolutionary masses only to a peaceful, parliamentary, transition to socialism, the revisionists are acting as dogmatists in theory and capitulators in politics. If the socialist forces were to accept the notion of "an exclusively peaceful" revolution, they would be unprepared to use other, non-parliamentary forms of the peaceful seizure of power and armed struggle where the need arises. They may forfeit the chance of using a revolutionary situation and be unable to take vigorous action at a decisive moment when * See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 56-65. 254 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 255

224

it becomes possible to take power/^^1^^" That is why MarxistLeninist parties in capitalist states have taken a line of peaceful---by using parliament---transition to socialism and firmly reject any outright opposition of peaceful to non-peaceful development of revolutionary struggle, one form of gaining power to another. They create conditions favourable to peaceful parliamentary transition and are, at the same time, concerned to prepare the workers and other socialist forces for "the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another".** At the same time, the revisionist theory of "exclusively peaceful" or ``white'' revolution is interpreted.by its authors as seizing power only "from above". They make a fetish of the bourgeois-democratic parliament and its rules of the game, believing that it is sufficient, in carrying out revolution, to win elections and gain a parliamentary majority. Following the example of Right-wing socialists, they confine the parliamentary form of peaceful transition to socialism to a struggle around electoral manifestos and inner-parliamentary lobbying and reject the need for a simultaneous, extraparliamentary, extensive mass struggle. The revisionists even do not concede the need to create a superiority of revolutionary forces over the forces of reaction and counterrevolution; they ignore the need for the working class primarily to gain a parliamentary majority and to consolidate around itself the wide sections of working people on the basis of which it would attain both a numerical superiority of revolutionary forces in parliament and a mutual understanding and co-operation with political forces capable of safeguarding the implementation of socialist measures. Finally, the greatest sin of the revisionist theory is that it proceeds from the idea of identifying revolutionary coercion with armed revolution. Consequently, the peaceful, parliamentary path is interpreted in a typically reformist manner and objectively is calculated only to bring "the partial patching up of the doomed regime with the object of dividing and weakening the working class, and of maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie, versus the revolutionary overthrow of that rule".* The thesis of peaceful transition to socialism is opposed to the ``inherited'' Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution; it demands a revision of all its basic propositions. It opposes especially the idea that socialist revolution begins in the absence of ready-made forms of a socialist regime---socialist 225

social relations. Branko Pribicevic, for example, writes, "I am convinced that this proposition of the inherited theory is completely incompatible with the notion of peaceful means. If the peaceful path means anything at all, it presupposes precisely that dialectical process of gradual yet constant penetration of elements of the new, socialist society into the fabric---i.e., structure, of the old capitalist society.""""" From that viewpoint, the peaceful path is nothing more than the spontaneous transformation of capitalism, the growing oi capitalism into socialism, a process during which capitalist relations of production gradually die and are replaced by socialist. As an example proving that this process is actually taking place before our eyes, the revisionists point to the creation and legal introduction of workers' councils at capitalist factories. These councils are regarded as genuine shoots of socialism that arise in the soil of capitalism and obviously reject the ``inherited'' thesis of the impossibility of a spontaneous emergence of the socialist social formation. Another proposition re-examined by revisionists in the light of the peaceful-path conception is that of the need to smash the bourgeois state machine. "The idea of the peaceful path", we read, "is incompatible with the inherited idea that there is no possibility of the working class using the bourgeois * See F. Puja, Egyseg es vita a nemzetkozi kommunista mozgalomban, Budapest, 1969. *&raquo; V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 96. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 262. ** Marks i savremenost, No. 2, 1964, p. 402. 256 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION state apparatus in the process of socialist change. This idea questions the inherited thesis that the first act of socialist revolution must be the smashing and destruction of the existing state structure and mechanism."* The peaceful path, therefore, signifies a transition to socialism via the mechanism of bourgeois democracy, through steady peaceful and `` legitimate'' pressure on the bourgeois state apparatus and its utilisation for carrying out socialist changes. It is not hard to see that the idea of a peaceful path in such 226

an interpretation is akin to the bourgeois-reformist (and Right-wing socialist) theory of ``transformation'' spear-headed against the main aspect of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution---the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin, relying on the rich experience of the international labour movement, emphasised that recognition of proletarian dictatorship was the touchstone on which one could test loyalty to revolutionary Marxism and the difference between a revolutionary and a reformist position. The revisionists diverge from a revolutionary position when they oppose proletarian dictatorship to bourgeois democracy as a weapon of socialist transformation of society. The slogan of " resounding criticism" gives way to Utopian ideas concerning the need to prevent political violence and the use of legality and ban on illegality. They advocate, as the best means of reaching socialism, the retention of the bourgeois state apparatus and subordination to it---not its destruction. "The very act of abolishing the existing state apparatus is a vivid example of political violence. I would stress that the inherited theory referred not to a change in the character of the existing state but exclusively insisted on terms implying direct coercive acts of smashing the state apparatus. In actual fact, this act of destruction is an essential feature of the violent social revolutions that have taken place up to now."** In the first place, the ``inherited'' theory talks about "a change in the character of the existing state", a radical * Marks i sovremenost, No. 2, 1964, p. 402. ** Ibid. change in its class nature associated with its conversion from a weapon of the exploiting minority into a weapon of the labouring majority. In the second place, destruction of the old state apparatus is actually an essential characteristic, an irrefutable law confirmed by all socialist revolutions that have taken place. The terrible tragedy of Chile would have been impossible if the Popular Government of President Allende had reorganised the army in time and reconstructed the state apparatus on revolutionary principles and put them to the service of the people. Of course, the need to destroy the bourgeois state machine does not mean that the means, forms and terms of destruction are always and everywhere the same. Different parts of the bourgeois state are destroyed in different ways. What must be utterly destroyed, as Lenin pointed out, is particularly the "coercive apparatus", those of its links which most 227

of all involve the functions of social violence. Other forms and terms must be employed in regard to parts of "the mechanism of social and economic planning". Lenin wrote, "It must be wrested from the control of the capitalists; the capitalists and the wires they pull must be cut off, lopped off, chopped away from this apparatus; it must be subordinated to the proletarian Soviets; it must be expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide."* Contemporary revisionists attempt to justify arguments taken from the ideological store of anarchists, followers of Bernstein and Kautsky, present-day bourgeois and, particularly, Right-wing socialist ideologists in rejecting the need to establish proletarian dictatorship and destroying the bourgeois state machine. They maintain that "any power is infectious", that it "is open to abuse here, there, and everywhere", and therefore it is stupid for revolutionary forces to suffer immense casualties in fighting to overthrow the contemporary capitalist system of power and to establish proletarian dictatorship: it would not bring any decisive * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 107. 17-2332 258 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 259 changes.* A great deal of attention is here paid to falsifying the nature of the political system in the USSR and other socialist states where, the revisionists claim, "an administrative and bureaucratic centralist dictatorship rules".** The Right-wing revisionists justify their rejection of destruction of the bourgeois state machine and establishment of proletarian dictatorship by references to changes in historical conditions. They say that, nowadays, institutions coordinating economic activity have appeared in the advanced capitalist countries alongside the organs of direct class repression and military-bureaucratic apparatus. Many of its institutions are concerned with social issues, education, health and social security, etc., and they are said to testify to the ``above-class'' nature of the modern capitalist state which, as, for example, Franz Marek has written, can gradually 228

become a means of liberation from being a means of repression.*** Having taken upon themselves the role of apologists for the modern bourgeois state, the revisionists do not notice that within it, alongside the rapid development of state administrative links, there is taking place a steady consolidation of the military-bureaucratic machine and repressive apparatus designed to put down actions of working people and to launch counter-revolutionary actions---as the experience of recent decades has shown. The main characteristic of the present world situation is the immense growth of wide-ranging democratic movements, which are a direct response to the reactionary home and foreign policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie. In a situation where the ruling big-monopoly bourgeoisie is increasingly rejecting democratic methods openly, the demand for democratic liberties is becoming an important form of the fight against imperialism. An objective opportunity is forming ior uniting all anti-monopoly forces in a militant alliance against monopoly oligarchy. Conditions are being created for an even closer alliance of democratic and socialist objectives and for extending the social basis of socialist revolution. The enhanced role of the campaign for democracy in the present situation, however, does not mean that the democratic movements in capitalist states constitute a struggle for socialism or that the apparatus of bourgeois democracy can be an instrument for building a socialist society. Despite the great significance which the campaign for democracy is today aquiring in uniting all Left-wing forces in a united antimonopoly front, it nonetheless cannot provide anything more than the creation of conditions for a subsequent transition to socialism; it retains significance as an important approach to socialist revolution, but is not that revolution itself. The apologetic attitude of revisionists to bourgeois democracy is expressed in the notion which opposes political revolution to social revolution and the claim to resurrect the Marxist distinction between political and human emancipation. Marx did distinguish political emancipation, being confined to the winning of political liberties within the framework of bourgeois social relations, on the one hand, and general human emancipation which eliminates the economic basis for exploitation, on the other. It does not follow that human emancipation (socialist revolution) is possible without destroying the political-power apparatus of the ruling class, 229

without establishing the dictatorship of the working class. The revisionists make precisely this conclusion in direct contradiction to Marx and the revolutionary experience of the proletariat. In a metaphysical manner, they divorce and oppose the political and social aspects of revolution. They use ``political'' as a synonym for ``bourgeois'' and ``alienated'', * See E. Fischer, Erinnerungen und Reflexionen, Hamburg, 1970; F. Marek, Was Stalin wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1970; E. Loebl, L. Griinwald, Die intellektualle Revolution, Vienna, 1969. ** R. Garaudy, "Stalin in der K.P.F.", Neues Forum, No. 194/11, midFebruary 1970, p. 145; E. Fischer, Erinnerungen und Reflexionen, p. 466. *** See F. Marek, Philosophic der Weltrevolution, 1966; E. Fischer, F. Marek, Was Lenin wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1969; E. Fischer, Was Marx wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1968. 17*</b> 260 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 261 as that which contradicts the essence of socialist revolution; that means it cannot be a weapon for achieving it. From that standpoint, socialist revolution must begin not with the seizure of power, but with rejection of seizing power, with the abolition of whatever power exists: "in the opposite situation, we find ourselves in a vicious circle of (more of less) democracy and, consequently, we are always within a certain political system in which, ultimately, it does not matter who is in power, because political power has its own inherent logic (which has become the logic of the present world and its basis), bringing us always to one and the same result, the dehumanising of man".* If one permits a " political act", its significance is exclusively confined to a destructive function. M. 2ivotic writes that "for Marx, the socialist revolution is a political act only insofar as it destroys the past. Where the construction of socialism begins, 230

socialism casts off the political attire".** In fact, according to Marx, Lenin and the historical experience of building socialism, the working class needs political power not simply for destroying the old system but also for creating the economic basis and strengthening and developing the social relations of the new society. On this issue, too, the gulf between revisionist and scientific theories of revolution has its methodological correlation to the replacement of dialectics by metaphysics. In this case, it appears in an extremely one-sided and abstract approach to the state institution, in an inability to understand the dialectics of the old form and the new content in the revolutionary process of the emergence of the new social system. Lenin wrote, " Socialism leads to the withering away of every state, consequently also of every democracy, but socialism can be implemented only through the dictatorship of the proletariat."""** The pretentious and maximalist reasoning by the principle "all or nothing" (either socialism without politics or * Filosofija, No. 2, 1969, p. 19. ** Filosofija, No. 1-2, 1968, p. 118. *** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 25. politics without socialism) is only another version of the notion of the spontaneous appearance of socialism, since the transfer of politics beyond socialist revolution deprives it of political conditions for its implementation. It perpetrates the idea that it is possible to start building socialism without corresponding political changes. The old-style revisionist economism and the new-style revisionist ``revolutionary'' humanism joined forces in absolutising the evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. REJECTION OF THE LEADING ROLE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY IN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION The leading role of the communist party in socialist revolution comes naturally from the leading role of the working class in the revolutionary process, as scientifically established by Marxism-Leninism. As Marx and Engels wrote in the rules of the International Workers' Association, "the proletariat can act as a class only when organised in a political party opposed to all old parties created by the propertied classes.

231

``This organisation of the working class in a political party is necessary to ensure the victory of social revolution and the attainment of its final objective---the destruction of classes".* The working class and all revolutionary forces need the communist party as the carrier of scientific theory without which it is impossible to comprehend the laws of social development and the ways and means of socialist revolution, and to ensure its victory. The party is the supreme form of class organisation of the working class fulfilling in the revolution the functions of direct political educator and organiser of the people. It selects, teaches and enlightens the main personnel of the revolution, it organises the economic and po* See Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Werke, Bd. 18, S. 168. 262 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 263 litical struggle of the working class, enlightens and unites it, secures its unity in revolutionary struggle and its alliance with the peasants and other democratic forces and parties. It is the main ideological, political and organisational centre of socialist revolution. To deny it the leading role is to decapitate the socialist revolution. The leading role of the communist party is evident not only in the period of seizing political power, but also during the establishment of proletarian dictatorship and the building of socialist society. As long as class differences and the proletarian state exist, the leading role of the communist party is natural and it inevitably has a political character. The party controls social processes through state bodies and such organisations as trade unions, the Young Communist League, etc. It is a supreme social and political organisation but not a state body. There are very important differences between the ways and means of the activity of the socialist state, on the one hand, and the party, on the other. It exerts an influence not by replacing state bodies but through the Communists who work within them. The party selects, allocates and educates personnel; its main method is persuasion.

232

How do the Right-wing revisionists see the role for the party in socialist revolution? According to Fischer, the communist parties in capitalist states "are outmoded in form and type" because they do not correspond to existing circumstances and therefore "parties of a new type"---" intellectual and militant associations"* need to be created. As proof of this, he gives two related reasons. The first is that the Marxist-Leninist teaching about the party, by which Communists are guided today, reflects the specific situation and national conditions primarily of tsarist Russia and the USSR when it was building socialism. Behind the second idea is the theory of the so-called intellectual revolution. As Garaudy, Fischer, Loebl and Griinwald maintain, "the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is no longer the only decisive problem": the working class has become bourgeoisified and ``deproletarised'', and sees its aim now solely in "attaining a high standard of living", and the intellectuals have become the ``prime'' force in society. As a result, the social basis of the present-day revolutionary movement is now the "new historical bloc" headed by the intellectuals* which does not need modern communist parties--not an alliance of working people under the leadership of the working class. These updated ideas are essentially a simple rehash of the ideas of the revisionists of the 1950s and of the Frankfurt school of sociologists, Marcuse and others who falsify, from a typically technocratic position, the processes at work in the social structure of capitalism.** The revisionists ignore the fact that the need for and the principles of organisation of a communist party are determined by the conditions of class struggle that are common and essential for all countries, by the common ultimate objectives and philosophy of the parties. If the working class remains the decisive force for destroying capitalism, its leader in the period of socialist revolution can only be its advanced section---the Marxist-Leninist Communist party. Present-day revisionists are, in fact, advocating the disbandment of communist parties. Their proposals to transform Marxist-Leninist organisations into "intellectual and militant associations" are essentially aimed at turning these organisations into a variant of modern Right-wing socialist parties. That would be the inevitable outcome of a change in the organisational and ideological basis which the revisionists propose making to communist parties. In fact, Garaudy, Fischer and the others put as a basic principle of the ideological activity of their intellectual and militant associa* "Stern-Interview mit dem Marxisten Ernst Fischer", Stern, No 49, 1969, p. 144.

233

* E. Loebl, L. Griinwald, Die Intellektualle Revolution, Vienna, 1969, p. 95. ** See Chapter 8 above. 264 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 265 tions, the idea of ``pluralism''^^5^^'", an idea which, under the guise of "philosophical neutrality" is proposed by Right-wing socialist parties and represents nothing more than a path to imposing on the labour movement bourgeois and socialdemocratic stereotypes and prejudices. In accordance with this principle, the revisionists demand an end to "unity of politics and philosophy", reject "official philosophy"---i.e., dialectical and historical materialism""'^^1^^" and even organise "a fruitful collaboration" with other ideological schools, such as with Christianity which, in the words of the Italian revisionist Lucio Radice, has now acquired a special character and is no longer the "opium of the people".""** They are therefore in favour of turning communist parties into discussion clubs where there is no place for a common revolutionary theory---the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The slogan of "an end to ideology" is meant to pave the way for the penetration of the communist parties by all manner of bourgeois theories and to deprive them of any opportunity of building their tactics and strategy on a scientific basis. In regard to the organisational principles of the party, present-day revisionists are trying to damage the main organisational principle of communist parties---democratic centralism. According to Garaudy, this principle has a mechanical character, "equivalent to bureaucratic centralism" which is applicable only in Russian conditions, and does not at all suit contemporary circumstances which require " computer methods" that presuppose "free competition of methods and the permitting of any factions".**** The revisionists first and foremost replace ideas, portraying factional struggle as a democratic principle directed against "bureaucratic centralism". In fact, the centralising principle presupposes rather then negates the need for democ* R. Garaudy, "Stalin in der K.P.F.," Neues Forum, No. 234

194/11, 1970, pp. 146-47; E. Fischer, Erinnerungen and Reflexionen, pp. 14-15. ** R. Garaudy, op. cit, pp. 146-47. *** Weg und Ziel, No. 1, January 1967, p. 13. **** R. Garaudy, op. cit., pp. 146-47, racy in the party. The metaphysical approach to the relationship between centralised and democratic principles, which form a dialectical unity, lies behind the theoretical ideas of the revisionists. The correlation of democracy and centralism in the activity of a revolutionary organisation cannot remain unchanged at different stages of its struggle; in different periods, different aspects of that unity can take on a different role. But the "computer method" suggested by the revisionists rejects, in effect, the dialectical unity of centralism and democracy, opens up scope for petty-bourgeois anarchy and adventurism and deprives the working class of its only weapon in the class struggle---political organisation, without which its victory over capitalism would be impossible. Revisionists ignore the fact that "the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become its genuine 'class struggle' until this struggle is led by a strong organisation of revolutionaries".* Instead of unity against the common foe, they propose to the working class a factional struggle between various groupings within the party, in order to divide its ranks and the international communist movement. Such a party would be unable to lead the working class and unite it and around it the wide groups of working people in the struggle against capitalism. Thus, the revisionist ideas pervert the main aspects of Marxist-Leninist teaching in regard to the party and are essentially directed at decapitating the working class in the face of imperialist forces at the most responsible period of its struggle---in the period of open clash with the class enemy. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 475. CHAPTER 10 THE IDEOLOGICAL SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM</b> AND THE BOURGEOIS THEORIES OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND STAGES OF GROWTH</b> SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES

235

267 the US include Jessie Bernard, Wilbert Moore, Bert Hoselizt, Arnold Feldman, Clark Kerr, Seymour Lipset, Alex Inkeles, Daniel Bell and John K. Galbraith, in France, F. Perroux, Raymond Aron; and, in West Germany, Willy Strzelewicz and Ernst Richert. The basic premise of the bourgeois theory is that the future of mankind belongs not to capitalism or to communism but to "a single industrial society''. Scientific and technological progress is said to be the motive force of society; it is that which puts capitalism on a level with socialism. "To what extent," Aron asks, "can relations of production and social organisations vary in the same forces of production (and the forces of production, science and technology resemble one another more or less in all advanced societies)?."* He tries to show that higher labour productivity, rationalised machinery and improved production organisation ``automatically'' erode class differences within "Western industrial society". As a result, differences with "the other, Soviet type of industrial society" are reduced "merely to nuances". Inasmuch as scientific progress spontaneously transforms social life in all existing societies, the question of social revolution automatically disappears of its own accord---such is the end argument of the "single industrial society" theorists. As a result of the establishment of a new industrial state, writes Galbraith, "everything on which the revolution seemed to depend, and even the revolution itself, has disintegrated. Nor even academic disputation can easily survive such erosion".''^^1^^""' This theory which claims "to provide a comprehensive description of contemporary social development" is merely an attempt to create an alternative to the Marxist idea of prospects for social development. Right-wing revisionists have taken up the ideas of this theory and advertise them as the last word in contemporary * R. Aron, Les disillusions du progres. Essai sur la dialectique de la modernite, Paris, 1969, p. 251. ** J. K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, Boston, 1967, p. 290. Bourgeois ideologists today bring to the forefront ideas and notions of a ``technological'' kind, which explain social 236

phenomena in terms of scientific progress and which base such notions of "the computer age" or the "technotronic age" by which they understand "an age in which technology and especially electronics ... are increasingly becoming the principal determinants of social change".* These ideas ultimately serve the purpose of upholding capitalist society and proving that social revolution is not needed. At the same time, they direct their fire against socialist society, try to show it as being eroded and to turn people against it. The defence of capitalism and active against socialism is the aim of bourgeois industrial society and stages of economic have been praised by the revisionists and last word in the social sciences, a "more of social problems than Marxism-Leninism. THE THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY</b> The theory of industrial society has many versions: " industrial society", a "single industrial society", a "new industrial society" and "post-industrial society". Its advocates in * Z. Brzezinski, Between Two Ages. Americas Role in the Technotronic Era, New York, 1970, p. XIV. 268 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 269 sociology. Starting from 1956-1959, the revisionists have been energetically propagating the idea that contemporary Western society is not like the capitalism described by Marx but is an "industrial society" with a ``new'' social structure, a ``new'' democracy and ``new'' forces of social development. At that time, these ideas were put about in the United States by John Gates, John Clark, Alexander Bittelman, Ann Levine and Paul Robertson; in Britain, by P. Cadogan, C. Hill, and Marshall McLuhan; in Canada, by Y. B. Salsberg, Harry Binder, Stewart Smith; in France, by Pierre Herve, Henri Lefebvre, Lucien Laurat; in Italy, by Antonio Giolitti, Eugenio Reale, Cesarini; and, in Denmark, by Aksel Larsen. They were supported by Kolakowski, Bauman and several others. ideological struggle theories of growth. Many of these declared to be the scientific" resolution

237

The logical scheme of these revisionist ideas boils down to the following: in Europe and the US, the labour movement is faced by "new types" of social structure which is becoming increasingly difficult to define as ``capitalist''. The working class and the bourgeoisie are beginning to disintegrate. An increasing number of workers are becoming pseudo-proletarians because, in the new circumstances, they depend not on private owners but on joint-stock companies or state organisations. Because of this, today, proletarian dictatorship is becoming impossible due to the absence of the proletariat. As far as capitalists are concerned, they would seem to be becoming semi-workers by virtue of the preponderence of "organised capital" and "capitalism regulated by the government". Thus, they conclude that society has entered a period when all are becoming hired workers. During the 1950s Communist Party Congresses and the communist press exposed the methodological and political lack of substance in these revisionist notions. The fight against revisionism produced favourable results. Comrades who had been led astray renounced their support for the revisionists. Certain prominent philosophers, sociologists and economists in Hungary, Poland, the GDR and other socialist states openly disowned their former revisionist ideas. Communist parties expelled those members who stubbornly stuck by their revisionist views. Such people included Zimand in Poland; Gates, Clark and Bittelman in the US; Laurat and Lefebvre in France; Giolitti in Italy; Salsberg, Livshits, Binder and Smith in Canada; and Larsen in Denmark. During the 1960s for various reasons revisionist trends again came alive. The editorial board of Praxis showed a great deal of energy in propagating the idea of a single industrial society. The magazine often published articles both of current Rightwing revisionists and of renegades like Lefebvre. Under the banner of ``improving'' Marxism and "correcting mistakes made by socialist states", the magazine, as the Yugoslav press noted, criticised Marxist philosophy, the policy of the socialist states and socialism as a social system, advocating the theory of a single industrial society. The merging of Right-wing revisionist ideas with the theory of the single industrial society is also taking place on the question of evaluating the part played by technology in social and human development. Aron, for example, maintains that social differences of capitalism and socialism are 238

fading away at a time when "the forces of production, science and technology resemble one another more or less in all advanced societies".^^51^^" In like manner, several philosophers and sociologists ignore the relations of production and ascribe all changes in society directly to scientific progress, attempting to show that the on-going scientific and technological revolution inevitably brings capitalism and socialism to a society of one and the same type---to an industrial society. Rudi Supek, editor-in-chief of Praxis, devoted his article "Technocratic Scientism and Socialist Humanism"** to explaining that view. Like Aron and other proponents of the industrial society theory, Supek absolutises the role of tech* R. Aron, op cit., p. 251. ** Praxis, No. 2, 1967. 270 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES nology in social development and, on that basis, replaces social revolution by the scientific revolution. It would seem technology itself is the decisive factor in economic and other attainments of a country rather than the nature of the social and economic system, on which to a great extent depend the rate and direction of technological progress.* The philosophy of Supek and other revisionists who share his view is simply an economic materialism or vulgar sociological Utopia which creates the illusion that it is possible to transform social life under the direct effect of technology, irrespective of social relations. In the illusory world of Supek, scientific progress directly "transforms social life, social organisation of production, control of public affairs, and introduces radical changes into the organisation and structure of society, even altering the very essence of man".** That interpretation leaves no place for the mode of production, or socio-economic relations among people which constitute the basis of all other relations between them. All changes occur just as Bell explains: the old industrial society is being replaced by a new post-industrial society in which the leading figures are not businessmen, entrepreneurs, or managers, but scientists, mathematicians, economists, sociologists, practitioners of the new intellectual technology.*** 239

In the opinion of Praxis authors, it is scientific progress rather than socialist revolution which creates conditions for "man to think more about himself and about his being, to ask questions concerning his actions in conformity with his feelings and in unison with his existence".**** In brief, the radical transformation of society, all freedoms and benefits, which only socialist revolution can bring mankind, will be given, it is said, by the scientific and not the socialist revo* See Praxis, No. 2, 1967, p. 164. ** Ibid., p. 156. *** See D. Bell, "Notes on the Post-Industrial Society", The Public Interest, No. 6, 1967. Praxis, No. 2, 1967, p. 174. lution. The entire notion is subordinate to the single conclusion that it is not necessary to have a socialist revolution in the capitalist countries. A direct link with the bourgeois theory of industrial society is evident. Aron affirms that "the revolution of which Marx spoke is behind us" because technology has transformed capitalism into a new society.* In the same way, Supek has said that "the domination of science and technology also signifies mass production and mass consumption, the creation of an affluent society and affluent state, it inevitably carries out the changes in social relations and way of life which easily overcome the antagonism hitherto existing between capitalism and socialism which is outmoded because it was founded on traditional social relations and forces of production; it replaces them with a new society which is 'neither capitalist nor socialist' and is called for the time being by us merely "industrial society' ".** IDEOLOGICAL SIMILARITY</b> OF REVISIONISM AND THE BOURGEOIS THEORY OF STAGES OF GROWTH</b> The stages-of-growth theory, invented among others by the American sociologist Walt Rostow, appears to be just as popular to Right-wing revisionists, due both to its ``novelty'' and to its ``argumentation''. The stages-of-growth theory appeared at the end of the 1950s and acquired wide-scale popularity in the 1960s as an alternative to the Marxist-Leninist theory of social 240

development. The theory is extensively explained in Rostow's book The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto. Many ideologists of imperialism have spoken up in favour of it; they include S. Lipset, Max F. Millikan, Adolf A. Berle, Arnold S. Feldman, L. Gordon, F. Bator in the US, R. Aron in France and Boris Meissner in West Germany. * R. Aron, Les disillusions dw progres, pp. 30-31, 45, 340. ** Praxis, No. 2, pp. 156-57. 272 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 273 From the theoretical viewpoint, the scheme of Rostow and his supporters is an extremely one-sided and vulgar approach to an understanding of social development and the stages through which it passes. Rostow looks at historical process from an economic position and reduces the economy to a sum of technological and economic indices and, at the same time, ignores the socio-economic aspects of social development: relations of production, form of ownership, sources of exploitation of the working class under capitalism, social antagonisms and class struggle. Rostow divides historical process into five stages which he opposes to socio-economic formations. In the movement of society from stage to stage, Rostow maintains, ``choice'' plays its own decisive role, alongside technology and the forces of production: ".. .modern history can be viewed as the consequence of choices made by various societies at various stages of growth."* The foundation of his theoretical postulates, used for the purpose of refuting the ideas of Marx and Engels on the determining role of the mode of production in social development, consists of a combination of vulgar economism, subjectivism and voluntarism. The major function of the stages-of-growth theory is to reject the objective inevitability of the demise of capitalism, the law-governed emergence of the world socialist system. In a concentrated form, this is expressed in the muted assertions of its proponents that socialism and communism personify a ``by-product'' of social development at "the lower" stages of society and must disappear in the course of social progress.

241

The advocacy of such ideas is indivisible from glorifying state-monopoly capitalism to which is attributed an imaginary ability to obviate bourgeois society of its social contradictions and conflicts. Being an obvious embodiment of an apology for state-monopoly capitalism and anti-communism, the theory of ``stages'' becomes a compass for revisionist notions on such issues of social development as an analysis of state-monopoly capitalism and its place in history, and is even applied to an understanding of the essence of socialism and its criteria. The views of the Austrian revisionists Fischer and Marek, although they still subscribe to Marxism, are evolving essentially in the direction of that theory. A hostile attitude to Leninism plays a key part in bringing together the ideological views of Fisher and Marek with those of the advocates of the stages-of-growth theory on the vital issues of contemporary social development. Rostow's opposing of Lenin to Marx serves as the basis for combatting scientific communism. His ideas concerning "political determinism" serve that purpose when he distinguishes Leninism from the teaching of Marx to whom he ascribes the principle of "economic determinism"/" On a similar platform, Fischer and Marek become essentially carriers of frankly bourgeois views on the key questions of contemporary social development. In a bourgeois spirit, they interpret, for example, the development of statemonopoly capitalism. The scientific revolution expresses, according to Fischer, the crux of contemporary social development; it has also embraced the capitalist system and has set it serious problems. Although, "given its present structure", the capitalist system cannot cope with the problems of the scientific revolution and the bourgeoisie does not show itself ready to take the initiative in carrying out "structural changes", they must be realised "by the masses of people engaged in hired labour". The latter once again realise that they are living in a capitalist "consumer society"' and "have a great deal to lose". The forces of production of our epoch, in Fischer's opinion, in one way or another will attain "social structures that corLife, April 11, 1960, p. 78. * W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, 1960, pp. 160-61. is---23S2 242

274 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 275 respond to them", either ``gradually'' or in a "leap-like way", insofar as they are becoming "prerequisities of socialism" in their development/^^1^^" The ideas of Marek do not differ in principle from those of Fischer. Marek notes the growing intervention of the imperialist state in the economy, attempts by it to control production and investment and to carry out "anti-crisis measures''. As soon as the need arises to give a class judgement on these phenomena, Marek takes a social-democratic attitude and maintains that the development of state-monopoly capitalism leads to the formation of a system of state ownership where capitalist relations have been excluded and are being excluded, that a completely new situation is forming in the advanced capitalist states.""* Speaking about the growing intervention of the bourgeois state in the economy and other social spheres, he creates the impression that the state is some sort of neutral body which shows concern not for the interests of the ruling class but for some kind of non-class "social interests". He says that state intervention results in ``weakening'' and "toning down" the contradictions of state-monopoly capitalism. The ignoring of objective contradictions inherent in contemporary capitalism and their worsening, resulting in a stronger class struggle, detracts the labour movement from real-life problems and sows dangerous illusions in it. According to Marek, for example, modern capitalism is a " welfare state" and a "consumer society". Of course, he does not hold the patent on apologetics for contemporary capitalism by such definitions; that belongs to bourgeois sociologists, particularly the stages-of-growth theoreticians, and to Rightwing socialists who have long been using them in their lexicon. It is hardly surprising that Marek should take up a position as a bourgeois apologist for state-monopoly capitalism. In upholding his viewpoint, he maintains, for example, that economic development in conditions of present-day 243

capitalism is free from "essential irregularities and signs of crisis" and is not accompanied by "greater impoverishment of the masses''. These arguments are not new. Bernstein used them and Right-wing social democrats and bourgeois sociologists today also refer to them. Proceeding from bourgeois and reformist evalutations of contemporary capitalism, Marek distorts the genuine prospects for socialist revolution: ".. .in advanced capitalist states which possess firm democratic and parliamentary traditions, socialist revolution will occur in a different way." It will occur, in his words, if the wide masses of people become convinced that revolution will remove private capital and lead to an extension of "existing democratic liberties" and that it will "decisively extend the sphere of democracy". One might think that until now socialist revolution had not led to an extension of democracy, that in socialist states there is less democracy than in capitalist countries. It would seem that Marek associates the realisation of socialist ideas in advanced capitalist states mainly with the attainment "of higher human values": a better system of education, higher morals, enhanced quality of human life and the development of democracy. The adoption of Soviet experience by other countries, in his assertion, "undermined the attractiveness of socialist ideas" and, consequently, precludes the possibility of using it in the future. Here is the essence of Marek's ideas which provide enough material to conclude that he has quite deserted from Marxism-Leninism and has taken up a Right-wing social democratic position. How does Marek see the transition from capitalism to socialism and its motive forces? Since the striving for socialism, in his words, cannot draw strength from the in* Wiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1970, pp. 5-6. ** See Philosophy of World Revolution. A Contribution to an Anthology of Theories of Revolution, New York, 1968. 18* 276 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES

244

277 creased impoverishment and inhuman conditions, then in the advanced capitalist countries "a breach in the desire for socialist changes is only possible from a striving for a maximum of human dignity, a maximum of personal happiness, a maximum of information and also a maximum of guarantees and control over those factories of opinion which manipulate us"." It would appear that the struggle of the working class and its allies opposing the oppression of capital has no economic foundation and is waged not for the sake of attaining the main goal---socialism, but for the sake of attaining aims that exist in general in certain peripheral spheres. This approach means a demotion, if .not a complete rejection, of the tasks of the class struggle of the proletariat. It means direct rejection of the economic basis for socialist revolution, because socialist society as the alternative to capitalism is pictured predominently in the theoretical plane. The social meaning of Marek's idea is that it represents a rejection of the class struggle and its role in the developments of capitalist society. On a theoretical level, it leads to a distortion of the basic tenets of materialist dialectics and thus idealism, which is apparent in the highlighting of motives for human activity and a scornful attitude to objective laws of social development. He puts at the back of his interpretation of motives false preconditions which affect their one-sided and, consequently, incorrect judgement. One should not be surprised, therefore, that behind the revisionist evaluation of state-monopoly capitalism lies the assertion that monopoly capitalism is an "affluent society" or a "consumer society''. These ideas began to be popular in the US at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s. It is not hard to appreciate their worth when you put them beside the admission by John F. Kennedy that the US had seventy million needy people. In the years to follow, nothing changed for the better; on the contrary, social contradictions in American society worsened and became more acute. That is typical of all advanced capitalist countries. Can one therefore take seriously the conclusions of Fischer and Marek about the lack of an economic interest in the working class for getting rid of monopoly capital? The similarity of the ideological views of revisionists and bourgeois proponents of the stages-of-growth theory is apparent on various levels.

245

First, the rejection by Fischer and Marek of materialist dialectics and objective social laws, wrapped up in Marxian terminology, causes them to emasculate the very concept of "social development", to replace it by the nebulous category of "economic growth" associated only with technological and economic factors. Second, the tendency to clamp down social development within the framework of "economic growth" is accompanied by the acceptance of the basic principle of the stages-ofgrowth theory, according to which "economic growth" is ultimately motivated by human behaviour. Hence the descent of Fischer and Marek to a position of a subjective and idealist conception of history. Third, they tend to follow bourgeois ideologists in rejecting the historical necessity for proletarian revolution and the transfer of society from capitalism to socialism. Both they and bourgeois ideologists proceed from a one-sided evaluation of the motives for human activity in present-day capitalist society. The difference lies only in the fact that bourgeois ideologists reject any idea about transition to socialism, while revisionists reduce in words the historical need for socialism to a need determined only by the requirements of people's cultural life. Fourth, Fischer and Marek took from the stages-of-growth theory the notion that "economic growth" leads to "consumer society"---its supreme and final ``stage''. Like the imperialist ideologists, the revisionists effectively make state-monopoly capitalism equal to that last ``stage''. They all give monopoly capitalism the quality of gradually being able to elim* Wiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 34. 278 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 279 inate human exploitation and, thereby, the economic basis for class struggle. Fifth, the coming together of the revisionists and stagesof-growth theoreticians shows in attempts to make anti-Sovietism and a distorted picture of the existing socialist system a vital component of modern concepts of social 246

development. Although Fischer and Marek talk a great deal about socialism, the ideas they put forward about socialism have an obviously non-proletarian and non-Marxist character. Revisionist ideas are essentially a hodge-podge of the most antisocialist aspects of Trotskyism and anarcho-syndicalism. Fischer writes, "By socialism, we understand not only a society without capitalists, without private ownership of the corresponding means of production, a society with a planned economic system and social security; we understand it also as a society where public property is disposed of not by bureaucratic institutions, where economic plans are not decreed from above but elaborated by joint producers and consumers so as to guarantee, with the least expenditure of effort, the maximum satisfaction of the growing material and cultural requirements of members of society (in which the order of priority is not established in an authoritarian manner), a democratic co-operation among all spheres of the economy, management, legislative activity, education, etc., equal access to education and promotion for all. Any definition of that type is fraught with simplifications. But we do not regard society without these features to be socialist."* Thus, in his understanding of socialism, Fischer avoids above all the decisive question of power. He does not even mention that in socialist society political power belongs to the working people headed by the working class---without which there can be no socialism. He does not say anything about the Marxist-Leninist party of the working class playing a leading role in the battle for socialist victory. And although Fischer mentions the absence of capitalists and private property, the emergence of public property, a system of planning, yet he regards all this not as necessary elements and principles of socialism but merely as prerequisites for it. Furthermore, Fischer is ambiguous about the concept of public property and allows for its classification as the property of large capitalist monopolies, monopoly concerns and corporations, and the property of the bourgeois state. In his idea of socialism he focuses attention upon the method of administering property, "democratic co-operation", "equal access to education and promotion". Fischer associates them largely with socialism. Marek has a very similar attitude to socialism by which he understands "a society where there is the maximum of information and the maximum of control".* Such principles are not and cannot be the economic and political foundation of socialism. What the revisionists regard as determining features of socialism are superficially 247

improved attributes of bourgeois democracy. Can one regard as socialist a society in which, let us assume, there are "equal access to education and promotion", "the maximum of control", "the maximum of information", etc., if political power does not belong to the working people, if the leading role does not belong to the party of the working class? Can such a society exist at all? Is it not simply a utopia? Finally, in order to understand what socialism actually is, one must reject the fruitless and speculative construction of socialist Utopias with which the revisionists are engaged and study the socialist system that has already been established in several countries. Marx and Engels strongly protested against all manner of schemes and projects for a new society labelled socialism. They put forward basic principles, the fundamental outline of socialist society from a scientific analysis of the very esWiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1970, p. 6. * Wiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 34. 280 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 281 sence of the capitalist system and the antagonistic contradictions inherent in it, from the very objective need for the replacement of capitalism by a new system. That is precisely how they clearly delineated their scientific theory of socialism from all socialist Utopias. Today, socialism is more than a model of a new social system born of scientific theory. It is above all a real political and economic system, a reality embodied in material and cultural forms of social life in many states. It is not a plan or an idea but a concrete complex of material and cultural conditions constituting the world socialist system that stands opposed to the world capitalist system, demonstrates its superiority over capitalism and challenges it historically. To ignore world socialism, the economic and political principles of the new system, is to depart from science and return to utopia. It is a departure from revolutionary struggle and the revolutionary creativity of the working people, the 248

burdening of the world with subjectivism and futile day-dreaming. Marxism-Leninism firmly rejects such an approach, for scientific knowledge of the basic principles and laws of socialism is being acquired only on the basis of a scientific generalisation of the experience of socialist states, of a Marxist-Leninist understanding of the economic and political principles of the new social system that has been victorious within them. Precisely by generalising the experience of transition to socialism in various countries, the communist parties have enriched Marxist-Leninist theory with several new propositions concerning the ways of transferring to socialism and the general laws and principles of the socialist system. Leonid Brezhnev has described the principles of socialist society: "They are the power of the working people with the vanguard role exercised by the working class and the leadership of social development provided by the MarxistLeninist Party; public ownership of the means of production and, on its basis, the planned development of the national economy on the highest technological level for the benefit of the whole people; the implementation of the principle ``from each according to his ability, to each according to his work"; the education of the whole people in the spirit of the ideology of scientific communism, in the spirit of friendship with the peoples of the fraternal socialist countries and the working people of the whole world; and lastly, a foreign policy founded on the principles of proletarian, socialist internationalism."* The ideas about socialism put forward by Fischer and Marek do not reflect the real principles of the socialist system. Therefore, they cannot in any way correspond to the requirements of revolutionary theory, which is called upon to serve the interests of building a new society. Their position is, above all, determined by their hostile attitude to the socialist system existing in the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries. While they largely praise state-monopoly capitalism, they are generally scathing about socialism. Speaking at a conference on the occasion of his jubilee, Fischer went so far as to say that the October Revolution in Russia "did not justify the hopes placed in it". Reiterating this bourgeois calumny, he immediately supplied it with a new ``law'' discovered by him: "The result of all past great revolutions has been contrary to the requirements of those revolutions; 1789 brought the domination of capital, not freedom, equality and 249

fraternity; 1917 brought the domination of a power apparatus, not the self-determination of everyone, not complete socialist democracy. ... Is this law of history undeniable?"** In Fischer's words, we need today a "total revolution" which would bring a change in "all the relations" between people. Apart from attempting to nullify the socialist content of the October Revolution in Russia, Fischer and Marek mount crude attacks on socialist revolutions in other countries of Europe and Asia, the essence and course of the socialist con92. * L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, Moscow, 1972, pp. 291** Wiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 9. 282 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY SIMILARITY OF REVISIONISM AND BOURGEOIS THEORIES 283 struction that developed there after victory over the exploitmade socialism famous and attracted hundreds of millions of people to its side. The pronouncements of Fischer and Marek on existing socialism are virtually a word-for-word repetition of bourgeois anti-socialist insinuations. The ideological re-equipment of the revisionists, associated with their renouncement of the revolutionary theory of social development in favour of blatant pro-imperialist doctrines, is reflected in the revisionist ``programme'' of practical action. They see their principal task in distracting the attention of the working class and all working people of capitalist countries from the supreme class objective---socialism ---and in directing their revolutionary energy into legal confines. In that connection, the campaign to democratise social life is presented as the ultimate objective of the workingclass movement. By replacing the ultimate aim of the struggle of the working class by "the democracy of producers", Marek advocates 250

revising the whole strategy of the present-day working-class movement. He demands switching the centre of gravity from class tasks of the proletariat to overall national tasks which would be resolved by means of the actions of the broad mass of the population. From there he makes a step towards revising the principles of the activity of working-class organisations, including its vanguard---the party. By the new forms of "democracy in the ranks of the working-class movement" he understands primarily rejection of the principle of unity in the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist party of the working class, rejection of party discipline and freedom for the operation of factions. In the words of Leopold Spira, party discipline is "moral and political fetters", while the principle of the leading role of the communist party does not generally suit the communist movement in advanced capitalist states and cannot be accepted because the link of the communist party with political trends, which are taking new forms and new meaning, is a condition for revolutionary prospects in those countries. ers. Marek considers it a real ``evil'' that, on the way to building socialism, the fraternal parties slavishly copied thefirst model or, in other words, used the experience of socialist change in the Soviet Union. In his attempt to discredit that experience as much as possible, Marek stoops to the following anathema of the Soviet system: ".. .the Soviet model of socialism is a model of a party and state leadership that is by no means a socialist model."* To justify this, he talks of the "deformity of socialism" in the USSR, a thesis which, in common with other revisionists, is not supported by any convincing argument. As the reason for this undefined `` deformity'', he refers mainly to the external and internal conditions and difficulties which arose in the first years of Soviet government and which were overcome by the Soviet state---imperialist and civil war, military intervention, the economic and cultural backwardness of Russia, economic ruin, etc. These factors obviously had an adverse effect on the development of the Soviet socialist revolution. But only the enemies of socialism can ignore the fact that, despite these adverse factors, the working people of the USSR headed by the working class and under the leadership of Lenin's Bolshevik Party seized power from the tsar, landowners and capitalists, upheld it in the struggle against the forces of intervention and internal counter-revolution and built socialism. This unprecedented historical feat was their great contribution to the international struggle of the people against 251

imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation. Thanks to that heroic achievement, socialism became the decisive factor of contemporary world development. The first socialist state therefore had to deal with unimaginable difficulties, yet also achieved enormous historical successes which Wiener Tagebuch, No. 1-2, 1969, p. 33. 284 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY Such are the basic political propositions which the revisionists are trying to impose on the workers' movement in capitalist states. Their intention is to renounce a policy of further escalation of revolutionary struggle, to propagate capitulation in regard to monopoly capital. In passing judgement on the ideas of Marek, the American Marxist Eric Bert has written that "his strategy suggests .. . the integration of the labour movement into the capitalist corporate and political structure---peacefully".* We see that the basis of the revisionist political programme is to subordinate the workers' movement to monopoly capital in advanced capitalist states in concert with a policy of supporting counter-revolutionary elements for the purpose of bringing down the socialist order in countries where socialism has already been victorious. The transfer of revisionists to positions of imperialist ideology, particularly in their understanding of vital issues of contemporary social development, the borrowing by them of ideological premises of the stages-of-growth theory mean actually their acceptance of the main anti-communist objectives of this ideology. PART II! CRITIQUE</b> OF REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCALISM</b> Political Affairs, January 1970, p. 42. CHAPTER 11 THE REVISIONIST CONCEPTION OF "MODELS OF SOCIALISM"</b>

252

BANKRUPTCY OF REVISIONIST "MODELS OF SOCIALISM"</b> The conditions in which the liberation struggle of the proletariat takes place in various countries, in the sense of the presence of prime economic conditions, peculiarities of the class struggle and the international situation, are bound to be extremely diverse. The forms and paths of building socialism are also different. Lenin foresaw that with the existence of common laws of struggle for socialism (socialist revolution, proletarian dictatorship, socialisation of the basic means of production, planned construction of the new society) life "is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms``/'" Lenin insistently called for the need "to seek out, investigate, predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive, in the concrete manner in which each country should tackle a single international task".** In making a critical analysis of the question of "models of socialism", we must immediately make the point that we in no way cast aspersions upon the idea of model-making as such, either in the sphere of technology or scientific cognition or the economy. We refer only to the political aspect of ``model-making'', to the incorrectness and the harm of making "models of socialism" for the cause of the international communist movement. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 413. ** Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 92. 288 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY "MODELS OF SOCIALISM"</b> 289 The 20th CPSU Congress drew the attention of communist parties to the question of various forms of transition to socialism. Virtually at the same time, some communist parties adopted new programme documents like, for example, "The British Road to Socialism" and "The Italian Road to Socialism", in which they endeavoured to apply the general ideas of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of their countries. This approach was completely justified. It contained nothing which was at odds with the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism formulated by its founders. Marxism-Leninism demands that one should take into consideration the 253

specific situation in different countries. It develops on the basis of the experience of struggle of communist parties for the victory of socialism in different countries and at different times, on the basis of a theoretical summary of revolutionary practice of the international communist movement. However, ideas of vulgar model-making in regard to the very essence of socialist construction and state organisation of socialist states began to be propagated alongside the correct elaboration of these problems under pretence of taking account for specific conditions. A number of dubious concepts borrowed from bourgeois philosophy, sociology and political science concerning convergence, end of ideology, the need for liberalisation, `` democratisation'' and ``improvement'' of socialism were associated with the ideas of modelling paths of socialist construction. Bourgeois theories, particularly those of modelling social processes in the socialist states, are permeated with a spirit of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism. But it is precisely these ideas of modelling roads to socialism that began to be advocated by revisionist elements within the communist parties of certain socialist and capitalist states. Revisionist modelling of paths of socialist construction radically contradicts a scientific approach to the question of paths of transition to socialism, insofar as it takes as a model not what has been confirmed by practice on the basis of which victories have been achieved in different countries, and the goal of socialist construction---socialism---has been achieved, but, rather, that which has been refuted by practice, which has not justified itself and has found no echo either in reality or in the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. For that reason, it was erroneous and at loggerheads with the objective laws of socialist construction. This was the type of "models of socialism" which Garaudy, for example, took as his ideal; in his books For a French Model of Socialism and The Great Turning-Point of Socialism he advocated a Right-wing revisionist activity in `` restoring'' and ``improving'' socialism in Czechoslovakia in 1968. He praises that practice as "a model of happiness, beauty and life", but the real unhappiness consists in the fact that the ``socialism'' advertised by him led straight to counter-revolutionary change. During the 1960s, a great many models of socialism were proposed whose authors often designated as socialism forms 254

of purely bourgeois administration with the presence of various types of nationalisation of industry, transfer of land to peasants and co-operatives which by themselves do not yet constitute socialism. Reformist models of "democratic socialism" were put out as ``socialism'', by which they understood "a mixed society"---i.e., a society which retained bourgeois monopolies and state, municipal and co-operative enterprises. The Right-wing socialist Karl Czernetz summed up those types of "models of socialism" combining them under the name "humanist socialism" (as opposed to Soviet socialism) in a report made at the international conference of reformists held in Utrecht in I960.* It is no coincidence that we mention here bourgeois and reformist "models of socialism", for Garaudy's own ``model'' has justly been classified by French Communists as "a technocratic version of traditional reformism''. Another variety of modelling socialism exists when the model is taken out of the pure reasoning of its inventors a <u>priori</u><u>---with</u> complete rejection of practical experience of * See also A. Philip, Pour un socialisme humaniste, Paris, 1960. 19---2332 290 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``MODELS OF SOCIALISM" 291 building socialism in the socialist states. The inventors of such "models of socialism" are like the authors of socialist Utopias in the first half of the last century (Cabet and Bellamy) with the essential difference that the Utopian socialists were progressive thinkers, their Utopias expressing a sincere desire to move ahead towards socialism, while the inclinations of present-day inventors of models of socialism mainly point in the other direction---away from actual socialism to a mixture of socialism and capitalism, with the subsequent transfer from opportunist ``socialism'' to capitalism and social-democratic reformism. Garaudy opposes his "computer model of socialism" to Soviet socialism as "a mechano-Lamarque model of socialism" which presupposes only resolution from above and 255

excludes popular initiative. This is the political meaning of socialist model-making both in the work of Garaudy and in that of all other contemporary revisionists. Those who hold the fate of socialism dear, however, understand that it would have been impossible to build socialism in such a large country as the Soviet Union, to carry out enormous changes in industry and agriculture, to implement a cultural revolution, to solve the national question and, finally, to rout the Nazi armies only by instructions from above without relying on wide, popular initiative. Proceeding from his computer model of socialism, Garaudy came to the conclusion that in advanced countries like the US and France, equally in Czechoslovakia, the whole business of socialism is reduced to involving the ``intellectuals'' in determining the goals of economic development; this may be achieved without socialist revolution, without proletarian dictatorship, without the leading role of the Communist party, without democratic centralism and even without the working class. In a word, it can be done without socialism at all---to the mind of Garaudy. In passing judgement on the Right-wing revisionist " socialist model-making", the Chairman of the French Communist Party, Waldeck Rochet, was firmly opposed to applying the concept of a ``model'' to building socialism, because that concept only confuses the issue and disseminates revisionism within the communist movement. He has said that the use of the model-concept which Garaudy allows opens the doors to all manner of interpretations, leading to the rejection of the general laws of socialism---that is the just evaluation of that type of "socialist model-making''. The essence of contemporary Right-wing revisionist theories of "socialist model-making" lies precisely in rejecting the general laws of socialism. It is hardly fortuitous that the revisionists put forward various "models of socialism" and also various "models of Marxism", pursuing the aim of depriving Marxism of any revolutionary orientation inherent in the philosophy upheld and developed by Lenin. They try to ``liberate'' socialism from Marxism-Leninism. That means, of course, rejecting the theory and practice of scientific socialism and communism. Such is the logic of the revisionist detractors. No matter how they try to conceal their Utopias by talk of socialism, they can never end up anywhere than 256

in the swamp into which social-democratic reformists have long since landed. It was these reformists who rejected Marxism and first arrived at the theories of "democratic socialism", a "mixed society"---i.e., to the ideas of liberal-bourgeois ``socialism'', to the perpetuation of capitalism, a society of "private initiative" and "equal opportunity''. PLURALISM OF "MODELS OF SOCIALISM"</b> The revisionist notion of "pluralism of socialist models" is no more than an assertion that there does not exist a single model which would suit all countries fighting for socialism. Many socialist models exist and they all are unprecedentedly different and equal, they only reflect the national characteristics of their countries. There exists only something specific that has nothing in common, no general laws of struggle for socialism, with other theories. This is the notion propagated by Czechoslovak and other revisionists. 19*</b> 292 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``MODELS OF SOCIALISM" 293 In evaluating the revisionist ideas of pluralism, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Kurt Hager, noted: "We are recommended pluralism within the party in order to undermine its unity and solidarity, pluralism in the state in order to eliminate the leading role of the party of the working class ... pluralism in the economy in order to put an end to concentration and co-ordination of production, pluralism in ideology in order to hamper the effect of the scientific philosophy of Marxism-Leninism.""' That is the meaning of the revisionist thesis of pluralism of socialist models. It is not simply a matter of asserting that many models of socialism exist, it is just as wrong to claim that all models are completely equal. Indeed, Garaudy tries to show that the socialism of the Maoists is a specific Chinese model inappropriate for France but completely suited to Chinese conditions; the Dubcek "model of socialism with a human face" is fine for Czechoslovak conditions, etc. Moreover, it would follow from Garaudy's reasoning that the social-democratic model of socialism is fine and completely 257

appropriate to the economically advanced countries like France and the USA---after all, the computer model of Garaudy himself fits neatly into reformist ideas of socialism as "mixed society''. So we see that the pluralist model is directed mainly against Soviet experience of building a socialist society. The revisionists declare that "we shall build socialism differently to how it has been built in the Soviet Union''. The idea of pluralism is permeated with anti-Sovietism. Garaudy's books are aimed not so much at creating his computer Utopias as against the Soviet experience of building socialism. He slights the Leninist plan of socialist construction in the USSR as a military and bureaucratic means of building socialism "for the people but not through the peo* K. Hager, Die Aufgaben der Gesellschaftswissenschaften in unserer Zeit, Berlin, 1968, p. 43. pie". From a rejection of Soviet experience, Garaudy inevitably arrives at a false Trotskyist interpretation of socialism in the USSR as "state capitalism"; he takes up the Djilas notion of the existence in the USSR of "a new ruling class" and other insinuations whose meaning is sheer anti-Sovietism. The revisionist assertion concerning the anti-humanism of socialism in the USSR is a slander. It is surely clear to any uncommitted person that all the measures taken by the Soviet state to transfer the means of production to the working people, to involve them in running the state, to eliminate unemployment, resolutely to fight for a higher material and cultural standard of living for the people constitute real concern by Soviet Communists for the good of man and for the flourishing of the human personality. This is being done not only ``for'' man but also ``through'' him. In spite of the slander of revisionists, this great work would be impossible without the active participation of the working people and without popular initiative. ``Socialism with a human face", as the activity of Rightwing revisionists confirmed in Czechoslovakia in 1968, is a manifestation of an intellectual-bourgeois interpretation of freedom for everyone, including counter-revolutionaries, provocateurs and other enemies of socialism. The socialist system does not seem free to a petty-bourgeois who favours the bourgeois system. The conservative power of petty-bourgeois habits and prejudices draws him to the sphere of ``freedom'' of the bourgeois world with its 258

illusory principles of "equal opportunity", which exists in bourgeois society only for the exploiting elite, for the bourgeoisie, and cannot exist for the exploited, for the working people. The petty-bourgeois intellectual who vacillates between the ideals of the proletariat and the illusions of the selfish petty-bourgeois most frequently operates from a position of Right-wing revisionism. Being attracted by these illusions, the intellectual constructs models of socialism with unrestrained ``initiative'', with "equal opportunity", with indeterminate pretentions on freedom in the spirit of existentialist 294 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``MODELS OF SOCIALISM" 295 philosophy. When they arrive in the ranks of the proletariat, these unstable intellectuals (like Garaudy, Lefebvre and Pierre Fougeyrollas) notice that the discipline of bourgeois society, which they find unpleasant and from which they have swung to the left, is replaced within the proletarian ranks by a proletarian discipline, a discipline of democratic centralism which is also not to the liking of the petty-bourgeois intellectuals and which they cannot bear. Hence there arises a need for their own selfish models of socialism even if they are divorced from life, contradicted by real-life socialism, but reflecting petty-bourgeois anarchist aspirations for " subjectivism explosion", of an unlimited and indeterminate freedom of thought and action---by which they understand a departure from all laws, all discipline, especially departure from the laws and discipline of socialist society. Under the pretext of "socialist model-making" they compose models that are unprecedented in their ``model'' novelty, which reject the general laws of struggle for socialism and the principal propositions of Marxist-Leninist theory. Political leadership of society, in the opinion of revisionists, must be carried out either by a non-party public organisation or by the socialist state itself without intervention by a communist party, or by all other political organisations on an equal footing with the communist party. In Yugoslavia, for example, to which the revisionists refer as a 259

model, the vanguard role of the League was greatly undermined as a result of the dissemination of revisionist doctrines, as mentioned by the League of Communists of Yugoslavia leadership. For that reason, in a letter sent in 1972 by the League Chairman Tito and the Executive Bureau of the Presidium to all members and organisations of the League, and in the materials of the 10th League Congress, they urgently and firmly stressed the need to enhance the leading role of the Communist League of Yugoslavia. Revisionist advocates of pluralistic socialist models attack the principle of democratic centralism which lies behind the organisation of a Marxist-Leninist party, is the basis of party leadership both of its lower organisations and of state and social organisations within the socialist state. The meaning of this Leninist principle is to combine centralised leadership and democratic standards in the life of the Party and the state, to combine popular initiative and discipline equal for everyone. The revisionists oppose the concepts of democracy and initiative to those of centralism and discipline. The dialectics here consists in that centralism and leadership carried out in a Leninist way are precisely necessary for strengthening, developing and promoting mass democracy, not simply for stimulating and encouraging that democracy and popular initiative but for guiding it within the framework of communist, politically conscious discipline. It is otherwise impossible to ensure the successful building of socialism and communism in an absence of discipline, amid disorder and anarchy. The theories of multiple socialist models contain attempts to rehabilitate Maoism, its anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist essence, its virulent anti-Soviet and divisive activity. MarxismLeninism firmly condemns the unprincipled attitude of revisionists to Maoism as much as the reformist tendencies of revisionists. A class approach to social phenomena is an inalienable principle of Marxism-Leninism. The starting point of Communists in tackling all issues in social and political affairs is to ask in whose interests and in the interests of which social class a particular action is carried out. The communist parties of capitalist and of the socialist countries where the process of building socialism has not yet been completed 260

operate in a situation of tense class struggle. Departure from class proletarian positions in practical, political and economic actions and in principles, ideas and ideology embodies the spirit of revisionism. The Marxist theory of scientific communism is ``synthesised'' by the revisionists with various fashionable bourgeois theories; hence the reformist and anti-communist hash of "models of socialism''. CHAPTER 12 CRITIQUE</b> OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF THE SOCIALIST ECONOMY*</b> REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 297 for the development of forces of production. The mechanism of competition, which the market socialism theoreticians try to introduce, can operate only in a decentralised administration of individual firms or by giving factories the right independently to determine the size and structure of the production resources being used and the output of production, and to distribute income. That means above all that society as a whole forfeits direct control over the major part of the accumulation fund and is incapable of guaranteeing a rate and direction of new construction and modernisation which would simultaneously secure full employment and a high and steady growth rate in national income. Market competition, further, inevitably leads to essential inequality in distributing income between individual branches, factories and social groups. Here, inequality of income is associated not so much with differences in labour productivity as with monopoly and rent factors, with changes in the market situation. As a result, some groups of population receive higher income at the expense of others. The operation of the whole of that mechanism is inevitably accompanied by price rises which are very uneven for different types of commodities. Some advocates of market socialism are aware of the social and political consequences to which it would lead, but they maintain that these consequences are ineluctable costs of increasing the effectiveness of social production and accelerating scientific progress. It is absurd to speak about the possibility of improving the economy at the price of rejecting the crucial historical attainments of socialism. But even if one sets aside the political aspect of the question and approaches it from a purely practical point of view, as the 261

market socialism advocates recommend, even so their notions do not bear examination. The efficiency of social production must be understood in a wide, national economic and historical sense. If market competition forces individual firms to work more intensively and with greater economy, then on a nationwide scale unemployment, unstable economic growth rates, a spontaneous or semi-spontaneous nature of Revisionist economic conceptions both of the Right and of the ``Left'' are often today put forward under the pretext of searching for more effective, specifically national, ways of building socialism and communism. One of the Right-wing revisionist discoveries is "market socialism", which we examine below. THE THEORY OF "MARKET SOCIALISM"</b> Although the Right-wing proponents of market socialism constantly stress that they are proposing only an improvement to the functional mechanism, of the economy and not affecting the structural and class basis of socialism, that is certainly not the case. The changes they recommend in economic methods would ultimately signify a departure from scientific socialism along the whole front of socialist relations of production. Any encroachment upon the system of economic relations of socialism (rejection of economic planning in favour of market competition, etc.) lead to very adverse consequences * This chapter is based on the following works of Soviet economists: Y. Y. Olsevich, "Kritika burzhuaznykh i revizionistskikh teoriy ekonomiki sotsializma", Moscow, 1970; S. A. Khavina, "Burzhuaznye kontseptsii vzaimosvyazi plana i rynka pri sotsializme", Protiv burzhuaznoi i revizionistskoi ideologii v ekonomicheskoi nauke, Moscow, 1970. 298 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 299 capital construction and the rest will inevitably nullify any gain. As far as scientific progress is concerned, the decentralised economic resources sharply restrict its possibility and lead overall to a slowing down rather than a speeding up. 262

Thus, market socialism is a kind of model of socialism in which: (i) Stable rates of economic growth are not guaranteed and there appears a tendency to cyclical crises accompanied by a cut in real wages; (ii) Relations between and inside production groups are built on the basis of competition and struggle of interests rather than on the basis of co-operation and mutual assistance; (iii) The right to work is not guaranteed and a more or less substantial army of jobless is formed; (iv) Distribution according to labour is not ensured while monopoly, rent and other unearned incomes are formed. Such aspects of market socialism affect the very essence of the entire social and economic structure of society. The presence and development of such aspects over a long period would undoubtedly mean that the internal unity of society would disintegrate into countervailing groups which would undermine the very basis of the socialist economy. All that represents a serious methodological setback to the theory of market socialism which means that it would divorce the social and economic structure of the whole economy from its functional mechanism, assuming that this structure is more or less ``indifferent'' to the mechanism of competition. Such a supposition is only possible proceeding from a formalist and mechanistic methodology which treats social production as a sum total of heterogeneous parts. It is from a position of such methodology that private capitalist property may painlessly be combined with centralised economic planning, and national socialist property with market competition. In this connection it is worth remembering how Lenin had opposed the proposition of Shulyatikov who maintained that ``the concept of functional dependence is a negation of causal dependence" and he rejected the view that " functionality cannot be a type of causality''. In reality, social production is a complex system of external, functional relations which ultimately are a manifestation of its internal structural dependence. To oppose the functional relations of the economy to causal and structural relations is false theoretically and harmful in practice. 263

Of course, the functional mechanism of a system---i.e., the aggregate of relations of planning, organisation and stimulation of the economy has certain autonomy in relation to the structural foundation of society---the ownership of the means of production, class structure, the fundamental relations of distribution of national income. That autonomy of the functional mechanism comes from the fact that in its development it depends simultaneously on the forces of production, relations of production and political superstructure, i.e., it comprises partially technological, social, economic and political relations. However, the aggregate of structural and functional relations enters into the economic basis of society. A mechanism of market competition artificially introduced into (or, as the bourgeois economists say, "built in") the economic basis of socialism and which is alien to it can only weaken and deform the entire base. Functional relations are the most flexible and mobile part of the economic base of society; they are bound continually to develop and change. Under socialism, the need constantly to develop and improve the mechanism of economic planning proceeds from the growth in forces of production, the development of relations of production and socialist democracy. Of no small importance for the progress of the economic mechanism are the accumulation of experience and scientific achievements associated with control of the economic processes (economics, mathematics and sociology). In the conditions pertaining today there are two requirements presented to the mechanism of planning, organisation and stimulation of the socialist economy; first, it should bring a fuller mas</BODY> </HTML> </HEAD> <BODY> 300 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALISTECONOMY</b> 301 tery of the attainments of the scientific revolution, and second, it should encourage the strengthening of socialist relations of production and their gradual conversion into communist relations. 264

The economic reforms being carried out in the socialist states correspond to these requirements. They envisage a step forward to a higher level of economic planning methods for the purpose of optimising all natural and value proportions; the wide introduction of economic levers into the planning system; improved economic organisational structure along the lines or further economic concentration; rational distribution of functions among the various links of the system and, in particular, extention of independence of undertakings (groups of enterprises); the further development of commodity<SUB>r</SUB>money relations and the entire aggregate of value categories in which the relations are specifically expressed. The functional mechanism of the economy embraces the activity both of production, trading, transport and similar organisations, and the state planning bodies and economic administration units. The activity of state economic institutions is an organic part of the economic basis of society and constitutes its necessary directing element. The nationwide nature of socialist ownership and the unity of interests of the entire society demand from the single system of national--i.e., state---bodies to direct the activity of individual parts of the economy. The market socialists are therefore quite wrong in demanding the separation of the economy from the state. Such demands are both Utopian and reactionary. The system of state economic bodies does not exist separately from its political organs. Furthermore, the entire system of state bodies forms a mutually-connected unity of political and economic organisational functions. The economic bodies of the state themselves (moreover, various bodies in different proportion) carry, simultaneously, economic and political functions. The above-mentioned unity is greatly encouraged by the fact that the politics of the socialist state acts as a concentrated expression of the economy, its generalisation and improvement. In the whole economic activity, the principle of the primacy of the principled approach is held. At the same time, a correct combination of technical, economic and political functions in the activity of the economic control bodies constitutes a very complex question demanding specific scientific solutions. Bourgeois writers try to prove that the proposition of the need for state economic control under socialism is both a departure from the Marxist thesis that the economic base determines the political superstructure and an attempt to subordinate the economy to the political apparatus. Both 265

accusations are false. They are based on a complete identification of the entire system of the socialist state, including its economic bodies, with the political superstructure, an identification which is common to the Right and to the ``Left'' of the revisionist movement, but not to the MarxistLeninist theory of scientific socialism. In the wake of the bourgeois writers, Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionists distort the essence of the system of state economic planning under socialism, the nature and functions of the economic apparatus of socialist society. While Right-wing revisionism relies on the market socialist doctrine and demands the separation of the economy from the state, ``Left''-wing revisionism, on the contrary, demands that military and political state organs should control the economy directly, that the functional mechanism of the economy should be built on the principle of the military mechanisms. The effect of this "functional mechanism" on the entire system of relations of the socialist basis is just as deleterious and destructive as the "market socialism" mechanism, although they move in different directions. Scientific socialism rejects both Right-wing revisionist attempts to separate the economy from the state and ``Left''wing revisionist efforts to turn the political superstructure of society into a mechanism of direct control over production. 302 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 303 Although the economic administrative and political functions of the state are closely intertwined and merge into a single state apparatus of socialism, it should be remembered that they are different. They should therefore be differentiated: the former belong primarily to the economic basis of society, the latter predominantly to its superstructure. The principle of the primacy of a political approach to the economy by no means implies a replacement of the activity of economic bodies by political bodies. Nor does it mean that every specific economic decision must be judged by extraeconomic criteria. The essence of this principle is primarily that the creation, development and improvement of the 266

economic control mechanism should occur in a direction and at a rate which correspond to the national and international interests of building communist society. While the functional mechanism of the capitalist economy develops in a spontaneous way, in an atmosphere of pursuit of profit and under pressure from the class and competitive struggle, in socialist society it is consciously constructed under the guiding hand of the communist and workers' parties. BOURGEOIS SOURCES OF THE "MARKET SOCIALISM" THEORY</b> One of the most urgent and complicated issues of socialist political economy is the use of commodity-money relations in a planned socialist society. It is related to many questions of the theory and practice of the socialist economy and is a theme of wide-ranging discussion in economic literature. It is one of the key problems being resolved by the economic reform at present being carried out in the USSR and other socialist countries. Bourgeois economics, by virtue of its methodology, looks at the meaning and role of commodity-money relations as the paramount issue in the socialist economy. Suffice it to say that the criterion "plan or market"---and only that criterion---lies behind the widely publicised classification of types of economy that are prevalent in bourgeois economic literature. By overestimating the meaning of this question, bourgeois economists simultaneously impoverish its content; the multiform aspects of the problem of commodity production and circulation under socialism are reduced in a one-sided way to the inter-relationship of plan and market. The supposed alternative "plan or market" is based on an anti-scientific treatment both of plan and of market, distortion of their essence and role in the socialist economy. By portraying socialist economic planning as something which ignores economic laws and the stimuli of the dictates of central administrative bodies, the ideologists of anti-communism falsify the real mechanism of socialist economic functioning. Bourgeois theories accord the category of ``market'' the most variegated meanings. Most often they mean by market the play of supply and demand, reducing the laws of the market ---i.e., the laws of commodity circulation---to the law of supply and demand. As a result, the alternative "plan or market" acquires the form of alternative "plan or free play of supply and demand". By rejecting the principally new meaning and form of operation of the laws of commodity production and circulation under socialism, the bourgeois economists examine the spontaneous play of supply and demand 267

as an invariable attribute of the market form of economic relations. This opposing of the plan to the market is typical of all brands of bourgeois theories of the socialist economy. Some see socialism as "centrally directed economy", as "a command economy". They reject any possibility of the existence of a planned and organised market and they affirm that the market form of economic relations is incompatible with centralised, planned, economic control. Planning precludes the market---such is the leitmotif of the works of Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek and Walter Eucken. The West German economist Karl C. Thalheim evaluates the Soviet economic reform as an attempt to include market levers in the plan304 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 305 ning mechanism; he doubts the possibility of combining a centralised imperative plan with elements of the market.* The false conception of so-called natural planning lies behind the opposing of the plan to the market. According to that conception, centralised determination of economic proportions and distribution of socialist resources dictated by them may only be implemented in a natural form. According to the claim of Paul Hensel, a pupil of Eucken, centralised establishment of major economic proportions can occur only in natural magnitudes: "The universal unit of measurement ... is impossible here, and there is no need for it... ."** The rejection of the possibility and need for using value forms for planned economic control emanates from simplified dogmatic ideas about socialism and the process of socialist reproduction. In fact, two forms of economic relations interact in this process: a direct non-equivalent relation and an indirect commodity-money relation. The direct, planned determination of economic rates and proportions is based on a non-equivalent distribution and redistribution of national income. But the non-commodity and non-equivalent nature of the direct relation does not mean that it can occur only in a natural form. On the contrary, the interspersing of indirect and direct relations in a single process of reproduction and economic turnover of the social product, on 268

the one hand, makes it possible and, on the other, makes it necessary to use the value form for establishing and effecting the basic economic proportions. For example, remuneration according to labour does not express commodity relations under socialism. This is a direct non-commodity relation. But, by interacting with the indirect economic relation in the processes of the realisation of production of socialist enterprises and the use of cash incomes of the population for buying commodities, it can occur only in a money * K. G. Thalheim, Wirtschaftsplanung im Ostblock. Beginn einer Liberalisierung?, Stuttgart, 1966, p. 65. ** K. P. Hensel, Einfiihrung in die Theorie der Zentralverwaltungswirtschaft, Stuttgart, 1959, p. 210. form. Therefore, the principle of economic proportion appears as a unity of natural-materialised and value proportions. Those who uphold the alternative "plan or market" make the market out to be some sort of alien factor to the socialist economy or introduced into it from without. They evaluate the development of economic relations between socialist enterprises, the strengthening of the direct influence of the consumer and the trade network on consumer production and other measures aimed at improving the use of commodity-money relations as a rebirth, or as a danger of rebirth, of capitalist elements. The American Sovietologist Abram Bergson writes: "The government is not about to restore capitalism, and Soviet economists have rightly criticised commentators ... who have suggested as much, but it may not be easy to confine the market to limits now being observed. Another characterisation of the current reforms also suggested, therefore, may not really be amiss: 'creeping capitalism'."* The alternative "plan or market" therefore serves to justify the myth of the "capitalist evolution" of the Soviet economy which is ardently propagated by the ideologists of anti-communism. In actual fact, the market (as a form of commodity circulation) is not alien to socialist relations of production; on the contrary it is inherent in it. The existence of the market in a situation of planned socialist economic development is due to the fact that products manufactured at socialist enterprises are commodities and their consumer value may be realised only through exchange. The market is the sum total of economic relations that form in the process of exchange of 269

commodities between socialist enterprises, between enterprises and consumers. Under socialism, market relations---i.e., relations of commodity circulation---differ radically from those under capi* A. Bergson, Planning and Market in the USSR: The 1960s, New York, 1967, p. 64. 20---2332 306 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 307 talism. The predominant part of these relations acts as relations of the organised market---i.e., as relations of socialist commodity exchange developing in a planned way and based on public ownership of the means of production in both its forms. The widespread popularity of the "market socialism" theories among bourgeois economists testifies to the fact that part of bourgeois ideologists are beginning to understand the impossibility of confining themselves to highlighting the advantages of capitalism over socialism, simply dismissing the prospect of transition to socialism. Seeing that all roads lead to socialism, these economists and sociologists are reinterpreting socialism in their own way. In order to play down the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas, they are trying to construct an alternative to Marxist socialism on the basis of bourgeois political economy and to oppose it to real socialism that is successfully developing in the USSR and other states in the world socialist system. The models of "market socialism", "mixed socialist economy" belong to the ``neo-classical'' economic theory of socialism. The theory opposes the plan to the market in a rather different way. Its proponents also proceed from the thesis that the market and direct planning are incompatible. They believe, however, (by contrast with the proponents of the "centrally-administered economy" and "command economy" theories), that a rational economic administration under socialism is possible; they reduce the part played by planning bodies to imitating the actions of the spontaneous 270

market mechanism in certain sectors of the economy. The ``neo-classical'' economic theory of socialism dates back to the 1930s when bourgeois economic literature began to discuss the question of "the theoretical and practical possibility of implementing socialism". The founders of this theory were F. Taylor, Joseph Schumpeter, H. D. Dickinson, R. L. Hall and other adherents to bourgeois reformism on the Left wing of bourgeois economic science. The idea of automatic self-regulation of socialist economy with the aid of a spontaneous market mechanism lies at the basis of the ``neo-classical'' economic theory of socialism. The abstract models of "market socialism" constructed by proponents of this theory, determine, in a centralised way, only the division of national income into consumption and accumulation funds. The remaining proportions of reproduction are formed as a result of the spontaneous price fluctuations on the market depending on the relationship between demand and supply and the interbranch overflow of capital. Two basic models of "market socialism" exist. The first (its proponents are Taylor and Schumpeter) presupposes the actual existence only of a market of consumer items whose prices are established on the basis of the "consumer sovereignty", reflecting the freely forming relationship between supply and demand. At the same time, a free market of means of production and a free market of capital do not exist. In the sphere of the movement of means of production and capital, the spontaneous action of the market is imitated by the operations of central planning bodies which, by "trial and error", establish estimated prices (including interest on capital) at the equilibrium level of supply and demand. It is these prices that are designed to serve as an automatic regulator ensuring the optimum use of resources of socialist society. As we see, this model of "market socialism" gives the central planning agencies the functions of the market. There is no economic development plan defining the principal proportions of reproduction. The second model of "market socialism" is that propounded by Dickinson, Hall and Burnham Beckwith. It imposes on the socialist economy a mechanism which in no way restricts market competition. Prices on the market of consumer goods, means of production and capital are established by the spontaneous fluctuations of supply and demand. The role of planning agencies is therefore reduced merely to creating the conditions for unhampered operation of the automatic market mechanism.

271

20* &#8226; 308 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 309 The authors of the "market socialism" models rely on complete decentralisation of economic decision-making which inevitably presupposes the establishment of proportionality through disproportionality, the expenditure of material and labour resources. By wishing on socialism a spontaneous market mechanism for controlling proportions, they essentially nullify the determining role of the planning principle in economic control. That would mean for socialist society the impossibility of purposefully resolving long-term economic objectives, determining the major directions of technical progress in a planned way, changing the structure of production and consumption and having a rapid growth in accumulation and consumption. The authors of the "market socialism" theories try to square the circle: public ownership of the means of production, socialist socialisation of production and the specific mechanism of spontaneous control of proportions inherent in capitalism of free competition and inevitably associated with an immense wastefulness of the forces of production. These models signify rejection of the decisive advantages of socialism, a step backwards. Even in capitalist states, the old edifice of market control of proportions is today propped up by state control and economic programming. Belief in the automatic operation of market forces and unrestrained praise for the market mechanism have given way in bourgeois political economy to bitter disillusionment. The mechanism which contemporary capitalism has been forced to renounce and is considerably rejecting is even less appropriate for the socialist economy, in the mechanism of whose functioning (combining elements of direct and indirect control) the decisive role is played by the plan, direct economic control. The models of "mixed socialist economy" constructed by Abba P. Lerner and some other bourgeois economists, are another variety of the ``neo-classical'' economic theory of socialism. The distinguishing feature of these models, by compariccn with those of "market socialism", lies, first, in the fact that they proceed from the coexistence of public and

272

private ownership in key branches of the economy and, secondly, in the fact that through the medium of the market an intrabranch distribution of resources takes place. As far as the intrabranch distribution is concerned it is controlled in a centralised way. Within the "mixed socialist economy" schemes the plan is descended to the level of an economic branch. The enterprise itself resolves the question of the size and growth rate of production and capital investment. For private decisions by individual enterprises ultimately to guarantee support for overall economic proportions, it uses a price policy, credit and other measures of indirect economic control. That is the basic instrument of planning in the "mixed socialist economy" model. Such planning does not essentially differ from indicative planning in capitalist countries whose major instrument also is indirect economic control. But it is impossible to ensure balanced economic development and unification of value and natural-materialised proportions by measures solely of indirect control. As a rule, the "market socialism" models are used in bourgeois economic literature for falsifying the real economy of socialist countries. In particular, this is apparent in the treatment of the economic reforms as a transition to " socialist market economy". The upholders of this idea maintain that the economic reform being implemented in the USSR allegedly replaces centralised planning and paves the way for "market socialism''. The incorrect methodology of bourgeois theories that treat the problems of the inter-relationship between market and plan, the distortion of the essence and role both of the plan and of the market under socialism testify to the fact that these theories have no scientific basis. The highway of socialist development and communist construction is through comprehensive consolidation of public property and state planning of the economy, through extensive encouragement of popular initiative, material inter310 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY 311

273

estedness and commodity-money relations. This is the way that enables us successfully to master the latest scientific achievements and, at the same time, to strengthen the relations of co-operation and mutual assistance within socialist society. Only thus can the socialist states successfully win in the economic competition with capitalism, which demands an enormous concentration of resources and their most rational utilisation. The Right-wing revisionists who advocate the "market socialism" theories take quite another stand. By defending "the autonomy" of individual enterprises, they put forward arguments that contradict one another. Some claim that socialism has "not developed" to a stage of uniform state ownership of the means of production; others try to show that it has already ``outgrown'' state ownership and centralised planning. Whichever way they put it, the "market socialism" system undermines the national ownership of the means of production and planned control of the economy by society, it turns the spontaneous force of the market into a regulator of the economy. It is impossible successfully to conduct economic competition with capitalism, if communism is to prevail, from the standpoint of "market socialism". It is a serious concession to capitalism. Over the last few decades, the socialist economy in the USSR and other socialist states has traversed a long path of growth and undergone profound change. The socialist system has shown itself to be highly dynamic and flexible, capable of uninterrupted development of its structure and renewal of its forms in accordance with the requirements of scientific progress and the tasks of communist construction. As is inscribed in the documents of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, the realisation of the immense opportunities and advantages of socialism in the economic sphere is a complicated area of struggle that demands daily effort. Success here depends primarily on the ability to resolve economic matters in the Leninist way. In the last few years, on the basis of a new stage in economic development, the Soviet Communist Party has taken the initiative in reconstructing economic control and greatly improving planning and economic management methods. The intention is to combine the achievements of science with the advantages of socialism. The measures connected with the fulfilment of this large-scale responsible task are being carried out in full accordance with the Leninist principles of socialist economic management and represent their further development. The efforts by bourgeois and revisionist theoreticians to put the sense of these measures upside-down and to see in them either a rejection of Marxist-Leninist principles or 274

an unresolvable approach to the problems are unavailing. Leninist principles of economic management express the operation of the objective economic laws of socialism in specific historical circumstances. Among these principles, an important place goes to the requirements for primacy of a political approach in resolving economic problems, expressing the need to ensure the vital and long-term interests of socialist society, achieving the supreme unity of economics and politics. Another principle is the need for a strictly scientific approach to economic issues, an approach which combines theory and practical experience, science and production, and fully takes account of objective trends in economic development and social relations. The principle of democratic centralism permeates the entire Leninist idea of socialist economic management. It demands a combination of centralised planning and economic control with the independence and individual initiative of enterprises, production associations, departments and economic regions, the combination of one-man management with mass participation in running enterprises. Lenin often underlined the decisive role of technical progress and higher productivity for developing the socialist economy; he demanded that technical progress should comprise the basis of long-term plans and he underlined the need to combine both long-term and short-term plans. Of course, a knowledge of the basic principles of socialist 312 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 13 POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> economic management does not give a ready answer to the question of how one should tackle vital economic issues in a specific historical situation and, in particular, topical issues of accelerating scientific progress within production, raising its efficiency and stimulating progressive shifts in its structure. But any attempt to seek a resolution of economic problems at the price of rejecting the basic principles of socialist economic management leads society into an impasse, weakens the positions of socialism in competition with capitalism and is to the detriment of communist construction. It is precisely on the basis of Leninist principles that the USSR is implementing the many-sided process of 275

improving the economic mechanism. It is developing methods of planning that provide for the compilation of uninterrupted long-term plans and forecasts, a higher degree of equilibrium and optimum planning. It is creating a state network of computer centres intended to encourage a new scientific stage in centralised management of the economy. It is introducing economic methods of planning at all levels of the economy; it is strengthening the system of cost accounting, improving the price-formation system and consolidating measures of material remuneration. It is increasing the independence of enterprises, creating production associations, enhancing the role of public and, in particular, trade union organisations in running production. These and other progressive changes fully accord with the tasks of communist construction at a new level of scientific and technological development in the USSR. Only loyalty to Leninist principles of socialist construction, which express the will of the working class, can guarantee a firm foundation for creative searching for specific and the most efficient forms of resolving economic and social problems for the good of everyone, in the interests of comprehensive improvement and growth of the economy of developed socialism and further progress along the road to communism. In the previous chapter we examined the revisionist ideas of "market socialism" and noted that these ``theories'' prefer group ownership of the means of production and oppose the socialist state as owner to "direct producers". The revisionists assert that it is the genuinely Marxist point of view. At the end of the 1860s and the beginning of the 1870s, a certain Eugen Diihring aspired to be the leading theoretician and ideological leader among the German Social-Democrats. He propounded the same sort of views of the impoverished petty proprietor as did Proudhon. His anti-capitalism had a limited and inconsistent air. In fact, this was the anti-capitalism of the private owner protesting against the extremes of the private ownership system that had engendered and nurtured it, but wanting merely to improve it and not to destroy it. Engels wrote: "He wants existing society, but without its abuses". Like Proudhon, "he wants to abolish the abuses which have arisen out of the development of commodity production into capitalist production, by giving effect against them to the basic law of commodity production, precisely the law to whose operation these abuses are due. Like him, he wants to abolish the real consequences of the law of value by means of fantastic ones"."' That gives petty-bourgeois socialism which is still pre-Marxist (that means, pre-

276

* F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, p. 371. 314 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 315 revisionist) the features of a reactionary utopia which are jealously guarded by revisionism today. As a future system, Duhring put forward his notorious idea of ``sociality''. He took it not from material economic conditions of the time but from some sort of "universal principle of justice"."' He envisaged it as a federation of autonomous economic communes as a counter-balance to the Marxist idea of "collective ownership" which for Duhring was "to say the least unclear and open to question". ** Writing about ``sociality'', Engels said: "In any case this much seems clear: the publicistic right of an economic commune in its instruments of labour is an exclusive right of property at least as against every other economic commune and also as against society and the state."*** Employing slightly new terminology, we may say that this was the very first, so far untested and naive "co-operative socialism''. Duhring did not attempt to hide the fact that "there will therefore be rich and poor communes, and the levelling out takes place through the population crowding into the rich communes and leaving the poor ones"****; that means, Engels wrote, that "he calmly allows competition among the producers to continue. Things are removed from the sphere of competition, but men remain subject to it".***** Production in Duhring's scheme goes along in the old way "except that the commune takes the place of the capitalists. The most we are told is that everyone will then be free to choose his occupation, and that there will be equal obligation to work".*) This, too, has to be understood with reservations. Duhring does not promise to destroy the old division of labour, he considers the difference between town and country as irreversible "be the very nature of things". He therefore also questions free choice of type of activity. He presupposes that in economic circulation within and without the commune commodity-money relations continue to operate in an unchanged form. Duhring even "is proud that in the world he has created everyone can do what he likes with his money. He therefore cannot prevent some from setting aside a small 277

money hoard, while others are unable to make ends meet on the wage paid to them ... by accepting money in payment without any question, the commune leaves open the door to the possibility that this money may have been obtained otherwise than by the individual's own labour".* Hence not only the unequal provision for members of the commune but the possibility of usury and unhampered access to appropriation of the labour of other people---i.e., that constitutes exploitation which, it would seem, has no place in his `` sociality''. Certain fundamental elements of this long-discredited Utopia are today reappearing in all manner of ways and are being used to attack scientific socialism. The motives for this regeneration are normally to be found from a class point of view in the direct or indirect influence of petty-proprietor interests, and from the sociological point of view in an underestimation (or even rejection) of the decisive role of contemporary large-scale industry and the working class employed in it in all the meaningful changes of our era. The petty private owner-producer, single peasant-farmer or artisan becomes a figure of the past as industry grows rapidly (not to mention the scientific revolution). Large-scale production, first in industry and then in agriculture, leads to him being driven out of economic affairs and the social structure of the population. As the experience of the advanced capitalist states shows, this economic type grows strong only in the rare circumstances when his production---because of special consumer qualities---cannot yet be manufactured by * F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, p. 339. ** Ibid., p. 343. *** Ibid. **** Ibid. ***** Ibid. *) Ibid., p. 344. Ibid., p. 361.

278

316 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 317 large-scale industry or when he presents services which have not yet been replaced by other means. The doomed status of the petty producer, being made bankrupt by the whole course of capitalist development, has its effect in increasingly tangible and crude forms. It is from this doomed status, as from a root, that grows the isolated and inconsistent anti-capitalism which we see with Diihring. No wonder, therefore, that certain ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie, whose predecessors recoiled from the large-scale industrial trends of capitalism, are now recoiling from the large-scale industrial trends of socialism, from the working class which undoubtedly supports this trend and puts it to the service of the whole society. We must ask where those who recoil actually want to go. They want to move towards the same old intermediate, Duhring-type "co-operative socialism". The anti-capitalist and, now, the anti-socialist extremes are coming together; the dialectics is doing its inevitable work. The fashion for "co-operative socialism" is useful for "saving face", for sitting on the fence in an era of transition from the last exploiting formation to socialism. It is not hard to understand why contemporary Rightwing revisionists have forgotten the example of Diihring. History in general knows many examples of a poor memory among opportunists. In his work State and Revolution, written not long before the October Revolution, Lenin criticised Karl Kautsky for ignoring the experience of the Paris ComThus, Kautsky's ideas of socialism, since they presuppose the need for a multiform, speaking in present terms, `` pluralistic'', organisation of a new system are not very remote from the views of Diihring. Lenin wrote, "This argument is erroneous; it is a step backward compared with the explanations Marx and Engels gave in the seventies, using the lessons of the Commune as an example. ``As far as the supposedly necessary `bureaucratic' organisation is concerned, there is no difference whatever between a railway and any other enterprise in large-scale machine industry, any factory, large shop, or large-scale capitalist agricultural enterprise. The technology of all these 279

enterprises makes absolutely imperative the strictest discipline, the utmost precision 011 the part of everyone in carrying out his allotted task, for otherwise the whole enterprise may come to a stop, or machinery or the finished product may be damaged."* Lenin does not here unravel the reasons why Kautsky advocates a ``pluralistic'' point of view, because he is looking at another question---that of the working class organising political power after the revolution. But there is no doubt that these reasons are to be found in the political and economic views of the mentor of Right-wing Social-Democracy, as is clearly evident from his anti-Soviet works of the 1920s. In spite of the well-known views of Marx and Engels, Kautsky doubts the progressive nature of large-scale production in agriculture as distinct from industry. He is sympathetic with the view of Eduard David who had maintained that "the law of the primacy of large-scale production was inapplicable to agriculture". "Here, on the contrary," Kautsky writes, "we see the supremacy of small-scale production. The future belongs to it. Capitalist hired labour will be overcome in agriculture not by the socialisation of large-scale enterprises as in industry, but by their division into small family homesteads, each of which will be carried on without mune. Quoting Kautsky, Lenin wrote: "The most varied forms of enterprises---bureaucratic (??), trade unionist, co-operative, private ... can exist side by side in socialist society. .. . There are, for example, enterprises which cannot do without a bureaucratic (??) organisation, such as the railways.. . . The management of other enterprises may be transferred to the trade unions, and still others may become co-operative enterprises."* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 25, p. 480. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 480-81. 318 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 319

280

hired workers, only by the efforts of husband, wife and juveniles."* Kautsky, who considered himself a great scholar of Marxism and, therefore, of the history of struggle against pettybourgeois socialism, not only does not recognise in David's words a repetition of the old Proudhonean idea of a just society of equal commodity producers, but even is sympathetic with it. In his ``searchings'' he writes that "the principal result to which I came in 1899 was that at certain points I had to recognise that David was right and to reject the views of Marx and Engels. I did so only because [he adds not without an intention of playing down his- renunciation. ---Authors.]! wanted to uphold with greater resolution what in these views is basic and essential".** In the same booklet, Kautsky presents a sharply adverse evaluation of collectivisation (as also of other measures carried out by the Soviet Government) and advocates a whole programme of doing away with proletarian dictatorship in the USSR and restoring bourgeois-parliamentary procedures---i.e., counter-revolution. Kautsky, evidently, leaves a gap in the economic justification for the socialist reconstruction of society, thereby allowing either for its ethical treatment (if large-scale production does not everywhere act as a higher and more productive form, then what, save moral considerations, motivates the need for socialism?) or for the appearance of new `` socialities''. What is common to Kautsky and Duhring and what is common between them and contemporary Right-wing revisionists is above all their ignoring or underestimating the real conditions from which the new system develops. As Lenin put it, "Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society into socialist society wholly and exclusively from the economic law of the development of contemporary society. The socialisation of labour, which is advancing ever more rapidly in thousands of forms and has manifested itself very strikingly... in the growth of large-scale production, capitalist cartels, syndicates and trusts, as well as in the gigantic increase in the dimensions and power of finance capital, provides the principal material foundation for the inevitable advent of socialism".* It is this guiding law which naturally unifies the objective and essence of socialism---the transfer of the land and factories, all means of production, to the property of the whole of society and the replacement of capitalist production by production according to a common plan in the interests of all members of society**---that Right-wing revisionists try to 281

forget. If they do remember, they do everything to discredit its fullest manifestations. We refer here to the attacks on public socialist ownership, to all manner of slanderous variations which distort its essence. Marx pointed out on more than one occasion that commodity production becomes capitalist at that stage of its development when labour power finally is involved in the sphere of commodity circulation. But socialism begins there and then when labour power withdraws from the market and, in exchange for the capitalist system of production, there appears an economic organisation making the buying and selling of labour impossible and unnecessary, an economic organisation of associated workers, without capitalists and in spite of * Von Karl Kautsky, Der Bohchevlsmus in der Sackgasse, Berlin, 1930, p. 11. In his work, "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'", Lenin calls David's book Socialism and Agriculture "the principal work of revisionism on the agrarian question." Lenin writes, "The politicoeconomic essence of the matter is completely submerged in hundreds of technicalities which the author examines in minute detail" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 171). See also the work, "New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture", in which Lenin continues the analysis on the example of the United States of America, and confirms and develops the views of Marx and Engels (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22). ** Kautsky, op. cit., p. 14. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 71. ** Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 275. 320 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 321 capitalists, managing the economy according to a common 282

plan compiled in accordance with people's manifest needs.* The turning of means of production into public property, the obviating of human talent---labour power---of attributes of a sold thing---commodity, the elimination of the economic basis for alienation of labour, are all in a certain sense identical expressions. The inalienability of labour power, the sovereignty of the individual working man and, that means, the end his exploitation are principally new starting points for the development of all economic relations. This is a point of departure for employing principles and standards, a whole system of values of socialist and communist education of the working people. It is hardly surprising that it is precisely this basic fact that is submitted to the greatest distortions in antisocialist propaganda. The prominent spokesmen for the cold war labelled the Soviet social system as "state capitalism". This ploy for disguising the fundamental difference between the radically different social and economic systems is not new. Moreover, in a certain sense it is traditional for the majority of those who did not want to accept socialism in essence, even though they have often referred only to the forms in which it appeared for the first time in the USSR and then was extended to other states on three continents. The original honour in this instance undoubtedly belongs to the renegades of Marxism. Even before the bourgeois anticommunists, these ideas were being advocated by Kautsky, Tsereteli, Trotsky and other enemies of Bolshevism. The organ of the Menshevik emigres Sotsialisticheski vestnik ( Socialist Herald), wrote in 1927 about the situation in Soviet state industry: "The participation of the worker in running production has been reduced to a fiction; the mass of workers have a status in the factory of being only sellers of their labour power.""" Today, the echo of these speeches, many times augmented by the modern mass media, is reiterated from time to time in bourgeois propaganda. The renegade Milovan Djilas acquired his prominence mainly by disseminating the slanderous idea that state enterprises in the USSR were "state capitalist", that the worker was obliged to sell his labour power and was submitted to exploitation by the Party and administrative apparatus to which Djilas gave the name "the new class''. It is not hard to see how false these assertions are. Personnel employed in the administrative apparatus are associated 283

with working people by the common state ownership and are not distinguished from them in a class relation. But this theme is time and again repeated by the critics of Marxism. At the end of the 1950s, one of the British Labour Party spokesmen, Anthony Crosland wrote that in Soviet Rusia, as well as in the USA, the employer and the hired worker are opposed to one another as seller and buyer; centralised control is separated from the workers; there is a possibility of exploitation and other phenomena of ``capitalism''. ``Reproduction'' of the same arguments against socialism testify to the interest of the bourgeoisie in ``proving'' that socialism retains the system of exploitation analogous to the capitalist and in stirring doubt in the common people about the historical superiority of the socialist system. The Soviet Communist Party back in the mid-1920s, gave a convincing answer to this thesis, as it was then advocated by the followers of Trotsky."'"'' At its 14th Congress it said that Soviet state industry could not be called state capitalist because state capitalism in the conditions of proletarian dictatorship could only be an organisation of production where * Quoted from XV syezd VKP (B), Proceedings, Part I, Moscow, 1935, p. 331 (in Russian). ** See History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Vol. 4, Book I, Moscow, 1970, pp. 409-10, 415-16 (in Russian). 21---2332 * Socialism implies work without the aid of the capitalists, socialised labour with strict accounting, control and supervision by the organised vanguard, the advanced section of the working people; the 'measure of labour and remuneration for it must be fixed (see V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol, 30, p. 284). 322 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 323 two classes were represented. In his analysis of state 284

capitalism in these circumstances, Lenin had in mind concessions in which two classes were actually represented---the capitalist class---i.e., concessionaries who exploit and temporarily own means of production, and the working class which is exploited by the concessionaries. State enterprises are quite different. They have never been state capitalist because one class of workers is represented at them and not two classes; the workers, through their state, possess the instruments and means of production and are not exploited because that part of the national income which is not distributed in the form of wages goes to promoting the socialist economy and to other national needs. There are two types of production: the capitalist type, including state capitalism, where there are two classes and production is subordinate to increasing the profit of the capitalist, and the other, socialist type of production, where there is no exploitation and the means of production belong to the working class; enterprises work not for the purpose of making a profit for an alien class but in the interests of expanding industry and the welfare of all working people. Lenin said that Soviet state enterprises were consistently socialist in their form. The Soviet Communist Party has never forgotten this fundamental proposition. The opposite position, despite its fairly long history, only took on a more or less complete form at the end of the 1950s. Revisionism had to gather a great deal of falsifying experience to be able to declare the really supreme national form of socialist property "state capitalism", without the risk of immediate exposure applying two forms of property to the socalled socialist economy: group and personal property. According to the views of some foreign writers, collective ownership consists in granting the direct producers an opportunity to resolve all questions concerning the creation of the product and its distribution. By personal property they understand not the ownership by citizens of items of personal consumption derived from public property, but independent private ownership by the commodity producer of the instruments and means of production, private landholding which is said to be a component part of large-scale socialist agriculture. Moreover, they declare small-scale ownership to be a component part of socialist socio-economic forces. It is evident that they favour the group principle in production as opposed to a national, centralised, planned economy and it makes the small-scale producer concerned with his private holding and basically the same type as the capitalist, a 285

socialist social force. From a methodological point of view, this approach is much closer to petty-bourgeois socialism described in the Communist Manifesto than it is to MarxismLeninism. This is confirmed by the arguments of its supporters, concerning individual labour, on the means of production being personal property. First they create the impression that by devoting serious attention to this question, they have in mind the complete utilisation of the opportunities of small private owners not exploiting anyone else's labour, for example, for the purpose of improving the services sphere; they are in favour, it would appear, of a more rational alliance between that category of workers and the socialist economic system. But with a careful analysis, we can trace another, much more ``radical'' approach. Here, craftsmanship on the basis of those personal means of labour which cannot become a source of exploitation is included in the socialist economy, if the craftsman produces and is of service on the basis of his personal labour. According to this idea, individual labour on the basis of personal means of production is declared to be a socialist category as long as the working people engaged in such labour live on the results of their own labour alone. They combine an idealisation of this apparent socialist category which, incidentally, has existed for thousands of years and served only as a basis for producing exploiting relation, with attempts to reject the Marxist view that individual labour on the basis of personal means of production is 2V</b> 324 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 325 a remnant of past social relations and that it is to disappear with the development of socially organised production. The criticism of the views of Proudhon gives a good idea of a Marxist attitude to this problem. Contemporary Right-wing revisionists maintain that individual labour on the basis of personal means of production is a condition for the existence of working people living on their labour, and is confirming their social value and expediency in conditions of socialist commodity production. 286

Individual labour, they say, is part of social labour and has the same character of individual labour on the basis of social means of production. This is nothing but an open apology for the small-scale producer and an attack on MarxismLeninism. The identification of the labour of the private artisan and that of the associated socialist working man---qualitatively and historically very remote categories---once again testifies that the petty bourgeoisie will try to adapt themselves to any conditions. It is typical of Right-wing revisionism not to accept largescale production in general, socialist in particular. But once it has arisen, they attempt to discredit it by ascribing to it features inherent in capitalism. This refers mainly to enterprises which, in Lenin's definition, are "enterprises of a consistently socialist type (the means of production, the land on which the enterprises are situated, and the enterprises as a whole belonging to the state)"/^^1^^" belonging to the whole people and which, according to Crosland, are not. subject to the control of direct workers, and are ineffective and bureaucratised. This is the first typical ploy of Right-wing revisionists, which they use in the struggle against socialism. The second device is to put all hopes not on a nationwide scale but on the co-operative-group sector. They do not speak of the future raising of co-operative property on the basis of the industrialisation of farming to a level of the state and the inevitable union with it; rather they regard it as inappropriate to mention. They concentrate their fire on the state, planned and centralised economy and, at the same time, speak of the advantages of decentralisation and the potential of entrepreneurial activity which co-operatives have. Their least intention is that state and group enterprises should begin to be seen as economically, socially and historically equal. In an effort to strengthen their argument, the Right-wing revisionists use a third method. Its essence is to demonstrate the superiority of group ownership over state ownership, the economic value, profitability and efficiency of co-operative enterprises. They even refer to the possibility and the expediency of eliminating state administration by means of its co-operative division, turning the manpower of enterprises into group owners of the means of production. The fact that this would mean a movement backwards in regard, for example, to nationalisation, is ignored, just as they ignore the above-mentioned law of comprehensive socialisation of labour, which objectively paves the way for socialism.

287

Finally, the fourth method is to demand de-nationalisation and the dispersal of co-operatives, and the establishment of a privately-owned economy. This is motivated often by purely economic considerations and disguised by quasisocialist phraseology. The advocates of this method laud the advantages of the system of hired labour, the establishment of a labour market---i.e., categories of "labour power as a commodity". After that, revisionism loses all sense because socialism ceases to exist. That they actually mean this is apparent from the fact that now and again revisionist hopes come to life as they did, for example, when the USSR and other fraternal states began to implement economic reforms. They interpret the carefully elaborated mechanism of cost accounting and commercial responsibility within planned socialised production in a one-sided way, as the universal introduction ol commodity-money relations, without a corresponding adV. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 473. 326 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 327 justment to their new socialist content. When the Soviet Union began to make wide use of economic stimulation of production at all levels and in the activity of each individual worker and when it orientated prodiiction, as well as fulfilling the plan, towards natural indicators of profitability, the revisionists distorted all of this by saying the Soviet Union was rehabilitating and partially restoring the norms of private enterprise. It is not surprising that the ``Left''-wing revisionists, who have not yet reached an understanding of the dialectics of socialist economy---i.e., directly following capitalism and preceding communism, began to shout about "bourgeois regeneration". In turn, the Right-wing elements advocated the idea of implementing "subjectivity of social labour" which, in the final analysis, would mean making labour power private again with all the ensuing consequences. The revisionist projects of "a new model of socialism" in the second half of the 1960s contained proposals to remove enterprises from the patronage of the state, "to 288

constitute an enterprise as an economic object" (i.e., essentially to turn it into an independent owner). At the same time, they proclaimed the slogan of full development of commodity relations, so that each working group should pass through a school of ``socialist'' (socialist in words and private-proprietory in practice) initiative and would find himself in a situation where it would be obliged to mobilise all its capabilities and to apply them to economic activity "for its own use and for the benefit of society''. If we expose the real meaning of these suggestions, they come down to the following: (i) The actual division of state ownership, the turning of state socialist enterprises into something like the wellknown Diihring communes; (ii) The domination of an uncontrollable market force as a consequence of eliminating "state patronage" and the multiple increase in the number of economic objects---i.e., private owners of the means of production; (iii) The launching of a competitive struggle demagogically termed "a school of socialist initiative".* The Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party evaluated "Right-wing opportunist practice and interpretation of the economic reform as directed at dispersing all central administrative economic agencies, the complete rejection of the role of the plan, the isolation of economic leadership from political decisions and the gradual elimination of state ownership. In fact, they tried to deprive the socialist state, the Party and the trade unions of the possibility of working out and implementing an economic policy; they tried to restore the market forces with all the negative consequences for the social and material position of the working people that that would entail. Under the pretext of the need to meet the requirements of the consumer, the Right-wing revisionists sought to obtain private enterprise, * These basic features come from the pluralistic approach to the socialist economy. What do its revisionist advocates understand by it? Jifi Slama wrote: "It is obvious above all that there does not exist a one and only supreme object of economic movement which the socialist state has been taken to be and which resides completely in the 289

hands of the leading clique of the Communist Party. Other autonomous objects of the economy exist alongside the state, among which above all are enterprises and citizens, the latter both as working men and as consumers. Pluralism, without a doubt, is manifest also in the fact that enterprises, working people and consumers freely unite in various ways into temporary and permanent formations and thereby create new objects of economic life. Pluralism means also the right of individual objects of economic life to formulate their own interests and to implement them by economic and also by political means. These interests are differentiated, different and also counterposed; therefore they sometimes come into collision, sometimes are mutually exclusive, yet sometimes do not influence one another at all" (Literarni listy, No. 17, 1968). In an article entitled "Socialism Without Communists?", the same author maintained that "the transition from etatism to democratic socialism is combined with a certain splintering of social capital. . ." (Kulturni tvorba, No. 29, 1968). This position actually coincides completely with that of Kautsky and would actually mean the complete collapse of the planned socialist economic system. 328 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 329 striving to see that petty-bourgeois elements came into possession of their own economic basis for destroying socialadequate to these laws but in the re-establishment of spontaneous regulators of economic activity inherent in the presocialist conditions. In calling for a restoration of market supremacy, these ``reformers'' of socialism naturally questioned both the system and the possibility of ``modelling'' its versions in the future. The measures that they proposed put 290

to doubt the results of the labour of tens of millions of people over many decades. Of course, it would be wrong to underestimate the importance of these problems and difficulties on which the Rightwing forces sought to speculate. In the situation of the already shaped economic complex of industrially advanced socialist state, a lack of conformity of those forms and methods of economic administration which had been successfully applied at the previous stage with the new requirements often manifests itself acutely. Thus, planned administration, when the state still has to create certain modern branches of production, differs from planned administration in a situation when these branches already exist. In the latter case, clearly, the role of subjective factors is diminished, and economic initative, which earlier had mainly the character of centralised large-scale beginnings, now changes its form: first, it must be directed at increasing the efficiency of the already created multi-branch economy and at its allround intensification; second, it must acquire a relatively more dispersed, universal character in connection with the growing role of local initiative, social labour activity of the working people and a certain redistribution of responsibility for the running of the state. During the search for new methods and forms of organising production, it is necessary to determine, in a scientific way, with account for possible economic and political consequences, such methods and forms, which correspond to the nature of socialism and will help to augment revolutionary achievements, not to deform them. It is not always easy to resolve this task. That is precisely what the revisionists sometimes speculate upon. ism. During the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, there were those who suggested going even further. The Western press, for example, welcomed the projects to restore in Czechoslovakia 200,000-300,000 private enterprises in order to stimulate trade in consumer goods at the same time as ensuring the employment of labour power, which would be pushed out from state enterprises that did not make a profit. According to the calculations of the Washington Post (March 18, 1968), the sanctioning of private enterprise on such a scale would have led to a situation where approximately onefifth of the labour force in Czechoslovakia would ultimately have been employed in the private sector. That is how the Right-wing revisionist ``reform'' of socialism in a ``natural'' form was seen by its inspirers overseas. 291

The newspaper Rude prdvo noted that "a characteristic feature of that model was to ignore all the complicated aspects of the social and economic system (in particular, development of the material and technical base, the structure of production, the objective tendency for a planned and proportional system, the social effect of the process of distribution, etc.) and to concentrate attention on its commoditymoney `shell' from which they expected an automatic selfregulation of all other branches of the economy which, in fact, would reject the decisive role of the socialist state in purposely planning the development of social production and the economy in general."** The revisionist group of economists and sociologists sought an exit from the difficult situation in which the Czechoslovak economy found itself in the 1960s not in an understanding of the mechanism of the economic laws of socialism with their new content, not in a scientific economic organisation * Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 40. ** Rude prdvo, No. 23, 1969. 330 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ROOTS OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 331 The dispute on state ownership of the means of production and self-administration of labour collectives, for example, acquired a wide scale. There exists the mistaken opinion that these concepts are incompatible, which in practice leads to a complete autonomy of enterprises and a necessary organisational isolation, presupposing a really collective responsibility within the framework of the state economy, without sufficient grounds for identifying it with economic isolation. The real question which is put here is associated with the need to combat tendencies towards bureaucratic centralisation which reduces the indicators of economic efficiency and causes harm to the cause of socialist democracy. How should this fight be conducted? By means of parcelling up state property? But that is an extreme and one which would reduce to naught the planned nature of socialist economic development; it would rekindle elements of competition and leave the working people defenceless in the face of market forces. Lenin gave the answer to this question. It presupposes 292

the constant development of forms of democratic centralism, the qualitative improvement in current and long-term planning on the basis of studying and forecasting the requirements and actual possibilities of production, improving the mechanism of material incentive and cost accounting at all levels of the socialist economy. Democratic institutions and public organisations that involve people in running production directly at the workplace and local state bodies have an enormous part to play. In other words, in tackling the problems of democratising economic administration and combating bureaucracy, it is a matter of strengthening the economic basis of socialism rather than infringing upon its integrity. This is an issue of improving organisation and not replacing ownership relations. The Right-wing revisionists freely interpret (in their own interests, of course) and often directly falsify the views of the founders of scientific communism. By virtue of the abundance and unambiguous nature of statements by Marx and Engels about socialism as a system presupposing eventually complete socialisation of the means of production, the Rightwing revisionists have developed their own kind of craze in renouncing the founders of Marxism as being competent to pronounce on questions concerning the socialist reconstruction of society. The socialism defined by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme is said to be impossible to realise anywhere on the grounds that Marx and Engels were neither witnesses of, nor participants in, the building of socialism and therefore they were unable to make any qualified judgement about it. Waving aside, thereby, the founders of scientific socialism, the revisionists go even further than it may seem at first in casting doubt on the scientific methodology for analysing social phenomena, on the immense classical heritage---the invaluable stock of ideas which will continue to serve Communists long into the future. As theoreticans, Marx and Engels are frequently counterposed to Lenin, with a special emphasis made on his cooperative plan. Incidentally, the idea of getting peasants and artisans to join co-operatives after the victory of proletarian revolution in countries where the small-scale commodity sector was large, goes back to the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s and is contained, for example, in Marx's notes on Bakunin's book State and Anarchy, in Engels's letter to Bebel of January 20-23, 1886, and in the work The Peasant Question in France and Germany. Engels wrote: "Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose.""" Lenin 293

developed that idea on the basis of the rich experience of the Russian revolution and thereby created a great area of scientific socialism which deals with political, economic, social, organisational, legal and ideological problems of transferring small owners who do not exploit other people's labour to a socialist form of economy. But he developed this K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 470. 332 RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISMTODAY</b> ROOTS OF</b> RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM 333 idea without diverging essentially in any way from Marx and Engels. As ``justification'' for the conclusion that Lenin created a different conception of the first phase of communism by comparison with Marx and Engels, the revisionists have recently begun to quote an extract from his article "On Cooperation" in which he speaks of a new attitude of the Party after the revolution to co-operative forms of workers' organisation."" It is sufficient to read the text to see how far this invention is from the truth. Lenin by no means takes up a position different to that of Marx and Engels, but regards the creation, of co-operative enterprises, besides state enterprises (of a consistently socialist type) as a successful way for the socialist association of small, previously scattered commodity producers, accessible to any peasant. We were right, he maintains, in considering it a fantasy to transfer to the new system by means of co-operation of the population under capitalism, since " socialism cannot be established without a class struggle for political power in the state".""'^^1^^" Today the problem looks quite different: ".. .Now that political power is in the hands of the working class, now that the political power of the exploiters is overthrown and all the means of production ... are owned by the working class, ... now we are entitled to say that for us the mere growth of co-operation (with the `slight' exception mentioned above) is identical with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we have to admit that there has been a radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism.'"^^1^^""""" 294

What is the essence of this radical change? It is sometimes interpreted as departing from the demand for a complete socialisation of the means of production, as projected by Marx and Engels. But Lenin's formulation is so precise that it leaves not the slightest doubt on this account. Thus, in his opinion, not co-operation itself signifies socialism, but the "growth of co-operation ... is identical with the growth of socialism", precisely with the growth of socialism and not with socialism as such. That is the first point. Secondly, Lenin himself interprets this "radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism" in the sense that questions of socialist construction are put by the Party that came to power not as they were put in the pre-revolutionary period. Anyone who tries to add something new to this, to ascribe to Lenin what he had not thought or said is deliberately falsifying Lenin's ideas on socialism. Lenin explained: "The radical modification is this; formerly we placed, and had to place, the main emphasis on the political struggle, on revolution, on winning political power, etc. Now the emphasis is changing and shifting to peaceful, organisational, `cultural' work.""" This unambiguous declaration utterly excludes any understanding of the "radical change" viewpoint of socialism as something counterposing Leninism to Marxism and shows only the change in the nature of tasks that the Party has to face after the revolution. There are no grounds for false interpretation, especially as, according to Lenin, "the aim of socialism is to turn all the means of production into the property of the whole people, and that does not at all mean that the ships become the property of the ship workers or the banks the property of the bank clerks"."""" So we see, the revisionist concepts of socialist property are diametrically opposed to the real views of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to the practice of building socialism and communism. * Lenin formulated his main ideas of a co-operative plan in the original version of his article "The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power" in March 1918 (see Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 21516)---i.e., long before he wrote "On Co-operation''. ** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 473-74. *** Ibid., p. 474.

295

* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 474. ** Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 63. CHAPTER 14 REVISIONIST FALSIFICATION</b> OF THE CLASS STRUCTURE</b> OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY</b> REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 335 workers and peasants and, ultimately, creates a society without classes, a single association of free workers. The assertions of bourgeois ideologists and revisionists in regard to alleged aspirations of the working class to establish class domination as an end in itself are refuted by the socialist revolution and by life itself. The working class does not hanker after any class privileges. Its selflessness in struggle, its organisation and discipline, clear understanding of the objectives establish its supreme authority and a situation in which other strata and categories in society follow its example. A moral and political atmosphere is created in which the working class, in close alliance with the collective farmers and the intelligentsia, plays the leading part in building the new society. This role of the working class emanates not from subjective desires but from its objective status in the socialist state and socialist social relations whose roots are to be found in social production. Being the leading class of society directly connected with large-scale industrial production, the working class establishes its leading role during the socialist revolution and the building of socialism and communism. Today, bourgeois ideologists and revisionists put forward and widely propagate another ``theory'' about the so-called new class, alongside the notion that the working class is a privileged sector of society. Trotsky many years ago supplied the foes of socialism with the false idea about a "new class" within socialist society. It was taken up by the revisionists and used as a means of discrediting socialist society. It is typical that among the current proponents of the "new class" theory we should find people of the most diverse views---from franklyreactionary propagandists of imperialist ideology to revisionists of a Right- and Left-wing persuasion. Maoism also uses this ``theory'' as anti-Soviet ammunition. 296

In accordance with this ``theory'', socialist society does not differ from other antagonistic societies because, during the socialist revolution, a new class is born consisting of members Bourgeois ideologists and revisionists variously falsify the class structure of socialist society and the nature of the relationship between classes. At the first stage, they declared war on proletarian dictatorship and tried to spread the idea that under socialism the proletariat, having become the ruling class, somehow becomes separate from society as a whole, while all the remaining strata become oppressed and subordinate to the proletariat. That was the view, in particular, of Bernstein and Kautsky. Allegations that the working class takes power and establishes political control in order to become a class oppressing other working classes and strata of society are needed by the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologists so as to sow doubt among workers about proletarian dictatorship, portraying it as a means of terror, oppression and tyranny. Marx showed that the working class establishes its class dictatorship, not for ever, but so as to build a society without classes. Bourgeois ideologists conceal the particular class nature of the working class, which differs from all classes that have existed in history by the fact that it does not strive to possess private property, it turns it into national property. These actions by the working class have far-reaching social consequences. Having established its dictatorship, the working class uses that as a means for profound social change. As a result, it eliminates exploiting classes, gradually overcomes class distinctions between 336 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 337 of the state apparatus, the military, scholars, artists, etc. High earnings are the main distinguishing feature of this new class. The bourgeois ideologists distort the question, about the basic principle of socialism---distribution of material benefits according to work done. Speculation is built around the actual inequality of members of society which can only be overcome by transferring to the communist principle of remuneration according to needs. 297

The prime aim of the "new class" theory is to sow doubt about socialist society, to convince the exploited under capitalism that there is no sense in class struggle because it does not achieve its goal, insofar as, whatever social changes occur, society will not obviate traditionally existing class distinctions even if existing classes will be removed--since they will be replaced by other classes. The main thing that distinguishes classes is not earnings but their relationship to ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, there is no division of classes into those who own and those who do not own means of production. Within the framework of the new relationship to the means of production, certain differences exist. The presence of two forms of public property (state and co-operativecollective farm) causes a division into the working class and the peasants---the two friendly classes in socialist society. But under socialism there are no conditions which would engender exploiting and exploited classes and antagonisms between them, inasmuch as it is not private but public property which constitutes the basis of relations of production; that precludes any possibility of human exploitation. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL RELATIONS IN SOCIALIST SOCIETY</b> The social structure of socialist society is above all distinguished by the existence of two classes---the working class and co-operated peasants---and a social stratum known as the people's intelligentsia. Since, in modern conditions, all socialist countries have classes, the task of further strengthening and developing the alliance of the working class and co-operated peasants, with the working class playing the leading part, remains ' one of the most vital political tasks. Of course, classes under socialism cannot be identified with classes under capitalism because they are principally different classes. At the same time, it would be premature to speak about classes having disappeared in the socialist states or having become social groups deprived of the features of social classes. Under the guise of a "creative development of Marxism", revisionist elements in Czechoslovakia maintained that a "class typology" no longer existed in the socialist states and that the concept ``class'' was "a remnant of Stalinist 298

dogmatic schemes". The former director of the institute for teaching Marxism-Leninism in higher educational establishments, Pavel Machonin declared that in the textbooks on r Marxism "a vulgar class-economic reduction of a dogmatic ' character" was widespread in the 1950s. "Its remnants still exist in sociology or, rather, in social philosophy in the form of absolutising stratification of the Stalinist scheme 'workers-peasants-intellectuals-single farmers', as the only important social division of socialist societies. But this school has outlived itself."* Thus, division into classes within socialist countries "has outlived itself". But to say that classes in the socialist states have disappeared means departing from the Marxist-Leninist theory of classes and P) rejecting the leading role of the working class, the need for an alliance of workers and peasants, a class approach to an understanding of the social homogeneity of friendly classes under socialism. The working class stands at the centre of socialist and communist construction as the major creative social force. It occupies decisive, key positions in all spheres of social * P. Machonin a kol., Ceskoslovenskd spolecnost, Bratislava, 1969, p. 34. 22---2332 338 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 339 affairs---economic, social, political and ideological. It has won the right to be the leader of socialist society in the struggle for socialism. It acts as the main productive force of society and the locomotive of scientific progress. The growth in education, culture and technical training of workers inevitably leads to greater labour and socio-political activity. It is the leading workers who show an example of socialist emulation, the most sophisticated organisation 299

of labour, active participation in running production and in the activity of state agencies. As the most internationalist class, the working class plays a decisive role in consolidating fraternal friendship and close collaboration between the socialist states. In analysing the development of the socialist states, the 1969 International Meeting noted that "the building of socialism and its further development rests on the support, participation and initiative of the broadest masses inspired and led by the working class"."' The guiding and organising activity of the Communist Party is the basic condition for the decisive influence of the working class on the establishment and development of the new society. The complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR signified a qualitatively new state of society and a higher stage of unity between the Communist Party and the Soviet people. While remaining the party of the working class, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, by its very nature, objectives and tasks, became the party of the entire Soviet people. It includes in its ranks the leading section of all strata in society. All the same, the working class retains the leading place in the social composition of the Party. The progressive and innovatory role of this class is clearly manifest in its force of example, initiative and conviction. By its political maturity, ideological convictions and moral qualities, the working class influences all strata in society. As socialist society develops and improves, the leading role of the working class steadily increases, its influence on all aspects of social life grows stronger. This does not occur automatically, it happens as a result of purposive efforts by Party and other social organisations, by means of a further growth in the political and labour activity of the working class itself. The co-operated peasants under socialism are a reliable ally of the working class. In their social essence, they are a socialist class whose collective labour on socialised land, on the basis of relations of co-operative property and with the rising level of socialised production and technical equipment, has entirely transformed peasant life. Whatever sphere of social life we take, whether it is scientific progress, economic development or the further expansion of socialist social relations, the extension of socialist democracy, cultural life or the formation of a new all-round developed man---everywhere the co-operated 300

peasants take the most direct and active part. The development of agriculture, the gradual conversion of farm labour into a form of industrial labour, the rising cultural standards of the countryside and the reconstruction of farm life have wrought changes in the social outlook of the peasants. They have developed attitudes of collective labour and a collectivist psychology and are increasingly finding common ground with the workers. The major social result of socialist development is that the peasants have come much closer to the working class in their status within social production, in their relationship to the means of production, in their role in the social organisation of labour, and in their mode of obtaining, and the size of their share of, social wealth. The intelligentsia is a significant social force in the socialist countries. Its place and role in socialist society is determined above all by the fact that it is invariably * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 22. 22* 340 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 341 associated with the most advanced class of our time---the working class, and wholeheartedly serves the cause of social progress. The ideologists of anti-communism and the revisionists distort the status and role of intellectuals in socialist states and counterpose them to workers and peasants, calling them the ``elite'' of society. They write about some form of `` technocracy'' in the socialist states, a ``conflict'' between the Communist Party and the intellectuals. They see the rapid growth in the size of the socialist intelligentsia as an indication of growing social differentiation, as the formation of a new ``elite''. At the Fifth World Sociology Congress, the bourgeois sociologist, Leopold Labedz, maintained that an elite was being recruited from Soviet intellectuals, that the rising educational standards of Communist Party members and the increasing number of specialists in the Party was leading to a situation where the Party was increasingly 301

becoming an "elite organisation"/^^1^^" Another bourgeois sociologist, Bernard Barber, enumerated seven classes in the Soviet Union that are subordinate to an elite. They are: (a) the higher intellectuals; (b) ordinary intellectuals; (c) aristocratic working class; (d) white-collar workers; (e) well-off peasants; (f) workers in an unfavourable position; (g) groups forced to work.** In fact people engaged in intellectual work do not represent a privileged social group in the socialist countries. They share common interests and tasks with other social groups. In socialist society, the leaders are formed from all strata of society and not only from intellectuals. The communist party in socialist society fulfils a leading and directing role, but it is not a ruling elite. It is wrong to equate the concept of the vanguard role of the party with that of an elite, because the party expresses the basic interests of all working people and serves all working people. It unites the advanced and politically most active part of the working class, the peasants and the intellectuals. The vanguard role of the communist party by no means implies that all party members have government posts. The overwhelming majority of Communists are rank-and-file working people in industrial and agricultural enterprises who are examplary in their work. Within the Soviet Communist Party, the proportion of Communists employed in state administration and in the leading organs of public organisations is constantly diminishing, while that of those employed in production is increasing. Thus, the number of Communists in state and economic administrative bodies within party and public organisations amounted to 18.5 per cent in 1947 (of all Communists employed in the economy), 14.3 per cent in 1957 and 8.9 per cent in 1967.* The socialist intellectuals constitute an organic part of the people. They are called people's intelligentsia not only because they come from the people but because their basic interests fully coincide with those of the workers and cooperated peasants. They are interested in the rapid development of socialist production, in the strengthening of socialist society which affords them unparalleled opportunities for their all-round development. They see service to the people as their supreme patriotic duty. The ideological enemies of the USSR portray socialist society as ``closed'' or ``inflexible'' where it is impossible to transfer from one social stratum to another. And they picture bourgeois society as an open society where this transition can be made ``freely''. The American sociologist 302

Seymour Lipset, for example, maintains that in the Soviet Union opportunities for obtaining education and occupying a "high position" are increasingly diminishing for children of "humble origins" by comparison with those who belong * See Marksistskaya i burzhuaznaya sotsiologiya segodnya, Moscow, 1964, p. 210. '&#8226;'&#8226; B. Barber, Social Stratification. A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Process, New York, 1957. * See Partiinaya zhizn, No. 19, 1967, p. 17. 342 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 343 to the elite."" At the Seventh World Sociology Congress in Varna, held in 1970, the Austrian sociologist, Karl Blecha, also maintained that in the socialist states planning excludes freedom of migration, that a limitation on vertical and horizontal mobility occurs. In actual fact, it is precisely in bourgeois society that insuperable class barriers and an inflexible social structure exist which make it difficult for working people to enjoy equal rights and opportunities with the propertied classes in obtaining education and acquiring a profession. In the USA, according to Fortune, the managerial administration is made up of 79 per cent from business circles, 13 per cent from the families of farmers and only 8 per cent from workers' families. At Cambridge University in Britain, students from working-class parents make up only 9 per cent of the student body. In France, only 5 per cent of the students are from the working class and 3 per cent, from farm workers. In Austria, working-class students make up only 6 per cent of the student body. As a result of the successful policy aimed at comprehensively accelerating scientific progress, raising the educational and cultural standards of the people, the size of the intellectual body, particularly scientific and technical personnel, is quickly growing in all socialist countries. The Soviet Communist Party today enrolls 13,000 doctors of science and over 110,000 candidates of science. Among 303

the delegates to the 24th Congress of the Party there were 96 academicians and corresponding members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, branch academies and republican academies of sciences, 363 doctors and candidates of science, 138 research workers from institutions and higher educational bodies, 1,586 engineers, economists and technicians, 555 agronomists and zoologists, 483 teachers, doctors and lawyers, 370 industrial managers, 82 state farm managers and 148 collective farm chairmen. The growing unity of the Soviet people and the gradual overcoming of social class differences show that socialist development is proceeding from an incomplete social homogeneity to a complete social homogeneity, to a classless society. The progressive convergence of classes and social groups is becoming increasingly apparent. At the same time, the acceleration of scientific and cultural progress is causing the development and intensification of occupational differentiation. An intensive process is occurring which is producing new specialities and complicating the occupational structure. But the social division of labour in socialist society does not lead to a strengthening of class distinctions; on the contrary, it encourages social integration and the overcoming of class division and the remnants of social inequality. REVISIONIST NOTIONS OF SOCIALIST SOCIAL STRUCTURE</b> The problems of social structure occupied an important place in the fight by Czechoslovak revisionists against the Marxist-Leninist theory of classes and class struggle. An intensive elaboration of problems relating to social structure had begun in the early 1960s in regard to the establishment of socialist relations. Life itself posed questions of whether the establishment of socialist property in all spheres of social production was leading to an erosion of social distinctions between people. Would the representatives of former exploiting classes and the innumerable petty-bourgeois strata accept socialism and its principles without reservation? Was it right to apply the research methods of bourgeois sociologists relying on ``theories'' of stratification, social mobility and convergence to an analysis of socialist society? All these issues naturally went beyond the bounds of academic research. They became intertwined with the gen* S. M. Lipset, "Problemes poses par les recherches comparatives sur la mobilete et le developpement", Revue Internationale des 304

sciences saddles. Les donnees dam la recherche comparative, UNESCO, 1964, Vol. XVI, No. 1, p. 41. 344 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 345 eral course of the ideological struggle and led to a demarcation of contending forces on the ideological front. Those in Czechoslovakia who were loyal to MarxismLeninism firmly stood their ground in making a class approach to studying social structure. Thus, the authors of Marxist Philosophy and the Communist Party, L. Hrzal, J. Hruza, V. Ruml, J. Fojtik and others analysed socialist society and its structure from consistent Marxist and class positions. The Slovakian academician Andrej Siracky and other scholars also took a Party and class approach. However, a diametrically opposite tendency was apparent among Czechoslovak scholars. In the preface to his book Social Structure of Socialist Society, for example, Pavel Machonin wrote that the elaboration of a new concept concerning the question of social structure of socialist society requires as a first step the resolute rejection of the reduction of internal social relations of socialist society to class relations.* Class relations, he maintained, die down at "a given historical stage of internal development of socialist society"/^^1^^""" A whole set of social relations which have "an undisputedly autonomous character of development" takes their place. Under the guise of studying the complicated and multiform social relations of socialist society, Machonin conceals class relations. This subjectivist and arbitrary approach blocks the way to understanding material principles and objective laws of the development of social classes during the building of socialist society. His definition of society in general also diverges from a class analysis of socialist society. He writes: "Society is a totality of people behaving in a certain way---i.e., as a rule acting (in each specific case primarily either in the material or in the cultural sphere) for the sake of satisfying their needs; thereby society acts directly or indirectly (through cultural institutions or through other people): a) on nature 305

* Socidlni struktura socialisticke spolecnosti, p. 12. ** Ibid., p. 17. (internal or external); b) on other people....""" This definition lacks any indication of material production as the main basis of any society. It highlights not material factors of social life but subjective activity of people aimed at satisfying their needs. Having focused attention on something that is derived and having played down the main force---the mode of production of material benefits, Machonin analyses society from a position of historical idealism. ``In determining the global structure of each human society," he writes, "it is important to realise that the primary and basic range of human activity and, correspondingly, structural relations of human society can be approximately outlined by the following series of major vital processes: reproduction of human life in a biological sense, production of material and cultural consumer values, their consumption, development of human personality, emergence of new needs, etc.** Lenin long ago had to contend with a similar arbitrary eclectical mixture of factors in determining social structure. In his work What the 'Friends of the People' Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, he uncovered the reasons for just such a subjectivist method in sociology. In exposing the theoretician of Russian liberal Narodism, N. Mikhailovsky, according to whom the essential task of sociology only "is to ascertain the social conditions under which any particular requirement of human nature is satisfied", Lenin wrote that before Marx "sociologists had found it difficult to distinguish the important and the unimportant in the complex network of social phenomena (that is the root of subjectivism in sociology) and had been unable to discover any objective criterion for such a demarcation. Materialism provided an absolutely objective criterion by singling out 'production relations' as the structure of society, and by making it possible to apply to these relations that general * Ibid., p. 22. ** Ibid., p. 22. 346 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 347 306

scientific criterion of recurrence whose applicability to sociology the subjectivists denied.""" At the present time, such an eclectical mixture of various factors is still the point of departure for bourgeois sociology in regard to social structure. Machonin has completely borrowed his definition of social structure from the popular publications of bourgeois sociologists. Hence his further research logic and that of certain other Czechoslovak sociologists in regard to the problem of social structure, the logic of revisionism which led many of them to take an antisocialist position in 1968-1969. This revisionist idea was particularly expressed in the weighty tome compiled by a group of writers led by Machonin under the title Czechoslovak Society.*'^^1^^' Machonin and his collaborators proclaim their departure from the so-called vulgar interpretation of Marxist principles. In fact, this is nothing more than a break with Marxism and a transfer to the enemy camp. The reference to a "vulgar interpretation" is not new to contemporary revisionism. What does Machonin understand by "vulgar interpretation"? "We are referring," he writes, "particularly to economic reduction and the absolutising of historic transitional forms of the class struggle, class conflictuality, which ascribes an exclusively class character to every social tension and conflict automatically, without attempting an analysis of the real meaning."*** What lies behind such terminology? First, a renunciation of material and economic relations as the determining factor in social development (this he calls "economic reduction") and, secondly, renunciation of a class approach to analysing social structure (under the guise of condemning "class conflictuality"). Here, Machonin almost blatantly takes up a bourgeois sociological position, using the "social stratification" and ``convergence'' theories of bourgeois sociology to analyse Czechoslovak socialist society. From a non-class approach he produces a conglomeration of components, ``vertical'' and ``horizontal'' stratification, rather like the indicators of "participation in government through elections", "series of functions", "per capita income", `` lifestyle'', "category of home", "social weight", "cultural level", and so on. He arrives at the following conclusions: a) social differentiation in Czechoslovakia in 1967 was no longer capitalist; b) but it was also no longer that of a proletarian 307

dictatorship society; c) "a bureaucratic type of organisation" was developing to a certain extent in Czechoslovak society.* With the help of bourgeois sociological methods, Machonin further distorts the real character of Czechoslovak social structure. Having noted that empirical material obtained on the basis of "social stratification" allegedly testifies to the "cultural backwardness" of Czechoslovakia, by comparison with Western industrial societies, to Czechoslovak society as a society based on ``levelling'', the growth and importance of "the technocratic type of stratification", Machonin comes to the conclusion that the existing "model of socialism" is unsuitable. He applied these conclusions to negate the achievements of socialism in Czechoslovakia over 20 years, so as to justify the slogan, advanced in 1968, of the need for "a new Czechoslovak model of socialism''. Many of the authors of Czechoslovak Society took an active part in working out this ``model'', and in justifying its basic traits: the dividing up of national ownership of the means of production and rejection of planned economic development, the introduction of market relations as a regulating factor of economic development, renunciation of the leading role of the working class and reduction of the role of the Czechoslovak Communist Party to one of the partners in the political game.** * Ibid., pp. 161-62. ** For a critical analysis of the book and the revisionist views of its compilers see the following articles: J. Cap, S. Capova, "Skutecna * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 140. ** P. Machonin a kol., op. cit., p. 169. *** Ibid., p. 18. 348 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISTS ON SOCIALIST SOCIETY CLASS STRUCTURE 349 The book is rich in statistical data, schemes and diagrams. It presents the ``vertical'' and ``horizontal'' stratification method as opening up scope for reproduction of an infinite number of different combinations of social groupings. The deeper the authors go into these combinations seasoned with 308

mathematical formulae and equations, the more remote they become in portraying Czechoslovak society as it is in reality. Having rejected the existing division of socialist society into the working class, the co-operated peasants and the intellectuals, the authors advance another scheme: intellectual-workers, workers, members of non-agricultural co-operatives, co-operated peasants and indepedents. Having composed a table of "economic activity", the authors then ``intensify'' social gradation by bringing to the forefront people of a free profession, professional employees, civil servants, and then various categories of workers and peasants. An examination of various categories of workers in analysing intraclass differences is a necessary aspect of studying the class structure of the population. But such an analysis can be of scientific value only when it studies socialist society in its principal and basic features, as it is in reality rather than as it is portrayed in theoretical schemes or distorted to fit certain conceptual and political interests. The anti-Marxist bias of Machonin's "research group" is patently apparent. Behind their ``research'' lie the bourgeois theories of convergence and industrial society. Ignoring the class differences between bourgeois and socialist societies, they try to show that the same social strata in "vertical and horizontal" stratification exist within the bounds of "mature socialism" as within bourgeois society. The erosion of class difference in both societies leads, in their opinion, ultimately to convergence, i.e., a merging in the future of the opposed socio-economic systems. The lack of a class approach was bound to leave its mark on the far from inoffensive conclusions of the authors of Czechoslovak Society. As the book says, "The prerequisites for mature socialism are not, naturally, the only possible type of socialist structure of society at the cultural stage of industrial maturity . . . elements of contemporary society are embodied also in capitalism, just as in other types of social structure, and in some cases more expressively than is the case at present in the actual societies of a socialist type. There therefore exist, without doubt, several common features and trends in the social systems of all industrial societies. We may regard various types of these societies as versions of the social system of a single structure; moreover, everything depends on actual development and a scientific study of reality in order to prove which of the types is more effective in the cultural respect, more progressive and better copes with the problem of human personality and, consequently, is higher in degree of development.""

309

According to Machonin, socialism in Czechoslovakia was based "on a comprehensive stifling of people's initiative, especially that of the working class". The revisionists advertise the elite as the main motive force of society, discarding the working class. As Miles Kalab, former director of the sociology institute, has maintained, "new groups of an elite have been created which have been accepted by the people and which have exerted a substantial influence on development".** An analysis of social structure is not a closed page in Marxist teaching on society. On the contrary, the further development of social relations, the promotion of fresh rovnost a beztridm spolecnost", Nova my si, No. 9, 1971; J. Kucera, "Souvislost terie s realizaci politiky pravice", Tribuna, No. 4, 1971; J. Houska, I. Vlacil, "K problematice vyzkumu socialni struktury socialisticke spolecnosti", Nova mysl, No. 11, 1971; Z. Safar, "K otazkam soucasne struktury socialisticke spolecnosti", Nova mysl, No. 4, 1971. The last author is self-critical of his own participation in the revisionist book edited by Machonin. * P. Machonin a kol., op. cit, p. 45. ** Reporter, No. 4, 1969, pp. 1-11. 350 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 15 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM AND THE SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM</b> problems engendered by social development require a thorough scientific approach to social structure. This was pointed out at the 24th CPSU Congress and at congresses of other communist parties. In his report to the Fourteenth Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, Gustav Husak said that "it must be repeated once again that convergence of classes and social groups and the consolidation of the unity of the people can only occur on the basis of Marxist-Leninist ideology, expressing the objective interests of the working class, and on the basis of the practical implementation of the goals of socialism".* REJECTION OF THE LEADING ROLE OF COMMUNIST</b> 310

AND WORKERS' PARTIES AND THE IDEA OF BOURGEOIS PLURALISM</b> Present-day revisionism of a Right-wing brand pins its hopes on the disintegration of the socialist political system, rejecting the common laws of socialist construction and primarily the leading role of the working class and its vanguard---the Marxist-Leninist parties. The dialectical development of the political structure of the socialist states expresses both common features and specific characteristics. In essence, the political system of the socialist states is a historically new type of social organisation. As a component part of that system, the socialist state is the main instrument in the building of socialism and communism. The socialist state passes through two main stages as it develops: the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist state of the whole people---the state of building communism which expresses the interests of the working class, the co-operated peasants and all working people. The principal task of proletarian dictatorship is to create the basis for the socialist system, to build socialism and a mature socialist society until the complete and final victory of socialism and to pave the way for the transition to communist construction. With the complete and final victory of socialism, the proletarian dictatorship state becomes the socialist state of the whole people. * XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, Moscow, 1971, p. 61. 352 REViSIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 353 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY What the proletarian dictatorship state and the state of the whole people have in common is the leading role of the working class and of the communist party. The socialist state by its essence, goals and ideals in building communism is always a workers' state; the state of the whole people continues the cause of proletarian dictatorship. Since the victory of proletarian dictatorship, the decisive functions of the socialist state are economic administration and cultural education, the main aim of which is to build the material, 311

technical and cultural basis of socialism and communism. These general patterns in the development of the political system of a socialist type have been revealed theoretically and practically in the considerable creative activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the communist and workers' parties of the socialist community and in the documents of the International Meetings of the communist and workers' parties."" The specific characteristics of the political structure of socialist countries are investigated alongside the common ^ features of socialist political organisation. These characteristics in several countries include the multi-party system with the leading role of communist and workers' parties; the activity of national (popular) fronts in which all political parties and socio-political organisations combine to build socialism under the leadership of communist and workers' <SUB>t </SUB>parties; various forms of creative socio-political activity of the working class and other strata of working people, and <SUP>: </SUP>other specific forms of socio-political organisations of the K working people which are component parts of the political organisation of society. All these specific forms of socialist political organisation are a historical reflection of the general patterns of socialist construction. To absolutise and distort political, national and other characteristics of a political system in the socialist states is , a basic feature of various types of opportunist, Right-wing revisionist notions. Their purpose is to undermine the leading role of the communist and workers' parties in regard to proletarian dictatorship. The Czechoslovak revisionist, Miroslav Kusy, for example, denigrated the theory and practice of proletarian dictatorship in Czechoslovakia, portraying it as a "biased idea" favoured only by one power body---the Presidium of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee.* Kusy advocated a pluralist political system which would, in effect, be a variety of bourgeois democracy. He speculated on the concept of the state of the whole people in developing his notion of political system. Yet, as Soviet experience shows, the conversion of the proletarian dictatorship into a state of the whole people by no means diminishes the leading role of the working class and its vanguard, the communist party. Besides, Chechoslovakia's transition to a state of the whole people is a question of the future, insofar as this transition presupposes the 312

fulfilment of tasks confronting the proletarian dictatorship. The pluralist political model of socialism constitutes a common platform for contemporary revisionism. It is this that unites anti-communism, anti-Sovietism and revisionism. It is hardly surprising that these Right-wing opportunist, revisionist ideas should be widespread in Italy, France and other Western states. In the ideological struggle against socialist countries, bourgeois theoreticians and revisionists see their task in doing all they can to debilitate and undermine the leadingrole of communist and workers' parties in the political system of socialist society. There is reason in this apparent madness. The Marxist-Leninist parties---the vanguard of the working class and all working people---are the directing and leading force in the building of socialism, in the further * See, for example, Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. * M. Kusy, "Restrukturalizacia Moci CSSR", Filosofia, No. 5, 1968, p. 457. 23---2332 354 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 355 elaboration of Marxist-Leninist theory and in the creative resolution of problems of social development that have matured. The scientific foundation for political leadership of socialist society has been worked out, as the experience of the socialist community indicates, by Marxist-Leninist parties. Their general policy is being creatively implemented by state agencies and the entire system of mass socio-political organisations---trade unions, co-operatives, youth and other organisations. Thus, the Communist Party is the guiding vanguard of the proletariat, the leader of socialist society. But it does not replace the activity of state and public organisations; it directs and co-ordinates in building socialism and communism. ``Exercising its leading role, the Party does everything to 313

enable the working people actively to influence the shaping and implementing of state policy and give them every opportunity to display initiative, a pioneering spirit. The Party resolutely fights bureaucratic tendencies against which the administrative apparatus is not fully guaranteed under socialism either."* With its pluralist attitude, revisionism distorts the essence of political relations in socialist society and the place of communist and workers' parties in the system of these relations. In the revisionist theories of pluralism, Marxist parties are seen as "equal partners" of petty-bourgeois parties in the "free play of political forces''. In Poland, L. Kolakowski has held these opinions; he has written about "humane socialism" and the free and spontaneous fight for socialism, considering this path to be much "more interesting". He has dragged out the old revisionist thesis that the inevitability of socialist victory should not be identified with the creation of a party and with its leading role; the party, in his opinion, is bound to degenerate if it is in charge of state construction. Accordingly, the party should have only educative functions.* Ernst Fischer has also put forward his ``programme'' for abolishing communist and workers' parties and replacing them by a diffuse organisation, which would be led by forces contending with socialism and communism. He suggests creating a party which would include Marxists, non-Marxists, social-democrats, catholics and protestants.** Garaudy also regards as outmoded dogma the idea of the leading role of the communist party both in the world revolutionary process and in the socialist states. He, too, suggests opening up the party to whoever does not share the ideology of the working class, its materialist philosophy.*** The revisionist group Manifesto in Italy takes the same line;**** its authors maintain that Marx never wrote about the leading role of the communist party, even though it is mentioned in The Communist Manifesto and other works of Marx and Engels. The crude falsification of the views of the founders of Marxism and of the leading role of Marxist-Leninist parties in world revolutionary process and in the socialist states is necessary to revisionists so as "to soften up" the political system in socialist states and gradually turn those states on to a capitalist road. The futility of these attempts was shown in the Hungarian events of 1956 .and the Czechoslovak events of 1968.

314

Right-wing revisionism in Czechoslovakia put its main hopes on discrediting people dedicated to the cause of Marxism-Leninism, planting supporters of "democratic socialism" in all areas of social and political life, excluding Czechoslovakia from the socialist community and orientating it towards the Western capitalist powers. The theoreticians of Right-wing revisionism insisted on establishing a pluralistic political system in which communist and workers' * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 169. * Nowa Kultura, No. 36, 1957, p. 4. ' ** Stern, No. 49, 1969, p. 144. *** Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 284. **** // manifesto, Rome, No. 4, September, 1969, pp. 41-46. 23* 356 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 357 parties had to ``prove'' their democracy and the right to lead society. Kusy, for example, maintained that "the Czechoslovak model of socialism" envisages as a major condition the separation of party and state, the removal of the Communist Party from a leading role within the National Front. In his opinion, the National Front had to be the spokesman of the mutual dialectical play of various interests. This dialectical play presupposed the creation in Czechoslovakia of conditions favourable to incursions by anti-socialist forces for the purpose of weakening proletarian dictatorship and the Communist Party. This would have paved the way for the restoration of capitalism. The "new political model of socialism" upheld by Kusy, would have led to the Communist Party voluntarily transferring political power to the people so that it would, from that time on, take part in the power-process only indirectly, through the medium of the democratic institutional structure, all the components of which would be restored as equal political bodies. He demanded the institutional establishment of opposition parties and their right to control all levels of the state 315

apparatus. In his opinion, these opposition parties would "supervise the ruling party and forestall any action against the democratic rules of the game"."'^^1^^ Kusy recognised even such counter-revolutionary organisations as Club 231 and Non-Party Activists Club which were directly connected with Western anti-communist centres as opposition parties. These clubs became part and parcel of the anti-socialist, counter-revolutionary forces on which the imperialist state very much counted. They openly proclaimed, for example, that their aim was a return to the pre-February 1948 situation and the establishment in the country of a bourgeois-democratic system, reprisals against Communists and all honest builders of socialism. In recommending a multi-party system, Kusy glorified bourgeois parliamentary democracy whose experience allegedly should be followed by the socialist states. This concession to bourgeois democracy and ignoring of the worldshattering achievements of socialist democracy are characteristic of those who strive to replace proletarian dictatorship by "democratic socialism". This is precisely the dream of anti-communist ideologists and we can see here particularly clearly the connection between revisionism and anti-communism. In practice, the pluralist system would have meant the abolition of the Czechoslovak Communist Party as a party of a Marxist-Leninist type, since it was the major obstacle in the way of establishing "democratic socialism", i.e., a bourgeois-democratic system/^^1^^' The principles of the pluralist system were formulated as follows: "We are as a matter of principle in favour of political experiment in the sense of a pluralist understanding of the political system of socialist society; we favour the dismemberment and differentiated development of the youth movement, etc.** The whole of this pluralist system was to have been directed, as one of the "democratic socialism" initiators, Victor Cerny, made clear, against the working class and the Communist Party. Anti-socialism and anti-Sovietism were its ideological foundation. REVISIONIST THEORY AND PRACTICE OF WEAKENING</b> THE STATE AND DISMANTLING THE SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM</b> Right-wing revisionists have done all they could to weaken the proletarian dictatorship state---the major component part 316

of the political organisation of socialist society and the main weapon of building socialism. Given all the specific characteristics of building socialism in the various socialist M. Kusy', op. cit., p. 457. * Rude prdvo, November 6, 1969. ** Ibid., December 29, 1969. 358 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 359 countries, a common feature is the strengthening of proletarian dictatorship and the all-round improvement in socialist democracy. The Right-wing revisionists, in trying to erode Marxist-Leninist ideology, also do all they can to discredit the creative role of the socialist state in creating the material and technical basis of socialism and communism, in improving the people's material and cultural standards. They advocate as an alternative to real-life socialism, a form of socialism with "a human face", "democratic socialism", counterposing this ``democratic'' system to proletarian dictatorship. Proletarian dictatorship as the first main stage in the development of the socialist statehood, as the government of the working class, is organically connected with the development and improvement of socialist democracy. The experience of the USSR and other socialist states testifies to the groundless counterposing of proletarian dictatorship to socialist democracy. Lenin revealed the radical difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy in his book State and Revolution, showing that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state "democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)".* The socialist state under the leadership of the MarxistLeninist party is successfully fulfilling its main functions--economic administration and cultural education---on the basis of the wide-scale involvement of the common people in administration. In the socialist countries, the executive 317

and legislative government bodies are under the direction and control of representative government bodies at all stages, both in central and in local government. Bourgeois ideologists and revisionists widely employ in their fight against socialist democracy the argument that proletarian dictatorship is the dictatorship by the minority. Lenin often drew attention to the falseness of that argument, since the alliance between the working class and the peasants constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. He saw the main tasks of proletarian dictatorship in the construction of a socialist economy and the development of culture in socialist society. The basis of socialist democracy is a new type of economic and social relations. Socialist democracy is an organic feature of the socialist system; the connection between proletarian dictatorship and socialist democracy has been proved by the whole experience of the development of the socialist states. In his description of the historic significance of proletarian dictatorship, Todor Zhivkov, First Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party, said: "We Bulgarian Communists not only do not conceal, but take pride in the fact that our state, our power is dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of people's democracy. We are convinced that it is the dictatorship of the proletariat that is the highest form of democracy both because it is the power of the majority of the people, and also because its ultimate objective is not perpetuation of domination by the working class, but elimination of the class division itself and the construction of classless communist society."* Soviet experience testifies to the enormous creative, primarily economic and cultural, activity of the proletarian state. The creative role of the socialist state in building communism becomes steadily greater as more and more people are drawn into state administration and as radical changes occur in the social structure of Soviet society. "The Soviet socialist state is strong because it has a broad social base. With the victory of socialism the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a political organisation of the whole people under the leadership of the working class. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 412. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 296.

318

360 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 361 ``The state of the whole people is a new stage in the development of socialist statehood into communist public self-government. It continues the cause of the dictatorship of the proletariat---the building of communism---and together with other socialist states wages a class struggle against imperialism in the international arena. The road to public self-government lies through the further development and improvement of the socialist state and socialist democracy.'"^^1^^" Revisionism attempts to denigrate the attainments of socialism, to disorganise the system of state control in internal and external relations. Its task is to obliterate proletarian dictatorship under the banner of ``democratising'', `` liberalising'' the state and establishing "democratic socialism". This found expression in the counter-revolutionary programme of anti-socialist forces---the manifesto of "2,000 Words''. Right-wing revisionists have conducted a systematic battle to undermine the basis of socialist democracy. Even earlier, in Poland, Kolakowski propagated "integral democracy", seeing it as "pure democracy" without a class content. He thought it impossible to counterpose socialist to bourgeois democracy; it was, he believed, a matter not of doing away with bourgeois democracy but of extending it.** Lefebvre, Garaudy and Fischer firmly reject the principles of proletarian dictatorship, genuine socialist democracy. They treat freedom, democracy and humanism as being above-class categories---i.e., essentially from the viewpoint of bourgeois democracy, striving thereby to undermine the very foundation of socialist statehood. In their fight to tear down the political organisation of socialist society, Right-wing revisionists in theory and practice have tried to remove the mass social and political organisations of the working people from the political system of socialist society. They conduct a particularly acute struggle for the trade unions, trying to deprive them of class content. They advance the demand of "unions without Communists" and the creation of "factory councils without Communists". The main objective of the revisionist attacks 319

on the trade unions has always been to undermine and abolish the leading position of the working class in socialist society, "to depoliticise" mass public organisations, to counterpose them to the communist party and the socialist state as ``opposition'' forces. The Right-wing revisionists caused immense harm to other public organisations as well. In 1968 and early 1969, for example, the united youth organisations of Czechoslovakia were dismembered into a series of local organisations, the National Front was counterposed to the Communist Party, the creative unions of writers were turned into centres for breaking down the Party and state apparatus in the country. In other words, the revisionists tried to activate the above-mentioned mass public and political organisations so as to weaken and undermine the political system of socialist society. Their policy was to seize power and return Czechoslovakia to bourgeois development. That is quite clear from the statements of the ideologists of "democratic socialism". The revisionist Kramer, for example, wrote: "It is not important to us whether we have bourgeois or socialist democracy; plain democracy is important to us. We have fetishised concepts. Hallowed and irreproachable principles. The leading role of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. Friendship with the Soviet Union. The socialist system . .. but do we really need the Communist Party to be legalised by the Constitution? Why could we not have a party with a non-socialist content?"* Evidently, there is no need to analyse the "democratic ideals" * Fiftieth Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, pp. 38-39. ** L. Kolakowski, "Tendencje, perspektywy i zadania", Zycie Warszawy, February 3-4, 1957. Quoted from Pravda pobezhdayet, Moscow, 1971, p. 389. 362 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM 363 of this revisionist. His political exposition of bourgeois democracy is sufficiently clear. It is also not fortuitous that the attitudes of the Rightwing revisionists in regard to ``liberalisation'' of the 320

political system should receive such warm support from the avowed anti-communist Zbigniew Brzezinski in a speech on June 15, 1968. The American bourgeois ideologist Herman Kahn formulated a frankly anti-communist platform in the magazine Fortune in 1968 when he wrote that it was necessary to strengthen and accelerate the disintegrating elements in the Warsaw Pact countries, to intensify West German influence in Czechoslovakia, and to do everything possible to weaken the influence of communist parties. State activity should be based, in his opinion, on "a humanist version of socialism". This, he explained, was a social-democratic concept capable of encouraging the exit of one or more East European countries from the Warsaw Pact Organisation, and so on.* The Right-wing revisionists not only falsify and distort Marxist-Leninist common principles of socialist construction and their specific reflection in each individual country, they also try to distort the Marxist-Leninist idea of the withering away of socialist statehood. Lefebvre, for example, maintains that Marx, Engels and Lenin theoretically justify the withering away of the state at the first phase of communism---i.e., under socialism.** Yet it is well known that Marx wrote in his Critique of the Gotha Programme about the need for proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism and about "the future state of communist society",*** having in mind the development of the socialist state in conditions of building the higher phase of communist society. Marx and Engels regarded the problem of the withering away of the socialist state as a historical prospect in connection with the building of a classless communist society, i.e., the higher phase of communism. On more than one occasion, Lenin noted that one should not hasten with the withering away of the socialist state, that account should be taken of the danger of armed aggression from the capitalist states and of the immense role of the socialist state in building socialist society. In The State and Revolution, Lenin underlined that "for the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary".* In other words, the process of socialist construction is a process of preparing conditions for the withering away of the socialist state. Lefebvre stubbornly refuses to countenance these pronouncements and tries to lead the reader astray. Distortions of the Marxist-Leninist views on the withering away of the socialist state are fairly widespread in revisionist literature. 321

Participants in the 1969 International Meeting threw more light on the questions of consolidating and improving the socialist state. Janos Kadar, for example, said: "The socialist countries have many different critics. ... It has now become the fashion to identify the concept of the socialist state with bureaucracy. Naturally we still have bureaucratic manifestations and tendencies. We are fighting them by improving the work of the civil service, developing socialist statehood and socialist democracy, actively drawing ever new strata of the working people into social life, enlisting their help in solving various problems. We do not idealise the attained development level in any sphere of social life and are constantly striving to enhance it. ``This is one side of the matter. The other side is that the socialist state, the power of the working people, is the most democratic state in history, one that has ended the exploitation of man and serves the people. Experience shows that * Pravda pobezhdayet, pp. 384-85. ** H. Lefebvre, Problemes actuels du marxisme, Paris, 1958, p. 81. *** K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 26. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 468. 364 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 16 ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES</b> the withering away of the socialist state has not yet set in, that in the divided world of today there is a need for its defence function, while its economic, cultural and organisational activity is needed for building a socialist society. Accordingly our Party is working to reinforce the state institutions, to develop the activity of the state."* * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 330. The enemies of peace and socialism use the most devious methods of undermining the unity and solidarity of the socialist states. Right and ``Left'' revisionists are 322

enthusiastic henchmen of imperialism in this struggle. The most widespread Right-wing revisionist ideas aimed at dividing the socialist community are examined below. DISTORTIONS OF SOCIALIST INTERNATIONALISM</b> In their struggle against the principles of proletarian socialist internationalism, the Right-wing revisionists consider that the Marxist-Leninist ideas of internationalism have received such wide popularity and recognition that it is hardly worth while opposing them openly. On the face of it, the contemporary revisionists are also "in favour of internationalism", but in their own way. The fact of the matter is that they interpret internationalism only as ``equality'' or ``coexistence'', leaving aside or utterly rejecting the class meaning of internationalism. This interpretation was typical, for example, of many Yugoslav writers and served as a cause of the nationalist and anti-socialist speeches in Yugoslavia. A presidium meeting of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia took place in December 1971 at which President Tito made a long speech. He said that in Yugoslavia 366 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 367 ``various press organs have long been publishing articles with revisionist views that reject Marxism. We have not replied to them. We have not taken any measures. But I believe that we should have done so long ago."* After that, the leadership of the League stepped up its fight against revisionism and nationalism. The revisionist and anti-socialist forces in Czechoslovakia which intensified their frenzied attacks against the principles of socialist internationalism in 1968 and 1969, have been decisively rebutted by the Czechoslovak Communist Party. The enlivening of nationalistic views among fraternal parties reminds us of the need to safeguard the purity of a Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the principles of socialist internationalism and to conduct an uncompromising struggle against any revisionist and nationalistic distortions. Proletarian internationalism is the fundamental principle 323

of relations between communist parties and fraternal socialist states. Socialist internationalism relies on a community of basic interests and objectives of the working class in its fight for liberation from social and national oppression, for the construction of a new, socialist and, then, communist, society. This policy and the wide-ranging social practice in state, economic and cultural construction are directed towards the prosperity and the convergence of nations; it constitutes the sum total of moral principles and feelings of equality, mutual respect, brotherhood and friendship among peoples. Internationalism has always been the ideology of the working class, the most advanced and revolutionary class of contemporary society. Internationalism arises in the mind of a working man because of his special position in social production. In his "Letter to Czech Comrades on May Day" Engels noted that "the working class is international by its very nature","" that workers of different nations had "the same common interests and that as soon as the working class attains political power, it will remove all causes of national strife".* The working class has achieved political power in the world socialist community, where social and political causes of national enmity have been removed. On that basis, many millions of working people share ideas of international solidarity which have become a great power in the struggle to build socialism and communism, to consolidate the socialist states on the basis of Marxist-Leninist principles of socialist internationalism. The work by the Soviet Communist Party to implement the principles of socialist internationalism and Soviet patriotism, and uncompromising attitude to nationalism and chauvinism have brought a real revolutionary change in the social outlook of the Soviet people. "It stands to the Party's credit that millions upon millions of Soviet men of every nation and nationality have adopted internationalism---once the ideal of a handful of Communists---as their deep conviction and standard of behaviour."** The principles of socialist internationalism should be examined within a system and in their mutual relationship. We cannot divorce one from another and take only that particular one which seems advantageous in a particular situation. This is exactly what the falsifiers of internationalism do fairly frequently. It would be wrong to consider that socialist 324

internationalism means only respect for and recognition of equality and non-intervention in internal affairs, forgetting the need for mutual assistance and comradely support, the fraternal cooperation of socialist states. Socialist internationalism in those circumstances would be reduced merely to elementary standards of international relations, to generally accepted * See Borba, December 3, 1971. ** Marx/Engels, Werke, Berlin, 1963, Vol. 22, p. 403. * Ibid. ** Leonid Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 34. 368 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 369 demands for non-intervention, equality and sovereignty. Socialist internationalism does not deny or underestimate the importance of these democratic demands, it fully supports them and raises them to a new and higher level. Within the framework of the socialist community, these demands are not simply proclaimed, they are implemented in practice and actually become incontestable standards of mutual relations between fraternal countries and parties. But socialist internationalism does not end there. Its vital component elements are fraternal mutual assistance and comradely support for one another, close co-operation in economic, political and ideological affairs, among socialist states with constant observation of equality and respect for national sovereignty. Only that understanding of socialist internationalism ensures the implementation of its goal---the prosperity of each socialist country and the strengthening of the unity and solidarity of all socialist countries. Given the present situation of rivalry between the two opposing world systems, certain new aspects arise in the specific manifestation of internationalism and beyond the bounds of the world socialist system. Mutual assistance and support among working-class parties in their struggle against capitalism (in practice, the manifestation of proletarian internatoinalism during the first period of its development 325

after the Russian Revolution was actually confined to this) not only remains fully in force, but is reinforced by new and very important elements. Class-conscious workers all over the world see their task both in mutual assistance in revolutionary struggle and in support for the Soviet Union and other socialist states. The Bulgarian Communist Party Programme says: "Today the definition given by Georgi Dimitrov in the mid1930s of the attitude towards the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet Union as the touchstone of proletarian internationalism and of the effective revolutionary spirit of the political movement, the party and the public figure has even greater importance and power.""" Other MarxistLeninist parties take a similar position. Erich Honecker, First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, said in his speech at the Sixth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party: "We fully agree with your party in considering our attitude to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, our attitude to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to the country of builders of socialism and pioneers of human progress as the touchstone of loyalty to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism/^^1^^"* The terms "proletarian internationalism", "socialist internationalism" and "international solidarity" are used today in the press and the documents of the communist movement. These concepts are similar in essense. But they do have their own nuances and, consequently, certain distinctions. The concept "proletarian internationalism" is usually used when we refer to the international solidarity of the working class in capitalist conditions. When we refer to relations between socialist states or to the friendship of peoples within the framework of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia or other socialist states, we usually speak of "socialist internationalism''. Socialist internationalism, as a new and higher stage in the development of international solidarity, has a number of characteristic features. First. The social base of internationalism widens with the victory of socialism. Both the working class and wider sections of the working people in the socialist countries come under the banner of internationalism. It goes without saying that the development of proletarian internationalism into socialist internationalism takes place not by renouncing the revolutionary ideology of the working class but by all working people adopting the proletarian ideology. 326

Second. Internationalism becomes an extensive and * "Programma na Belgarskata Kommunisticheska Partiya", Rabotnichesko dyelo, April 29, 1971. ** Trybuna Ludu, December 8, 1971. 24---2332 370 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 371 everyday social practice. Socialist internationalism is distinguished both by a unity of attitude in theory or in policy internationally and by unity of fundamental positions over questions concerning state, economic and cultural construction in the socialist states, in the everyday activity of party, state and public bodies and organisations. Third. It is the organic combination of internationalism and patriotism. Leonid Brezhnev has said: "As the Party resolves the problems of the country's further development along the way mapped out by Lenin, it attaches great importance to the continuous, systematic and deep-going education of all Soviet citizens in the spirit of internationalism and Soviet patriotism. For us these two concepts comprise an unbreakable whole."* With the victory of socialism in all socialist states, the frontiers of patriotism are being extended and patriotism is converging with internationalism within the framework of the socialist community. REVISIONIST DISTORTION OF THE PRINCIPLE</b> OF UNITY OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS</b> AMfONG SOCIALIST NATIONS</b> The problem of combining international and national interests in the mutual relations between socialist states, between the communist parties, is acquiring increasingly great significance. This is due to the fact that the success of building socialism both in each socialist state and in the whole community, the success of the struggle of the working class in each individual country and of the entire world 327

labour movement as a whole considerably depend today on a correct combination of international and national interests. The urgency of this problem is all the greater since certain questions have found a different interpretation not only among representatives of different political trends, but also among Communists in different countries. Right-wing revisionists try to counterpose national to international interests, taking up a position of bourgeois nationalism. Betrayal of internationalism is one of the most dangerous features of Maoism. Nationalists regard patriotism and internationalism as mutually exclusive concepts. They speculate on the idea that patriotism and internationalism give the impression of forces operating in different directions. After all, patriotism means love for one's country and people, while internationalism means solidarity with all other peoples. The French statesman Gustave Herve expressed most sharply the idea of the incompatibility of patriotism and internationalism at the beginning of the century. In his answer to the question put by the magazine Socialist Life of whether patriotism and internationalism could coexist, he wrote: "Yes, like fire and water." Present-day revisionists take the same attitude. They remain adherents of a petty-bourgeois counterposing of patriotism and internationalism. Events show, however, that not only is there no antagonism in socialist society between patriotism and socialist internationalism, on the contrary, there is a deep dialectical unity. In socialist conditions, correctly understood basic national interests objectively combine with the international interests of the entire socialist community. Of course, this coincidence in important and basic matters does not mean complete identity of national and international interests. Every socialist country has its own national interests. They depend on the specific nature of its history, economic and cultural level, national ownership of the means of production and other factors. The socialist system with its public ownership of the means of production, prevalent Marxist-Leninist ideology and community of goals among socialist states creates the objective conditions for a coincidence and organic unity of basic interests of individual socialist states and the socialist community as a whole. * Leonid Brezhnev, op. cit., p. 37. 372

328

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 373 The more successful each socialist country is in its economic, political and cultural development, the greater its specific contribution to reinforcing the world socialist system, the positions of the progressive, anti-imperialist forces throughout the world, and to speeding up the transition of mankind from capitalism to socialism. Under socialism, there is no longer any ground for irreconcilable contradictions between national and international interests of states. There is no need to jeopardise national interests or to cause them damage for the sake of ``internationalism''. Drastic changes in the ideology and national psychology of people take place by virtue of social, economic and political factors created by the socialist system and of the internationalisation of production caused by modern scientific progress. Socialist internationalism is just the opposite of bourgeois nationalism and cosmopolitanism, although the nationalists and cosmopolitans often try to ingratiate themselves as patriots or internationalists. Nationalism and cosmopolitanism belong to the ideology of the bourgeoisie and are weapons of the social and national oppression of the working people. Superficially, they appear to be diametrically opposed ideological trends, but they are identical in their content and serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. As the ideology of the working class, socialist internationalism develops in an irreconcilable struggle against bourgeois nationalism, taking various forms depending on the interests of the bourgeoisie of a particular country. Proletarian internationalism and bourgeois nationalism are two countervailing principles corresponding to the two counterposed class camps in the world, the two policies, the two approaches to the national question. The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties are standard-bearers of the ideology of bourgeois nationalism (and cosmopolitanism). The working class and its party are the standard-bearers of ideology of internationalism and friendship among the peoples. Lenin regarded the correct combination of national and international interests in the activity of proletarian parties and all sections of the revolutionary movement as the central issue of an international policy. He roundly condemned any 329

national nihilism. The combination of socialist patriotism and internationalism rises to a new stage as the socialist community develops. It achieves this on the basis of the ever increasing convergence and harmonious community of national and international interests, not by opposing one to the other. Socialist patriotism gains its power in love for the native land, in the concern for the prosperity and freedom of the people, in an ardent faith in the creative powers of the common people. Therefore, socialist patriotism contains a feeling of class and ideological community with other socialist states, with progressive forces throughout the world. In overflowing national boundaries, socialist patriotism acquires the features of socialist internationalism. The objective need for further progress in social production lies behind the increasing convergence of the socialist states. The interests of rapid growth in labour productivity through using the scientific achievements, the tasks of ensuring a steady rise in material welfare and cultural standards invariably demand the constant development of co-operation in many spheres. The multifarious relations among fraternal parties and states, among peoples, develop on that basis; they herald the triumph of the principles of socialist internationalism in their mutual relations. A new type of international relations arises, based on selfless assistance to one another, on the principles of socialist internationalism. Such .negative, national-selfish tendencies as attempts to obtain an advantage for one country at the expense of another socialist state and, consequently, of the entire socialist community, disappear altogether because in the final analysis they cause harm to that country itself. Behind the co-operation of socialist states lies a single class aim of achieving overall economic, scientific, cultural 374 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 375 and material improvements for the sake of the people, the triumph of the principles of socialism and communism. One cannot, of course, consider as internationalist the position of 330

those who, as a measure of their contribution to the fight for a world-wide socialist victory, see only the internal achievements of their countries and remain indifferent to the fate of socialist and communist construction in other countries, to the needs of the socialist community as a whole. The communist and workers' parties of the fraternal socialist states accord immense significance to the education of working people in a spirit of socialist patriotism and consistent internationalism, because various manifestations of nationalism, national selfishness, national narrow-mindedness do not disappear automatically. Like other vestiges of capitalism, they remain for a long time, even after the establishment of socialism; they are used by the old, outmoded forces of society to combat the new and progressive development and are exploited in every possible way by world imperialist reaction. The communist parties are conducting a fierce struggle to overcome the vestiges of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism. In this noble deed, which is a component part of building communism, they rely on Marxist-Leninist theory and its principles. The Central Committee Report to the 24th CPSU Congress states: "Successes in socialist construction largely depend on the correct combination of the general and the nationally specific in social development.... It is impossible to build socialism without basing oneself on general regularities or taking account of the concrete historical specifics of each country. Nor is it possible without a consideration of both these factors correctly to develop relations between the socialist states."* The education of working people in the socialist states in a spirit of combining proletarian internationalism with socialist patriotism encourages success in each of the fraternal countries and in the entire socialist community, the strengthening of their unity and solidarity, and the further promotion of fraternal relations among them. SOCIALIST ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND ITS REVISIONIST CRITICS</b> Right-wing revisionists do all they can to distort the essence and aims of socialist economic integration. They reject the idea that it is historically necessary and attempt to prove that it engenders a "threat to the national sovereignty" of individual countries. During the 1968-1969 period, serious attacks were made 331

in Czechoslovakia on the activity of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. These attacks glorified the economic reforms being carried out in Czechoslovakia and, at the same time, stated concern for the "national interests of Czechoslovakia as a small nation". Radoslav Selucky, in an article "Questions about CMEA", maintained that " indisputably, the economic reform in Czechoslovakia, by relying on the commodity nature of a new model of socialist planned economy is at odds in foreign trade with the terms of economic relations with socialist states, where the economy and foreign trade are still directed by methods that we have already overcome"/^^1^^" In an article entitled "Friendship and Politics", the newspaper Literdrni listy openly attacked the basis of genuine sovereignty and independence of Czechoslovakia---its status as an equal participant in the socialist community. With an attitude of alleged concern about "national interests", the author of the article attempted to find a contradiction between Soviet interests as "a world power" and Czechoslovak interests as a small nation/^^1^^"* The Comprehensive Programme for the Further Extension 24th Congress of the CPSU, pp. 9-10. * Svobodne slovo, April 20, 1968. ** Literdrni listy, August 8, 1968. 376 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 377 and Improvement of Co-operation and the Development of Socialist Economic Integration by the GMEA MemberCountries, adopted in July 1971, also came under attack from revisionists of the Garaudy ilk. The Programme was drawn up on the basis of the CMEA Statute and in full accord with the paramount tasks and fundamental directions of socialist economic integration as defined by the leaders of the communist and workers' parties and heads of government of the countries in the community at the 23rd (Special) CMEA Session in April 1969. Socialist economic integration is a process of the international socialist division of labour, consciously controlled 332

in a planned way by the communist and workers' parties and governments of the socialist states. During its operation, a modern, highly-efficient structure of national economies is formed. They steadily converge and their economic levels become more equal; they form profound and stable relations in the main economic, scientific and technological sectors. At the same time and on that basis, there take place an extension and strengthening of the international market of those countries; they improve their commodity-money relations. This integration creates favourable conditions for a more efficient use of resources of the countries and encouragement to the scientific revolution which become a major place, d'armes of the rivalry between capitalism and socialism. Socialist economic integration proceeds from the principles of socialist internationalism. It takes place on the basis of respect for state sovereignty, independence, strict observance of national interests, non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries, complete equality and voluntary action, mutual advantage and comradely mutual assistance. These MarxistLeninist principles of interstate relations of a new socialist type correspond to the requirements and the tasks of building socialism in each country and consolidating the entire socialist community. They are a firm basis for all-round and fruitful international co-operation. The Comprehensive Programme evoked unanimous approval from the supreme party and state agencies and fervent support from the people in CMEA member-states. Implementation of this Programme will help to give a further boost to living standards, consolidate political and economic unity of the fraternal states and guarantee peace and security in the world. The enemies of peace and social progress, Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionists and nationalists greeted the Comprehensive Programme in an entirely different way. They used every possible method to discredit it and to play down its progressive importance. The interests of further economic progress above all require the implementation of socialist economic integration. The fact is that with the present economic progress, especially in regard to scientific development, two countervailing tendencies are increasingly apparent: on the one hand, we have more and more different types of machines, appliances and manufactured goods in order to meet human needs. On the other hand, each individual enterprise is finding it more expedient to produce as few items as possible. Moreover, 333

the production of a single machine or manufactured commodity requires the co-operation of dozens, hundreds and, sometimes, even thousands of independent enterprises. Further economic progress requires a very narrow specialisation of each single enterprise and, consequently, it is vitally necessary for them to co-operate on a wide scale to meet the ever growing requirements for a great variety of manufactured goods. It is necessary to have a huge amount of narrowly specialised industrial enterprises which a small state does not and cannot have. Production co-operation within certain limits has existed for a long time among socialist countries. It is bringing marked advantages and making it possible with minimum expenditure to have a more efficient production. The Comprehensive Programme envisages a much more extensive economic and scientific co-operation and its transfer to a more up-to-date foundation. It maps out specific measures 378 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 379 for organising joint production of lorries, motor cars, the production specialisation of mining, rolling, oil-extractive and oil-refining equipment, plant for the chemical industry, power plant, including installations for the atomic power industry, etc. Joint co-operation in engineering makes it possible to economise immensely on power and means. It will have a beneficial effect on the technological reconstruction of the economies of all socialist countries. Important concerted measures have been worked out to provide all socialist states with ferrous and non-ferrous metals, fuel and energy, various raw materials, and to develop agriculture and the food industry, transport and communication, construction and water resources. Socialist economic integration and the international specialisation and co-operation in production, that are being carried out in the course of integration, enable the socialist states to avoid unnecessary overlap in building identical enterprises and manufacturing similar products. This encourages joint efforts by workers in the socialist states to tackle major economic and scientific problems together, to improve the utilisation of equipment and materials, plant and resources in order to increase labour productivity, 334

reduce production costs and greatly raise the material and cultural standards of the working people. Integration is necessary for accelerating scientific progress and successfully implementing the scientific and technological revolution. Given the present rate of scientific and technological development, when almost every day sees a demand for more and more new machinery, instruments and tools, which are increasingly complex, each state alone not only finds it difficult but even impossible to provide all economic, scientific and technological sectors with the necessary materials and equipment and the corresponding personnel of designers and engineers. The defence of the gains of world socialism, consolidation of peace and security demand the successful implementation of socialist economic integration. Inasmuch as socialist economic integration is objectively necessary for further economic development and higher living standards, it is necessary and advantageous to each socialist state and to the entire socialist community. The principle of harmoniously combining the development of each socialist state and the whole socialist community is inscribed in the Comprehensive Programme: "The comprehensive development and strengthening of every socialist country is decisive for the advancement of the socialist world system as a whole. The successful development of the economy and improvement of social relations, the all-round progress of each socialist country, further the common cause of socialism."* Socialist economic integration is intended to ensure a genuine socialist international division of labour so that, through a more rational location of production among individual socialist states, each country can use to the maximum the advantages ensconced in the world socialist system. Relations should be established in the process of this integration among socialist states, and forces of production should be located that would enable, at a given level of economic development, countries to expend the smallest possible amount of live and materialised labour on output. Labour productivity is most important for the victory of socialism over capitalism, for the attainment of communism. Right-wing revisionists and nationalists try to split the socialist community by spreading the false rumour that integration is of benefit only to big states---i.e., the USSR--and disadvantageous to the other countries in the community. Another version of the same opportunist thesis is put about that it is of benefit to the more advanced states and 335

encroaches upon the interests of the less advanced states. In fact, socialist integration is beneficial and necessary for * Comprehensive Programme for the Further Extension and Improvement of Co-operation and the Development of Socialist Economic Integration by the CMEA Member-Countries, Moscow, 1971, p. 13. 380 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 381 all---both big and small states, the more advanced and the less advanced socialist countries. While a large country to a great extent can ensure its wide variety of requirements by organising virtually all branches of modern production, it is quite obvious that this is not possible for small states. It ought to be remembered that a corresponding market and consumption of a large number of manufactured goods are necessary for the sort of large-scale production of today. That is why it is of greater benefit for small and relatively less advanced countries to create not all sectors of modern industry but those for the development of which they have the most-favourable conditions. It is more advantageous to advanced countries to reconstruct their industry more in accordance with other states than to try to meet all their needs on their own efforts. Specialisation and co-operation of production produce an economic effect which enables the countries to recoup their expenses, associated with arranging co-operation and the reconstruction of enterprises, many times over. Right-wing revisionists mechanically apply the laws of capitalist development to socialist society and, on that basis, they reject the very possibility of a gradual equalisation of economic growth levels in the socialist community. But this is taking place already during socialist construction. The steady equalisation of economic growth levels of the socialist states is a law-governed process in the development of the world socialist system. The process is determined by the socialist nature of relations of production within the socialist states and by the development among them of all-round political, economic and scientific co-operation and mutual assistance. The countries in the community, both the industrially advanced and less advanced, are materially interested in promoting the process of the gradual equalisation of 336

economic growth levels. The Comprehensive Programme lays down the fundamental ways to achieve this grand design. It involves the maximum mobilisation and efficient use of all efforts and resources, the use of the advantages of the international socialist division of labour. It is exceedingly important for the socialist states, particularly the less industrially developed, to set the long-term objectives in forming the country's optimum economic balance. The creation of this balance in the circumstances of scientific progress presupposes extensive and efficient foreign economic relations, the promotion of international production specialisation and co-operation. If they mobilise to the maximum and use efficiently their own efforts and resources, the socialist states can use on a bilateral or multilateral basis various ways and means of gradually equalising the economic levels of all the socialist states. Moreover, the less developed countries can benefit from comprehensive assistance and co-operation in building and exploiting industrial and other projects, in training scientific and technical personnel, in receiving credit and in carrying out prospecting. The socialist states, in carrying out the Comprehensive Programme, are employing a great variety of forms of cooperation which enable all interested countries to participate. On the basis of the principle of complete voluntary participation, each country takes upon itself corresponding obligations associated with its participation in joint measures. At the same time, non-participation of one or several countries in particular measures of the Comprehensive Programme should not prevent interested countries from implementing joint co-operation. Non-participation of a few countries in particular measures should not affect co-operation in other spheres. Right-wing revisionists ignore the basic differences between socialist integration and economic integration which occur in the capitalist world, particularly in the Common Market. The association of capitalist states does not result in nations coming closer together. It only helps to oppress peoples by the exploiting elite of the big imperialist powers and causes a worsening in national contradictions. The countries that have joined the Common Market are forced 382 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

337

ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES</b> 383 to carry out a single policy in foreign trade, currency and agriculture. Capitalist integration restricts national sovereignty of countries, which are obliged to agree to the decisions of Common Market ruling bodies. Imperialist integration leads to the creation of supra-state agencies. The decisions of these bodies are binding on all governments even if they do not agree. At the same time, there is no equal representation of countries within the supreme agencies of the Common Market. For example, in the Common Market Ministerial Council, West Germany, France and Italy have four votes each, Belgium and Holland two and Luxembourg one. By using the voting machine, the stronger states can force other countries to agree to their policies. The main aim of capitalist integration is to boost the super-profits of the international monopolies and to intensify exploitation of working people, to enrich the advanced imperialist states at the expense of their ``junior'' partners. Socialist economic integration is fundamentally different. Its major objective is to ensure a sharp upsurge in the material and cultural standards of people in all socialist states by means of a high rate of socialist economic growth, improved efficiency, scientific and technological progress and a faster growth in labour productivity. The operations of international socialist organisations, such as the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the International Accounting Bank and the Joint Nuclear Research Institute are aimed not at infringing upon the interests of particular nations and granting privileges to others, but at the harmonious combination of the interests of each socialist country and the entire socialist community. REVISIONIST SPECULATION ON DEFENCE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY</b> In attacking the principles of socialist internationalism, present-day revisionists often refer to "defence of national sovereignty''. In counterposing socialist internationalism to national sovereignty, O. Milicevic writes with exaggerated pathos about "complete sovereignty". He says: "If we agree that the basis of relations between socialist states is the principle of socialist internationalism and not national sovereignty, that would mean the automatic acceptance of arbitrariness, 338

subjectivism and external causality in carrying out sovereign rights and duties. Therefore, some foreign forum would have the right to be judge on the observance of the principles of internationalism, to interfere in internal affairs in the event of it being established that something was not in order. Therefore, the right would exist to interfere from outside with the sovereign rights of any of the socialist states.... There can be no genuinely socialist internationalism without the complete sovereignty of a socialist state."* Of course, there can be no genuine socialist internationalism without the complete sovereignty of a socialist state. But there can also be no complete sovereignty of a socialist state without genuine socialist internationalism. It all depends on a correct understanding of the one and the other. Sovereignty is the right of a people (nation or nationality) itself to dispose of its destiny, freely to choose its social system, form of government and leaders without being restricted by anyone or anything. The concept of sovereignty also includes the right of a people to conduct an independent home and foreign policy and, consequently, freely to choose its foreign allies, to enter or not enter into particular contractual relations or alliances with other sovereign peoples. Milicevic tries to counterpose national state sovereignty to international solidarity. This in itself is based on a rejection of the class approach to both categories; it is based on a replacement of that approach by a bourgeois-formalist juggling of concepts. * Borba, November 19, 1969. 384 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 385 Lenin underlined the dialectical relationship between national sovereignty and fraternal international solidarity. In his article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", Lenin decisively upheld the right of nations to selfdetermination up to and including secession and the formation of their own states. At the same time, he showed convincingly that that was not a call for disunity: "To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separatism, is as 339

foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties. . .. From their daily experience the masses know perfectly well the value of geographical and economic ties and the advantages of a big market and a big state. They will, therefore, resort to secession only when national oppression and national friction make joint life absolutely intolerable and hinder any and all economic intercourse. ... ``The interests of the working class and of its struggle against capitalism demand ... resistance to the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie of every nationality."* A class approach to evaluating national sovereignty is particularly important today. Thus, the Joint Soviet-Czechoslovak Declaration points out that the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia are of one accord in their class evaluation of the sovereignty of a socialist state as an expression of the power of the working class and all working people. They proceed from the fact that a class understanding of sovereignty includes both the inalienable right of each socialist state and each communist party to determine the ways and means of building socialism and also the direct duty to defend the government of the working class and all working people, its revolutionary socialist gains. In that sense, each communist party is responsible for its own activity to the people of its country and bears an international responsibility to the countries of the socialist community and to the international communist and labour movement.* Socialist internationalism means both respect for national sovereignty and the daily care for strengthening and promoting the whole socialist community. Revisionists oppose the sovereignty of individual socialist states to the interests of the socialist community; this has nothing to do with socialist internationalism, these ideas are permeated with bourgeois nationalism and have nothing in common with the real interests of the peoples in the socialist states. UNITY OF SOCIALIST STATES</b> The need further to consolidate the socialist community emanates from the task of strengthening the might of the socialist countries in their competition and rivalry with the capitalist system, in their fight to prevent the constant attempts by imperialism to split the socialist states and to put them at loggerheads. Leonid Brezhnev has said: "Today 340

we require unity, co-operation and joint action chiefly in order to accomplish more quickly and effectively the tasks of developing socialist society and building communism. Moreover, we require unity, cohesion and co-operation in order to safeguard and consolidate the peace, so vital for all the peoples, as successfully as possible, to carry forward the international detente, and to effectively repulse all aggressive sallies of the imperialists, all attempts to impinge on the interests of socialism."** The political strategies of contemporary imperialism try to restrain the progress of mankind and its movement to communism; they do this by subversive activity aimed at * See "Sovmestnoye sovietsko-chekhoslovatskoye zayavlenie", Pravda, October 29, 1969. ** Leonid Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 43. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, pp. 422-24. 25---2332 386 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 387 splitting the world socialist system, the main revolutionary force of the present day. Imperialist circles do not begrudge money and effort in order to destroy the unity and solidarity of socialist states, to sow doubt among them, to drive a wedge between their mutual relations. As the American ideologist Brzezinski has written, "whenever a country increases the scope of its external independence from Soviet control, it should be rewarded.... And similarly whenever an opposite trend develops, the United States should be prepared to discontinue its assistance. .. ."* The imperialist states never give aid to any country without particular political and economic objectives, without any real advantage in it for themselves. A state which tries to build socialism alone, counting on help from the imperialist powers, can become a plaything in the hands of world imperialism, a weapon in its fight against the socialist community. A real guarantee of economic and political independence for each socialist country is the 341

incomparable power and might of the whole socialist community. The Soviet Communist Party Programme points out that "the experience of the world socialist system has confirmed the need for the closest unity of countries that fall away from capitalism, for their united effort in the building of socialism and communism. The line of socialist construction in isolation, detached from the world community of socialist countries, is theoretically untenable because it conflicts with the objective laws governing the development of socialist society. It is harmful economically because it causes waste of social labour, retards the rates of growth of production and makes the country dependent upon the capitalist world. It is reactionary and dangerous politically because it does not unite, but divides the peoples in face of the united front of imperialist forces, because it nourishes bourgeois-nationalist tendencies and may ultimately lead to the loss of the socialist gains.""" The agreed policy of the fraternal socialist countries has been an important factor securing, in recent years, a lessening of international tension and positive steps towards consolidating peace in the world. In propagating the ideas of bourgeois nationalism, Rightand ``Left''-wing revisionists are acting as the henchmen of the most reactionary and imperialist circles, conducting subversive activity against fraternal socialist states. Rightwing revisionist elements, who made themselves out to be "national patriots" and "democratic socialists", headed the counter-revolution in Hungary in 1956. Having begun with "the improvement" of socialism and defence of "national interests", they moved to bestial treatment of Communists and other genuine patriots, shooting and hanging them without trial or investigation. They were even prepared to invite troops from Western imperialist powers to occupy Hungary "for the defence of its national interests''! The Hungarian events served as a sombre lesson for the working class and all working people in the socialist states. They helped to enhance revolutionary vigilance in the socialist countries. It must be remembered that lessons from the Hungarian events were learned not only by the friends of peace and socialism. The enemies of the working people, the leaders of imperialist reaction and their henchmen also learned something. Though not changing their main goal--the fight against communism, they are changing their tactics. The enemies of socialism have become more circumspect in concealing their real face. Under the mask of ``defenders'' of freedom and democracy, they are using the most 342

sophisticated forms of nationalism, playing on the feelings of young people, students and intellectuals, artificially exploiting shortcomings and difficulties in socialist development so as to lead astray forces inexperienced in class struggle * Z. Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition. For a Broader Conception of Americas Role in Europe, New York, 1965, p. 154. The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1962, p. 466. 25* 388 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DISUNITE THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 389 and urge them to take an anti-communist and nationalist path. Thus, for example, forces hostile to socialism persuaded some students to take a false path in Poland in the spring of 1968. But, throughout the country, a wave of mass meetings of workers, people in town and country, took place which demanded severe punishment for the guilty persons and declared their complete support for the Party and government. In 1970, hostile forces once again tried to exploit difficulties and mistakes, caused by individual leaders, so as to provoke the working class of Poland into a clash with the Party and government. But the Polish United Workers' Party manifested lofty ideological maturity in dealing decisively with the mistakes of their leaders, replacing them in leading posts and taking vigorous measures to overcome the errors and difficulties that had arisen. As a result, they strengthened the bonds between the Party and the working class and all working people; the authority and the leading role of the Party in political, economic, cultural and ideological affairs grew. Nationalism and Right-wing revisionism paved the way for and became the main causes of the political crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1969. Gustav Husak said at the 14th Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party: "Anton Dubcek and his supporters caused harm to the Party and the people by putting forward the revisionist notion of so-called democratic socialism, crudely infringing upon the obligations that their high posts 343

gave them in regard to the Party and people. They constantly retreated in the face of the pressure of counterrevolution and actually paved the way for it by crudely going back on the obligations that emanate from our allied duties; they retreated from the policy of the 13th Congress, they even stooped to a policy of elimination, advocated in the hostile platform of the well-known anti-Party congress held at Vysocony. This congress attempted to create a counter-revolutionary headquarters under the umbrella of the Communist Party, a headquarters which was to rupture the alliance with the Soviet Union and our socialist allies, and also gradually to whittle away the achievements of socialism in our country."* The Right-wing opportunist efforts created a real threat to socialist gains in Czechoslovakia and to her national interests, and also to the international unity and security of all countries in the socialist community. A resolution of the 24th CPSU Party Congress stated: "The experience of the events in Czechoslovakia was a fresh reminder of the need to enhance vigilance in face of the schemes of imperialism and its agents in the countries of the socialist community, of the importance of consistently fighting Right-wing opportunism, which on the pretext of `improving' socialism seeks to destroy the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Leninism and paves the way for penetration by bourgeois ideology."*"" Speaking at the 14th Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, Leonid Brezhnev said that the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia had emerged victorious from its hard trials. Its best forces and basic nucleus had withstood the test with honour. In upholding the gains of socialism, the Czechoslovak Communists had been fighting both for the national interests of their people and for international interests of the whole international communist movement, for peace and for social progress. "Events have again shown quite clearly that the power of socialist internationalism, the fraternal co-operation of socialist states, their uncrushable solidarity and mutual support has been, is and will continue to be the greatest value for Communists in the socialist states, their reliable support and powerful weapon in the fight against the class enemies."*** The unity of the socialist states and all anti-imperialist * Quoted from Pravda, May 26, 1971. ** 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 213. *** Pravda, May 27, 1971.

344

390 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 17 RIGHT-WING REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE</b> forces was the main theme of the 1969 International Meeting: "The successes of socialism, its impact on the course of world events and the effectiveness of its struggle against imperialist aggression largely depend on the cohesion of the socialist countries. Unity of action and the socialist countries is an important factor in bringing together all anti-imperialist forces.""" The power of the world socialist system lies in its unity, in the close friendship and fraternal co-operation of the socialist states. That is why a strengthening of the unity and solidarity of the socialist states and all progressive forces in the world is the international duty of all Communists and is a command of the times. * International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 23. The problems of war and peace today concern everyone and affect the destiny of all mankind. Different states and classes, political parties and statesmen approach these problems from different, often diametrically opposed class positions. The revisionists also take it upon themselves to tackle these problems, trying to make political capital out of them. But their ideas on these questions normally come down to advocating bourgeois pacifism and petty-bourgeois nationalist ideas. The major characteristic of present-day revisionism is that, on the questions of war and peace, Rightwing opportunism has of late more than ever coalesced with ``Left''-wing opportunism; one may even say that it has virtually merged with it. The Right-wing revisionists are revising, in an opportunist way, the Marxist-Leninist maxim that has been adopted and frequently confirmed by international meetings of communist and workers' parties that "the consistent peace policy of the first socialist country---the Soviet Union and other socialist states, the intensification of the working people's struggle in the capitalist countries, the growth of the national liberation movement, and action by broad circles of world democratic opinion and by peace fighters remove the fatal inevitability of another world war and create a real possibility for effectuating the striving of the 345

392 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE 393 peoples for peace"."' Many revisionists base themselves on the idea that the concept of war is eternal. In attempting to justify this thesis, they distort the causes of wars in general, the sources of wars in our day in particular. They take up the bourgeois idea that the roots of war lie deep in "the national spirit", in the eternal and ineradicable struggle between ``small'' and ``great'' powers, in the rivalry between great states irrespective of their class essence. Sometimes they even make racist assertions. For example, the Czechoslovak weekly magazine Student gave in 1968 the basic cause of wars as the struggle of Asiatic peoples against the Aryans of Europe.** The revisionists also resort to the geopolitical argument which regards the desire for territorial expansion as an invariable cause of wars. In examining the sources of modern wars, the Right-wing revisionists carefully avoid the term ``capitalism'' and maintain that ``industrialism'', irrespective of social system, makes wars inevitable, because it creates the possibility of accumulating stocks of armaments. Since the world is moving in a direction of industrial and technological progress and all states are creating stocks of modern armaments, they believe that all bans are useless in the face of the threat of the destructive force of these arms. Many revisionists see the basic cause of wars today in the unrestrained growth in militarism which is said now to have a self-contained importance and is becoming an independent force from being a political weapon of particular classes. They also attempt to revise the Marxist-Leninist theory of the relationship between war and politics. They reject the idea that war is a continuation of politics by other means. In the revisionists' opinion, the issues of war and peace reflect above all philistine confusion in the face of the complexity of contemporary world problems, especially those connected with the danger of world thermonuclear 346

war---a danger which has not yet fully disappeared, even though it may have diminished. Marxism-Leninism has provided a scientific explanation of the nature, essence and causes of wars. This has been fully borne out by history. Wars have not been and will not be an eternal phenomenon in social life. Their roots lie not in a "national spirit", nor in an eternal struggle between small and big countries, even less are they to be found in racial characteristics. The social roots of wars lie in the foundation of class society---private property which, having divided people into classes, has created antagonistic contradictions in society and has produced war as a means of resolving these contradictions. At the present time, imperialism, rather than technology, is the source and cause of a worsening in the international situation, of world and local predatory wars.* No matter on what scale they occur, aggressive wars have always been a continuation and weapon of imperialist policy. Of course, world conflict in the conditions obtaining today, when, by using a thermonuclear weapon, immense territories in any part of the world can be laid waste in a matter of minutes, is a hitherto unprecedented danger for all mankind, including imperialism itself. That leaves its mark on the relationship between war and politics today. Nonetheless, it does not alter the sources of the danger of war. The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties again underlined that "wars, acts of aggression and violence, encroachments on the freedom of nations---all have their roots in the policies of imperialism"."""' Militarism, which was produced by imperialism, is * Inlernalional Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 48. ** See Marksizm-leninizm---ycdinoye internatsionalnoye ucheniye, Issue No. 3, Moscow, 1968, p. 156. * The question of liberation wars against the colonialists and racialists is not examined here. '' International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 47. 394

347

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE 395 by no means a self-contained factor of social life, as the revisionists maintain; it serves only as the product and instrument of the most aggressive circles of the imperialist bourgeoisie. The evil assertions that aggressive wars are inherent both in exploiting and in socialist society and that they can naturally arise between socialist states is a dangerous form of Right-wing revisionist distortion of the problem of war and peace. By perpetuating this lie, which distorts the very basis of relations between socialist states, the Right-wing revisionists claim that armed force is the "arbiter and corrector" of relations between socialist states, a regulator of the internal processes within the socialist camp. The Chinese-instigated incidents on the Sino-Soviet border in the summer of 1969 caused particular joy to the Right-wing revisionists. However, no politically honest student can ignore the specific situation which was created by the chauvinistic leaders of China who, long before the incidents, launched an intensive hostile campaign against the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, making territorial claims on the Soviet Union and ultimately resorting to armed force. That policy of Peking testifies not to the abstract possibility of wars between socialist states, as bourgeois propaganda and the revisionists claim, but to the departure of the Chinese leaders from the basic principles of socialist policy, from internationalism, from Marxist-Leninist principles that have become an integral part of the mutual relations between socialist states. The CPSU Central Committee Report to the 24th Party Congress stated: "It is all the more absurd and harmful to sow dissent between China and the USSR considering that this is taking place in a situation in which the imperialists have been stepping up their aggressive actions against the freedom-loving peoples. More than ever before the situation demands cohesion and joint action by all the antiimperialist, revolutionary forces, instead of fanning hostility between such states as the USSR and China."" It was 348

precisely in that connection that it stated: "We shall never forsake the national interests of the Soviet state. The CPSU will continue tirelessly to work for the cohesion of the socialist countries and the world communist movement on a MarxistLeninist basis. At the same time, our Party and the Soviet Government are deeply convinced that an improvement of relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China would be in line with the fundamental, long-term interests of both countries, the interests of socialism, the freedom of the peoples, and stronger peace. That is why we are prepared in every way to help not only to normalise relations but also to restore neighbourliness and friendship between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China and express the confidence that this will eventually be achieved."** War and armed force in the relations between nations and states are alien to the very nature of socialism. Socialism is the first phase of communist society which, in Lenin's words, "by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war Some revisionists try to justify the possibility of clashes between socialist states by the alleged existence of antagonistic contradictions within the socialist system. They assert that contradictions develop in the socialist community as the economy develops, as the state and the nation are built up and that they actually get worse. They see the source of armed conflicts between socialist states in the variety of conditions that produced the existence in the world of different "models of socialism". The roots of ``possible'' conflicts between socialist states are seen even in economic * 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 16. ** Ibid., pp. 16-17. *** V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 399. 396 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE 397 reforms being carried out in those countries which are creating "an objective basis for the emergence of individual 349

conflict situations in these relations``/'" In turning things on their heads, the Right-wing revisionists write that recognition of the possibility of conflicts, including armed conflicts, between socialist states is even better for these countries. The Czechoslovak newspaper Smena, which was run by revisionists, wrote on May 14, 1968, that "a monolithic understanding of the unity of the socialist camp not only is not of benefit to socialist states, it is often harmful to those states and the whole socialist camp".** Nobody is going to maintain that the victory of socialism in a few countries means complete resolution of all problems in relations between them. Certain problems and even difficulties can still exist today. A quarter century of world socialism, however, has already shown that antagonistic contradictions cannot arise between socialist states. The slanderous ideas of the revisionists and Maoists about Soviet ``hegemony'' are a nationalistic reaction to the prestige and popular recognition throughout the world of Soviet achievements. The objective course of history put the Soviet Union in the front rank of fighters for the liberation of the working people from capitalist oppression. The first successful socialist revolution in the world took place in Russia and the first developed socialist society was built. The Soviet Union is the bulwark of anti-imperialist struggle, a reliable defender of the peoples from nuclear blackmail by aggressive, imperialist forces. The USSR is giving selfless assistance to all socialist countries and to all peoples fighting for their national and social liberation. The power and might of the Soviet Union today present the main obstacle in the way of imperialist aggression. The Soviet Union has made a decisive contribution to the cause of averting nuclear war, consolidating peace and security, turning the principles of peaceful coexistence into a norm of international relations, and to the cause of international detente. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Soviet Union should be opposed more than any other state by the entire anti-communist strategy of imperialism. It is today impossible to contend with imperialism, and, at the same time, to direct blows against the Soviet Union. The struggle of Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionists, and the Peking leaders against the Soviet Union plays into the hands of imperialism, because it has as its objective to undermine the unity of the socialist states, to make the other socialist countries break away from the Soviet Union and, thereby, to weaken the world socialist system. But, as the communist 350

and workers' parties of the socialist states announced at their Meeting in Bratislava, "they will never allow anyone to drive a wedge between the socialist countries".* To guarantee the security of the socialist states means preserving and consolidating the socialist gains against the constant attempts by imperialist states to restore capitalism. The Right-wing revisionists underestimate or even deny the danger of war from world imperialism. In 1968, the Czechoslovak newspaper Literdrni listy, for example, wrote that "there is no danger of war in Europe and, therefore, calls for the unity of the socialist camp to meet the threat of military attack have no real basis".** Pacifist illusions of the Right-wing revisionists are particularly harmful because imperialist aggressiveness is not diminishing. The long drawn-out aggressive war of the US in Indochina, the imperialist support for the treacherous aggression of Israel against the Arab states, the building up of the NATO war machine, the provocative manoeuvres by this military bloc close to the socialist states and' the mass * Marksizm-leninizm---yedinoye inlcrnalsionalnoye ucheniye, Issue No. 4, Moscow, 1968, p. 89. ** Ibid., p. 85. * Ibid., Issue No. 3, p. 8. ** K sobytiyam v Chekhoslovakii, Moscow, 1968, p. 398 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE 399 airlift of American forces from the US to Europe and Asia---all this can leave no place for pacifist illusions. Imperialism is an international phenomenon and one can only counteract it by the joint efforts of all anti-imperialist countries. Lenin emphasised "that we, who are faced by a huge front of imperialist powers, we, who are fighting imperialism, represent an alliance that requires close military unity, and any attempt to violate this unity we regard as absolutely impermissible, as a betrayal of the struggle against international imperialism".* Even at a time of detente, when the cause of peace is becoming more hopeful 351

and feasible, the peace-loving forces cannot forget the need for vigilance and preparedness to oppose any designs by aggressive imperialist forces, for, as Leonid Brezhnev has noted, "the policies of imperialism are being increasingly determined by the class objectives of its general struggle against world socialism, the national liberation revolutions and the working-class movement."** The revisionist doctrine of "reliance on one's own strength" in ensuring defence capacity is a retreat from the principles of internationalism. In a political respect, this doctrine is aimed at splitting the socialist community, at dispersing their efforts to create real defence from aggressive imperialism. In a military respect, its futility springs from the fact that it ignores the inability of a single state in the socialist community, with the exception of the Soviet Union, to withstand imperialist aggressors alone today. It would be difficult for individual socialist states to maintain on their own resources even conventional armed forces at the present level. After all, a modern motorised division exceeds the prewar division in tanks by 16 times, in armoured vehicles by 37 times, in automatic weaponry by 13 times. Modern armies need weapons which demand the services of over 400 different types of technicians. The real aim of the "reliance on one's own strength" doctrine is for the socialist countries to renounce mutual assistance in this vital area. The Right-wing revisionists try to justify their renunciation of the principle of mutual assistance by the assertion that to recognise this principle could lead to an infringement upon the sovereignty of individual states. After the Czechoslovak events of 1968, the Right-wing revisionists followed bourgeois ideologists in condemning the Soviet Union because, they said, the doctrine of "limited sovereignty" underlay its policy; they tried to use this bugbear to scare the people in the socialist states. However, the Soviet Communist Party does not recognise any such doctrine. The international assistance granted to Czechoslovakia to defend socialism was dictated by class duty, a loyalty to socialist internationalism and concern for the fate of socialism and peace, not by any desire to infringe upon its sovereignty. This ensured the defence of Czechoslovakia as a sovereign socialist state against possible aggression from imperialism. This was clear to everyone, even to the open enemies of socialism. U.S. News &amp; World Report wrote, for instance, that, in the event of the success of antisocialist forces in Czechoslovakia, the country would be 352

turned into a corridor along which Western forces could travel right up to the Russian border. The Right-wing revisionists took up the essentially bourgeois idea of ressurecting the "Small Entente" made up of socialist and capitalist states; it would serve as a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and world imperialism. This radically contradicts the Leninist understanding of the place and role of socialist states in the contemporary world. Lenin saw the young Soviet Republic "as a contingent of the world army of socialism".* Today, every socialist state, irrespective * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 325. ** International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 142. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 163. </BODY> </HTML> </HEAD> <BODY> 400 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST IDEAS ON WAR AND PEACE 401 of its size, is precisely such a contingent of world socialism. For various reasons, not all socialist states are members of the Warsaw Treaty, the defensive organisation formed by a number of European socialist states in response to the creation of the aggressive imperialist NATO. The Warsaw Treaty member-states have expressed their readiness to abolish their treaty and NATO at the same time or, as a first step, to abolish their military organisations. The revisionist recommendations in regard to a unilateral abolition of the Warsaw Treaty or the withdrawal from it of a particular state have nothing in common with that position. Such acts would invariably lead to a stepped-up aggressiveness of NATO countries and international imperialism. That would have an immediate effect on the fates of the peoples of all independent states, big or small, aligned 353

or non-aligned, socialist or non-socialist. One is bound to object and oppose the erroneous views on the questions of neutrality and non-alignment. At the present time, non-alignment has embraced a considerable number of young national states in Asia and Africa. Of the socialist states, Yugoslavia and Cuba adhere to it. Despite the existing discrepancies in political attitudes of the participants, the non-aligned movement is based on an antiimperialist platform and is reinforcing its anti-imperialist stand. The Soviet Union and other socialist states evaluate positively the movement of non-aligned states and express their solidarity with its anti-imperialist stand. Most of the non-aligned states treasure their bonds with the socialist states and express an understanding of the fact that, in the present situation which sees an increase in the rivalry between the two world systems, a particular neutral or nonaligned country can preserve and is preserving its independence only through the might of the socialist community. The revisionists attempt to counterpose the countries of the socialist community to the non-aligned movement. This type of activity is aimed at breaking the alliance of world socialism with young national states in Asia and Africa, with the national liberation movement. Some Right-wing revisionists have opposed a strengthening of the defences of the socialist states, the mutual assistance in the defence of socialist gains under the pretext that this creates conditions for encouraging imperialist forces. According to their strange logic, a strengthening of the defensive potential of the socialist states actually weakens the campaign for peace. According to that logic, it is generally impossible to resist imperialist aggression because any anti-imperialist actions can help to ``activate'' world imperialism. What is really needed is to rely on the united power of the socialist states, on their agreed policy in order to see that the positive changes that have occurred in recent years internationally are irreversible and serve as a reliable basis for the further consolidation of peace throughout the world. That is why the fraternal states intend to continue bolstering their defensive might and their solidarity. The community of socialist states is the greatest achievement of the international working class. Leonid Brezhnev has said: "We formed this community principally to counter the imperialist threat, the aggressive imperialist military blocs, and to safeguard in common the cause of socialism 354

and peace. And we have every reason to declare that socialism's positions have never been firmer than they are today, and that the cause of peace is gaining one victory after another. But even in the present conditions, far from having diminished, the need for unity and the closest co-operation among socialist countries has, on the contrary, become greater."* * Leonid Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 43. 26---2132</b> CHAPTER 18 REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM</b> REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM 403 Anti-Sovietism after the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia became the major feature of imperialist policy. Crusades were the specific expression of imperialist policy, a policy formulated by Winston Churchill and involving the idea that recognition of Bolshevism was incompatible with modern civilisation and, because of that, the infant had to be stifled in his cradle. Since the proletarian revolution in Russia, Lenin wrote, the bourgeoisie "is terrified of `Bolshevism', exasperated by it almost to the point of frenzy, and for that very reason it is, on the one hand, precipitating the progress of events and, on the other, concentrating on the forcible suppression of Bolshevism, thereby weakening its own position in a number of other fields".* The class nature of anti-Sovietism is apparent in the striving of reactionary forces to stifle the Soviets as the revolutionary bodies of the working people led by the working class. Ultimately, the aim of the reactionary forces is to replace revolutionary dictatorship of the working class by the dictatorship of exploiters. Anti-Sovietism embodies the class hatred of the exploiters for the Soviets as revolutionary organs of power, for proletarian dictatorship which ensures the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie. Socially, anti-Sovietism is rooted mainly in the class policy of exploiting classes. An analysis of these sources shows the obvious interspersing of anti-communism as the 355

ideology and policy of the bourgeoisie within a particular country and of the anti-Soviet policy of international imperialism. The union of revisionism and anti-Sovietism takes place precisely on these important points. Anti-Sovietism arose as an expression of the class interests of the bourgeoisie which saw the Soviet Union as a power showing the way to the working people of the entire An organic link connects revisionism and anti-Sovietism. They are uniform from the viewpoint of their class nature and the cause they serve. They both defend reaction and regression and express the interests of the exploiting classes and the capitalist system that has outlived its age. They are vigorous henchmen of the imperialists in their striving to undermine the revolutionary process and its motive forces: the world socialist system, the international workers' movement and its vanguard---the Communist Parties and the national liberation movement. Ever since the Soviet Union came into existence, it has been the main object of attack from revisionism. Anti-Sovietism is the logical conclusion of revisionism. THE CLASS NATURE OF REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM</b> At the time when the Soviets came into being in Russia in 1917 as the revolutionary government of the working class and the peasants, revisionism already existed as an elaborate system of views and actions hostile to Marxism. It is not surprising that it was precisely then that antiSovietism of the imperialist bourgeoisie found energetic support from international revisionism. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 100. 26404 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM 405 world. The USSR bears the whole brunt of the fight against imperialism and, by virtue of that fact, it is directly or indirectly the main object of anti-communist and anti-Soviet actions. But, in disseminating anti-Soviet views among the population of capitalist countries, the revisionists have also 356

taken advantage of petty-bourgeois illusoriness, traditions and prejudices. Anti-Sovietism became the main weapon of ideological brainwashing of the public by bourgeois propaganda, which uses sophisticated devices in its struggle against the new system. It seeks out ``terrifying'' objects and directs the full force of public animosity against them. In systematically cultivating a hatred for the Soviet system, bourgeois propaganda distorts the essence of Soviet government, ascribes to the Soviet Union far-fetched traits taken out of context, does everything it can to denigrate it, falsifies its democratic nature and strives to deprive it of the attractiveness which it undoubtedly possesses. The whiteguard emigres have helped to spread antiSovietism abroad. The Civil War stranded more than two million people of the tsarist regime outside the USSR, full of bitterness for Soviet power. These cheap pedlars of antiSovietism have tried to poison people's minds, have slandered the Soviet system and blackened Soviet reality. Thus, both in its genesis and its present form, anti-Sovietism operates as an ideology and a policy directed against the Soviet Union---the bastion of revolutionary and national liberation movements, of working people all over the world. The imperialist powers encourage all forms of anti-Sovietism, including those which act under opportunist, revisionist and nationalist banners. The evolution of prominent revisionists towards antiSovietism is a remarkable phenomenon. Thus, the ``fathers'' of revisionism, Bernstein and Kautsky, adopted the whole anti-Soviet infamy of imperialist propaganda and counterrevolutionary whiteguard slander. They became the most active participants in the overall anti-Soviet campaign. This is necessary to remember because the present-day revisionists claim that their ideas are original. In fact, they are repeating the same old anti-Soviet notions of their revisionist forbears which were long ago exposed and discredited. Kautsky, for example, responded to the Russian Revolution with a book entitled Dictatorship of the Proletariat which, in Lenin's words, was the most obvious example of the complete and shameful bankruptcy of the Second International. In the 1930s, he published a new book, Bolshevism in an Impasse, which became the bible of the counter-revolutionary Russian emigres, a symbol that united revisionism and blatant anti-Sovietism. According to Kautsky, the Russian proletariat was not mature enough to carry out its historic mission. Because it 357

matured late, it had forfeited its class proletarian essence and become a class-lord in society. He wrote that wage workers were a form of nobility in Soviet Russia. Present-day revisionists, from Right-wing to the ``Left'', are not far removed from these ideas about the Soviet working class. Garaudy, Fischer, Petkoff, the Italian Manifesto Group and the Maoists in China prate about the "new class" in the USSR and other socialist states and about "state bourgeoisie". It is not hard to see the ideological roots of this sort of anti-communist and anti-Soviet assertion--from Kautsky and Bernstein, through Trotsky and Djilas, to the present proponents of this common ``conception''. The working class of the Soviet Union, having achieved miracles of heroism in the Civil War and having borne on its shoulders all the burdens of putting the country back on its feet is pictured by Kautsky as a social force which established class domination in order to hold down "its pariahs and helots''. Kautsky wrote about the Communist Party's activity in the USSR: "Communists constitute a class of masters arbitrarily commanding the rest of the population." Communists, being the most active section of society and being guided 406 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REV1SIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM 407 by a scientific programme, have never opposed themselves to society or tried to raise themselves above it. This is alien to the spirit of the communist movement and contradicts the communist ideals. But Kautsky in his slander of the communist movement went so far as to compare Bolshevism with fascism. As Lenin put it, he crawled on his belly before the capitalists and licked their boots; he combined this with acting as a lackey of the bourgeoisie in slandering the Soviet Union, its people and Communist Party. But Kautsky did not confine himself merely to calumny against the socialist system. The final part of his book contains practical recommendations on how to act in order to destroy the socialist system and do away with Soviet power. Anti-Sovietism finds here its logical conclusion in the merging of revisionism and counter-revolution. What were the forces on which Kautsky relied? His 358

designs were founded on undermining the Soviet system from within, using a movement "spontaneously arising within the common people". He called for inculcating antiSoviet attitudes within the working class, uniting it with the peasants, and creating a united front of whiteguard emigres with these ``discontent'' elements in Soviet society. It is quite clear from Kautsky's example how revisionism becomes the banner of counter-revolution, how it serves as the instigator of imperialist aggression and the conductor of anti-Soviet policy. revolution and directed its fire against the Soviet Union. Long before Budapest and other Hungarian cities resounded with shells and before counter-revolution launched its attack against socialist forces, revisionist theories and ideas began to intensify and spread in Hungary. Their aim was to sow discord in regard to the leading role of the working class and the Communist Party, in regard to the common ideals and objectives of building socialism which connected the Hungarian People's Republic with the Soviet Union and other socialist states. Revisionist propaganda was initially conducted as "genuine Leninism" against the mistakes and shortcomings in socialist construction within Hungary. It was not long, however, before this propaganda was directed against Marxism-Leninism as a whole and in particular against all that had been created in Hungary in accordance with Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The proletarian dictatorship was the prime object of ideological attacks. In the so-called Petofi Group and other legal and illegal anti-socialist organisations, the ideas were spread that the Hungarian working class was incapable of leading the people. The revisionists maintained that talk of class struggle in Hungary only broke up the forces of the nation. They made an alliance with nationalism and gradually moved to open anti-Sovietism, which was taken up by counter-revolution. The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party journal Tdrsadalmi Szemle wrote that the historical nature of the Hungarian counter-revolution organised in October 1956 was that the theory of national communism was the ideological and political preparation for the counter-revolutionary putsch. The Hungarian National Communist Imre Nagy and his group took national-liberal revisionism to its logical conclusion: their betrayal was an inevitable political and ideological consequence of their evolution. Hungarian revisionists, masquerading as Communists and in alliance with counter-revolutionaries attacked proletarian 359

dictatorship and union with the USSR. Ultimately, they launched REVISIONISM BECOMES OPEN ANTI-SOVIETISM</b> The evolution of Karl Kautsky is typical of revisionism as a whole. The political evolution of present-day revisionism confirms its growing ties with anti-Sovietism and its interlacing with counter-revolution. Revisionism played a notorious role in preparing and launching the events in Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1969. It cleared the way for counter408 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM 409 a bloody movement for restoring capitalist relations in Hungary. Another historical lesson came from the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1969. Although they occurred under different historical circumstances, the same trends appeared here as in Hungary. The activity of the anti-socialist forces moved more and more from revision of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism towards anti-Sovietism. The anti-Soviet direction of the counter-revolutionary movement in Czechoslovakia reached its peak in August 1968 when the threat of counter-revolution hung over the country. The Document of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee, Lessons of the Crisis Development .. . stresses that the spreading of anti-Sovietism was caused by the anti-Party position of the former Presidium of the Party Central Committee, which had made an announcement whose publication had had catastrophic consequences. The so-called Vysocany Congress, in the designs of the Right-wing revisionist leaders of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, was to have declared an all-round campaign against the Soviet Union, mobilising against it all the internal and external anti-Soviet and anti-communist forces. How does anti-Sovietism manifest itself in the ideas of contemporary revisionism?

360

The evolution of the French revisionist Roger Garaudy is indicative. In his books Reconquete de I'espoir and 'loute la Verite and elsewhere, he is an open opponent of the Soviet Union. He rejects the peace-loving nature of the policy of the Soviet government and is hostile to the Soviet Communist Party. The Austrian revisionist Ernst Fischer excludes the USSR from the socialist community, declaring that "the Soviet Union is neither a capitalist nor a socialist country"."" The baselessness of the ideas of Garaudy and other revisionists is that they ignore the common patterns of development of socialism and make an absolute of specific characteristics. In regard to their class policy, the main drive of their ideas is to justify the identification of capitalism with socialism, to defend that type of ``socialism'' which completely satisfies the ruling classes of bourgeois world. But Garaudy is not referring to genuine and scientific socialism, he is talking about a ``socialism'' which would divert the people from class struggle and, at the same time, would serve as a cover for capitalism. These ideas are essentially anti-socialist. But the anti-socialism of the revisionists is bound up with anti-Sovietism. Revisionism today is unthinkable without various forms of anti-Sovietism; it is a link in the common chain of anti-Sovietism. In their fight against the Soviet Union and world socialist system, the imperialists are bringing fresh battalions into the front line. They are at present giving special attention to counter-revolutionary emigres in the common front of anti-communism, revisionism and nationalism. Emigre counter-revolutionary centres made up of antisocialist elements who had fled from Central and Southeastern Europe were formed in the Western imperialist countries after the defeat of nazi Germany. These were primarily people compromised by their ties with the Nazis, traitors to their own peoples. They took up the old and decrepit whiteguard emigre hatred for the Soviet Union. The so-called post-August (Czechoslovak) emigres, whose nucleus is made up of Right-wing revisionist elements, have recently come to the fore in the strategic designs of the imperialist, anti-communist centres. Tens of thousands of Czechs and Slovaks fled to capitalist 361

countries during the 1968-1969 events. Many had fled for criminal reasons, like General Schein who was taken into the service of American intelligence agencies. Some emigres, E. Fischer, Die Revolution ist anderes, Reinbek-Rowolt, 1971, p. 67. 410 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM AND ANTI-SOVIETISM 411 deceived by anti-socialist propaganda, went in search of an easy life in the capitalist ``paradise''. But many people were those who had come into conflict with socialism and developed a hatred for the socialist system, having become anti-Soviet fanatics. The post-August emigration from Czechoslovakia was a ``boon'' for anti-communist strategists. Anti-communist centres received ``cheap'', worthless material which they could use and on which they could base their plans. This material is useful to the anti-communists because it appears to be untainted with a long history of anti-Soviet activity. Jifi Pelikan, Geislar, Sik, Goldstiikker and the rest only recently became open opponents of the Soviet Union. They had previously pretended to be its friends. How does anti-Sovietism manifest itself among the postAugust Czechoslovak emigres and how are their views connected with revisionism? This is evident, first, in their attempts to discredit the home and foreign policy of the Soviet Union. They devote special efforts to falsifying the importance of the 24th CPSU Congress. Secondly, they distort Czechoslovak-Soviet relations. Thirdly, they concoct crude and primitive calumny in regard to the alleged existence in the USSR of an opposition movement. It is true that some dissenters, who had sold their native land, have been publishing abroad libels about the Soviet people and the Communist Party. These are the people who are raised to the rank of "national heroes", fighters for ``freedom'' and "human rights" and are portrayed as the ``spokesmen'' of Soviet people. The Czechoslovak post-August emigres seek allies among those who have betrayed the cause of socialism; they glorify those who serve the interests of imperialism. 362

At the same time, they denigrate the Soviet and Czechoslovak Communist Parties, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. In the words of Jifi Pelikan, the 24th CPSU Congress "changed nothing and decided nothing''. The decisions of this Congress on home and foreign policy are known to the whole world. The successful implementation of the Peace Programme adopted by the Congress has led to a considerable improvement in the international situation and to detente. Its decisions helped to consolidate the revolutionary movement and the Marxist-Leninist parties under the banner of the fight for peace, democracy and progress. The anti-Soviet statements and publications of the Czechoslovak post-August emigres are motivated, in their view, by the desire to build a bridge between themselves and the "Soviet opposition''. Who are these representatives of "the Soviet opposition" on whom the Czechoslovak counter-revolutionary emigres put such great hopes in their publication Listy? It would appear that they are people condemned for anti-Soviet libel, such as Sinyavsky, Daniel, Ginzburg and other criminal elements who are used by foreign anti-Soviet centres as the leaders of the "internal opposition" which is said to exist in the USSR. Enumerating several such names, Listy maintains that the existence of this "Soviet opposition" and its voice "uphold the prestige of the Soviet Union before progressive humanity". It turns out that the anti-Soviet calumny of a few political degenerates and not the labour of Soviet people and their historic successes in all spheres of social life ensures the authority of the Soviet Union in the world. Soviet people, just like the citizens of Czechoslovakia, well appreciate who is trying to drive a wedge between Czechoslovak-Soviet relations, who and at whose command is trying to fan the flames of anti-Sovietism. It is of benefit, as Gustav Husak has underlined, "to the strategic and tactical plans of Western anti-communist centres which consider nationalism and anti-Sovietism as the most effective weapons in undermining the alliance of socialist states with the Soviet Union".* * XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, p. 28. 412

363

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY Revisionism is not averse to using anti-Soviet insinuations from the most dubious sources, including Peking. The alliance of Maoists on an anti-Soviet basis with any, even the most reactionary, forces and their anti-Soviet views are encountering increasingly enthusiastic support from Right-wing revisionist elements. The imperialist forces, in turn, support both Maoism and revisionism of the Right and the ``Left'', their desire to cause the Soviet Union and the interests of the socialist community the greatest possible damage. PART IV CRITIQUE</b> OF RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b> CHAPTER 19 CRITIQUE</b> OF THE METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES</b> OF REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY</b> IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b> The 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia emphasised that development of the social sciences is an important prerequisite of party guidance of society. Social theory had a complicated development during the 1968-1969 crisis. A critical evaluation of that development is a principal condition for re-establishing the basic principles of MarxismLeninism in the field of theory. Hence the need to study more profoundly questions of ideological significance whose resolution considerably influences the further development of social theory. In philosophy this applies primarily to relations between science and ideology in the process of cognition. A correct definition of the subject of cognition is the point of departure for resolving this problem. Society is cognised through a specific subject, which is generally a social class. The possibilities and the limits of a true cognition are governed by the objective character of a class, its position in society, the nature of historical 364

task which it fulfils. If the subjective interest of the class corresponds to the objective laws of social development, a true reflection of social reality in the consciousness of the class becomes objectively possible. If the subjective interest of that class contradicts the objective laws of society, that class is unable actively to cognise society as a whole, it develops a false consciousness, a distorted reflection of social reality. 416 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISMTODAY</b> REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 417 The self-awareness of a class depends on its practical activity. There is, of course, a basic difference and opposition between the practical activity of a progressive class and that of a reactionary class. Self-awareness of a class has various levels. It does not declare a goal as such, but works out a theory which expresses the interests and ideology of the class. With the aid of ideology, the class attempts to justify its practical activity in society, in particular its political activity. The cognitive and ideological aspects of the theory of society complement one another. The ideological aspect facilitates a real understanding by the progressive class, whereas for a reactionary class it acts against a real understanding. In the current historical situation, it is utterly impossible for reactionary classes to gain a real understanding of society as a whole. The mutual causality of the scientific and ideological aspects of social theory objectively comes from the position of the class in society. This causality has, however, an epistemological as well as an ontological aspect. The discovery of objective social sources of a particular theory does not yet resolve the question of its veracity. A decisive criterion of the veracity of social theory is practice, primarily historical collective activity of people over a fairly long period of history, activity which conforms to the operation of objective social laws. The relationship of scientific and ideological aspects of Marxism-Leninism acquires a new quality. This emanates from the position of the working class in society and the character of its historic task as a class which can be liberated only by destroying ajl exploitation and every type of oppression in society. The class interests of the working class, consequently, invariably correspond to the objective laws 365

of social development. As the ideology of the working class, Marxism-Leninism is also a science of social development. Therefore, the ideological and scientific elements in MarxismLeninism constitute a dialectical unity, both of them retaining their relative independence. A class approach to social phenomena from working-class attitudes is today a social and political prerequisite for truly understanding society. At the same time, a true understanding needs the conscious use of a dialectical-materialist method and testing by practice of the veracity of various conclusions and propositions. A class approach, however, does not mean a rejection of the idea that social theories have their own independent content. One cannot reduce the content of individual forms of social consciousness merely to the theoretical expression of the pernicious interests of a particular class. The relationship with practical activity of a class and relatively independent development are inalienable aspects of the objective development of social theory and, therefore, a component part of the Marxist-Leninist method of investigation. In analysing social functions of ideology, MarxismLeninism investigates both the content of theory and the means of putting it into practice. The content of any social theory is the reflection (true or false) of reality. The system of applied terms and means of expression depends on the ideological function and, therefore, on the character of that social group in which social ideas are to operate. One of the prime features of the revisionist ideas of the relationship between science and ideology is epistemological individualism. The revisionists regard a socially unconditioned individual as the cognising subject. They regard the independence from society of an individual, who cognises social life, as a source of objectivity of cognition. In actual fact, the objectivity of cognition cannot be above society or history. According to Marxism, the conformity of cognition and reality is determined by socio-historical practice. The one-sided epistemological individualism of the revisionists brings them to a metaphysical separation of science from ideology. Within the framework of these ideas, science acts as an absolutely objective phenomenon, while ideology is pictured as something absolutely subjective. That means that science is understood as a factor above society, while ideology 27---2332</b> 418 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY 366

REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 419 is a false consciousness. In fact, this understanding of science and ideology is false and does not express the real process of the development of theory. Epistemological individualism does not give any real solution to the question of the relationship between science and ideology; it leads to the emergence of non-scientific ideas. The same must be said about the concept of so-called ``pure'' and ``non-institutionalised'' Marxism. According to that concept, only independent intellectuals are capable of developing Marxist theory; combining theory with communist party practice leads allegedly to turning theory into an apology for practice. This concept is wrong because it approaches the development of theory as an absolutely independent process divorced from reality. Social theory which stands aloof from practice inevitably falls into subjectivism. Social practice is both the basis for cognition and a criterion for the veracity of theoretical ideas. One should not, of course, understand its being combined with practice in the sense that theory is reduced to an elucidation of various measures of everyday politics. Pure theory, absolutely independent in regard to the nature of its development, is an epistemological illusion according to which a critically thinking person possesses an ability to exhaustive cognition. This is a typical idea of the petty-bourgeois intellectual. Cognition is a social process also in the sense that it occurs through joint activity of individuals. The activity of political organisations of a class has a great importance for the process of cognition. The mode of activity and the nature of work of political organisations of the present bourgeois class jointly determine the appearance of an untrue and distorted reflection of social reality, for the activity of these organisations is aimed at reproducing conditions for the existence of exploiting society. Insofar as theory of society in this instance develops as an apology for practical activity of the present-day bourgeoisie, it cannot achieve any true cognition of capitalist society as a whole. As the revolutionary organisation of the working class, the communist party also is a specific subject of cognition. The cognitive activity of the communist party includes both the development of theory and cognition of the basic laws of social development, and the cognition of social processes in 367

specific spheres of social life. The cognitive activity of a party, therefore, includes being a mediator between the general, partial and particular, between the part and the whole. Social theory which does not take into account the dialectics of the general and the specific is doomed to dogmatic stagnation. The implementation of cognitive activity by the communist party presupposes that the activity of the party organism generally occurs on the basis of a scientific analysis of information about social processes and the elaboration of their distinct trends. Investigation of the social process of cognition as a product of people's collective activity is important for the struggle against revisionist ideas according to which Marxism develops only as "pure science" and ideology is established through its function. This proposition ignores the difference between the specific character of the cognition of nature and that of society. In cognising nature, the subject of cognition in a class sense is not determined directly. On the contrary, a definite social class is essentially the subject of cognition of society. Revisionist ideas, according to which an unsurmountable wall stands between the appearance of a certain social theory and its ideological influence, metaphysically separate the structure of theory from its function. In fact, the ideological function of theory is determined, above all, by the content of theoretical ideas and their political orientation. Although the ideological function of theoretical ideas changes to a certain degree as a result of various ideological relationships, their objective content remains the determining factor. Revisionist critics of Marxism-Leninism maintain that recognition of the historical causality of the development of 27* 420 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 421 social theory leads to relativism. This view includes a historical approach to social theory only from the standpoint of those concepts which do not regard the objectivity of 368

cognition as a historical category. This argument is not original. One of the characteristic features of bourgeois method in investigating social theory is precisely the thesis that social causality is in all circumstances the result of the influence of an extra-scientific interest and, consequently, it leads to a deformed logic of the cognition process. According to these ideas, social causality leads one away from true cognition and, in all cases, is a source of false knowledge about social reality. Marxist-Leninist theory is a system with its own internal logic based on dialectical-materialist principles, a retreat from which leads, as happened with the revisionists in Czechoslovakia, to a ``justification'' of an uncritical borrowing of methods and conceptual apparatus from bourgeois metaphysics and idealist philosophy. The rejection of Marxist-Leninist philosophy as a single comprehensive teaching led also to a renunciation of the epistemological and methodological functions of Marxist philosophy and its philosophical functions in regard to the special sciences. Thus, philosophical revisionism actually facilitated relativism of both the theoretical and the methodological basis of the special sciences. An investigation of development, in particular the very logic of scientific development, substantially disappeared from view with the Czechoslovak philosophers. Philosophy cannot replace specific methods of the special scientific research. But dialectical materialist philosophy makes it possible to have a scientific resolution of the most general theoretical questions in the special sciences. Marxist philosophy warns against an unjustified extrapolation of partial methods of research, though correct in a certain field of activity, against elevating them to philosophical principles. A combination of philosophy and the special sciences is, of course, an essential precondition for the development of philosophy itself. Essential phenomena in the special sciences have always served as a source for elaborating philosophical questions proper. The philosophy of dialectical materialism, as a science of the general laws of the development of nature, society and human thinking develops its own principles and categories on the basis of research and summarising the results of cognition in the special sciences. On this basis, it performs its integrating function in regard to the special sciences. Marxist-Leninist philosophy cannot be reduced to a mere 369

subordination of concepts and categories. It is a multidimensional system with a large number of factors. According to dialectical materialism, the development of the object and its cognition form a unity, but are not identified. Engels posed the question of the relationship between objective and subjective dialectics. That means that the theoretical system of Marxist philosophy includes both ontological and epistemological aspects. Their unity lies in the fact that each epistemological situation and the very process of cognition are objectively determined and that, consequently, they spring from certain methodological prerequisites. Selfawareness of a cognising subject and understanding of this relationship to the object of cognition are a necessary prerequisite for the conscious application of the dialecticalmaterialist method. Theoretical principles of the system in Marxism-Leninism are completely logical and historical. The point of departure, therefore, is based on the actual opposition of the object and the subject. In other words, the definition of the points of departure and categories of cognition is conditioned both by the objectively existing object and by its cognition. An understanding of the laws of cognition, the interrelationship between the object and the subject in dialecticalmaterialist philosophy is also the way to cognise the objective history of the object. The mechanism of the process of cognition is by no means the simple reproduction of the genesis of the object; one must not forget that the object of cognition exists independently of the cognising subject and, 422 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 423 in that sense, the object is primary in relation to the subject. The theoretical system of Marxist-Leninist philosophy is uniform. At the same time, the philosophical topics in individual special sciences form a relatively independent range of issues; the general philosophical method, therefore, acquires a particular form. Individual stages of uniformity within the system of Marxist philosophy cannot, however, lead to the appearance of an independent dialectic of nature or a 370

dialectic of society which would differ in basic ontological and epistemological factors. Otherwise the disintegration of a uniform theoretical system of Marxist philosophy, the recreation of an independent philosophy of nature, a philosophy of history, etc., would be inevitable. Just as inevitable would be an epistemological and methodological dualism. This would result from an incorrect extrapolation of the characteristics of the object of cognition and of the very process of cognition. In regard to Marxist theory, the methodological falsity of pluralism is that its concepts are abstracted from the definition of the specific nature of Marxist-Leninist theory and divorced from the question of the system-forming elements of Marxist theory. In that respect, they represent a form of justification for disintegration tendencies in the sphere of ideology. Furthermore, the pluralist ideas of Marxism do not pose the question of a criterion for the veracity of a particular conclusion and remove all possibility of an objective analysis of Marxist philosophy both in relation to history and in relation to the present day. The pluralist conceptions of Marxism are therefore unsound in a scientific sense. The problem of man is at the present time of great ideological importance; its elaboration constitutes, in our opinion, one of the vital tasks of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Problems of communist humanism are a component part of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Marx's theses on man as a totality of social relations and on man as a practically operating being are points of departure for theoretically tackling these questions. The combining of the problem of man with the questions of social development was a characteristic methodological feature of the approach of the classics of Marxism-Leninism to the problems of humanism. This approach enables us to make a comprehensive investigation of man in all spheres of social life. Man is not a carrier of individual abstract ``roles'', he is an active being operating in a system of definite social relations which determine him and which he changes by his activity. Therefore, a basic point of departure for studying the problem of man is his activity as a social being. Meanwhile, man is a natural, biological being. The fact that natural and physiological aspects of man operate on a social basis and that, in their specifically human form, they are a product of social development does not alter the relative independence of these aspects. In order to reject the unscientific extrapolation of man's physiological characteristics, it is 371

necessary to investigate the dialectics of physiological and socio-historical features in the human being, bearing in mind that the socio-historical characteristics of man as a personality are basic. A Marxist-Leninist approach is not a one-sided naturalism or a one-sided sociologism. The contemporary problems of humanism are closely related to the relationship between man and social institutions. There have been attempts in Czechoslovakia to describe the institutions of capitalist and socialist society as identical phenomena; in this connection, some people have even spoken about institutional alienation. This idea is a specific expression of an individualist approach, according to which any social institutions are aimed against man and the possibility of his adequate objectivisation. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this one-sided anti-institutionalism should become a component part of the petty-bourgeois political ideas of "democratic socialism" and "socialism with a human face''. The incorrect point of departure which does not correspond to reality leads to a mystification of the real nature of 424 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 425 social institutions which, despite mistakes and deficiencies inherent in their work, serve as an instrument for creating really human conditions for the existence of man. At the same time, the revisionist stance led to rejection of studying specific social processes and revealing the sources of certain bureaucratic deformities in socialist institutions. On this issue---man's interaction with social institutions--the revisionist ideas particularly led to a distorted understanding of the aims of the development of socialist society. Instead of studying the laws of social development, of real social processes and defining the historically necessary median between the specific historical situation and the communist goal of social development, they regarded and evaluated socialist society only from the viewpoint of its historical 372

limitations and shortcomings on which they focused attention. The dialectical-materialist method of investigating social phenomena requires, however, real historicism rather than a tirade of negation. One-sided anthropological trends appeared in philosophy in 1968-1969. These ideas made an absolute of the active role of an individual. Social practice, therefore, was seen only as subjective activity of an individual, while the external world was pictured as a result of his objectivisation. An illusory liberation of man from his real social ties took place; the active human individual was taken outside the framework of his social causality. One-sided anthropologism postulates about the inherently undifferentiated cognition of the world by man. To reject the objective existence of the object of cognition and to make an illusory humanisation of the world, to make an absolute of the active role of a person---all leads to a negative attitude to the dialectical materialist theory of reflection. The theory of reflection makes it possible scientifically to explain the conversion of the objective into the subjective, into cognition, the emergence of ideal pictures of the material world in people's consciousness. As a result of the one-sided reaction to mechanical ideas according to which the laws of social development exist and operate in and by themselves, outside of people's activity, some Czechoslovak philosophers propounded another superficial and no less incorrect idea that the social factor is always a property of the individual. Within the bounds of this notion it is impossible, of course, to speak of social law. Mechanical ideas were replaced by philosophical individualism, which sees man and his subjective activity outside the bounds of his actual objective causality. They criticised Marxism-Leninism from their one-sided anthropological position for not taking into consideration the uniqueness of an individual. The falseness of such criticism comes not only from the fact that the uniqueness of an individual is relative, but from the methodological foundation of investigating man. The self-awareness of man occurs primarily on the basis of his objectivisation, in connection with his practical objective activity. Self-awareness of a man also includes the historical aspect of his existence, the cognition of his development in society. By means of objectivising a man, we understand the inner world of human beings.

373

We cannot ignore, as the revisionists do, the specific social conditions of existence of man under capitalism and under socialism. The development of capitalist society essentially leads to the disintegration of man, while socialist development, bearing in mind the social consequences of the scientific and technological revolution taking place under socialism and the improvement of socialist social relations, creates the conditions for the all-round development of the human individual. Marxism-Leninism understands social development as a natural historical process. Certain social traits in exploiting formations and in a society where human exploitation no longer exists are inherent in the interaction between subject and object in social development. Not without reason do Marxists maintain that the role of the subjective factor 426 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST PHILOSOPHY IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 427 increases under socialism. It is necessary, however, to investigate how socialist social relations create the basis for man's activity when, on the basis of cognising social reality, he achieves pre-set goals in his social activity. We should pay particular attention to defining the direct links between general theory and particular practical decisions. A new relationship between object and subject in socialist social conditions makes it possible to ensure a conscious `` transition'' from theory to practice and also for practical activity to become conscious activity. The philosophical uncertainty of indeterminism lies in the fact that it inevitably turns into subjectivism. The rejection of social laws leads to an idea that social development is only the realisation of subjectively conceived aims. The dissemination of indeterminism in Czechoslovakia over the past few years had an obviously ideological function because it created an apology for spontaneity and petty-bourgeois anarchy. The development of socialist society represents the conscious activity of people, which proceeds from the cognition of objective conditions, and also of the action of people, classes and the communist party. 374

Contemporary development of science is seeing the widescale use of formalisation, quantification, systems analysis, computer technology and its methods. These new methods of scientific work serve as a stimulator for elaborating a number of epistemological questions. Distorted interpretation of these phenomena by philosophical revisionism may be explained by the raising of particular methods to the level of general philosophical method, by the conversion of scientific concepts into philosophical categories. As a result, various types of contemporary positivism reduce philosophy to a certain form of conceptual epistemology. Positivism essentially leads to a rejection of the philosophical aspects of philosophy. It tries to present itself as neutral in relation to materialism and idealism, although, in fact, positivism is a variety of subjective idealism. At best, positivism portrays the world as a mechanical totality of the general conclusions of individual sciences. An erroneous approach to the interrelationship between logical and linguistic forms and the one-sided psychologism in regard to these issues lead to an exaggeration of the importance of the symbolic element in the process of cognition. The cognising of concepts means passing from phenomena to essence, while the use of symbols cannot always ensure this. The interrelationships of isomorphism and homomorphism between the object and its ideal model in the sign system are sufficient for determining the character of this interrelationship, but insufficient for determining the logical-theoretical stage of cognition and its nature. The advocates of Czechoslovak "model of socialism" unscientifically applied the very concept of model. According to them a model is understood as an integral characteristic of a certain structure of society through making an absolute of the specific characteristics of that society. This kind of ideological manipulation made it possible to counterpose, in a purely subjective way, the "Soviet model" and the "Czechoslovak model", as essentially distinct and different forms of socialist society. In the political sphere, they counterposed the so-called "bureaucratic socialism" and "democratic socialism". The methodological basis of this mystification is a rejection of the general laws of development of socialist society. Yet this approach makes it impossible to have a scientific understanding of the specific 375

conditions in individual states. By this method the theoretically and ideologically important question of applying general laws of building socialism to specific conditions of development in any country is ``removed''. The proponents of positivist views criticised dialectical materialism and said it was naive realism. They referred even to Lenin who made the point that dialectical materialism recognises the independence of the object of cognition from the subject. This proposition has always been the basis for furthering materialist philosophy. It gives no grounds, 428 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 20 THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONS</b> OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHICAL</b> REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b> however, for identifying dialectical materialism with naive realism. The fallacious epistemological views came from one-sided ideas about the development of society which, they argued, basically was a direct consequence of changes in technology. Technocratic illusions distorted the content of socialist policies which the Czechoslovak ``reformers'' regarded merely as a certain type of professional activity and rejected its profoundly democratic nature. The introduction of science in management does not remove people from decision-making in socialist conditions. It encompasses both an enhanced role of decision-making on the basis of knowledge, and a comprehensive discussion of the basic policy issues by a large group of people. There can be no doubt that modern administration of society, including socialist society, will increasingly rely on computer science, managerial theory, etc. If these methods are used in accordance with the character of socialist society and in combination with social and political administration of society by its vanguard, the Communist Party, they will stimulate a detailed investigation of the system of socialist society, its individual elements and their interrelationship. As experience shows, one-sided empiricism, in combination with vulgar general inductionism, constitutes a 376

methodological basis of revisionism. One-sided empiricism rejects a separation of the essential from the inessential. At the very least, it leads to a type of sociological behaviourism according to which the only possible object of research is human behaviour, abstracted from the basic social qualities of man as a social being operating in objective circumstances. It is impossible to move from studying people's activity to studying the laws of social development within the framework of that theory. The dialectics of social development consist in the fact that laws are both external conditions of people's activity and essential content of their activity. They consist, furthermore, in the fact that the external moves into the internal through people's activity. ROOTS OF PHILOSOPHICAL REVISIONISM</b> The start of the formation of contemporary revisionism in Czechoslovakia coincides in time with the discussion of the interrelationships of science and ideology that flared up in the press after 1956. In the background to the fight of the Czechoslovak Communist Party in the period 1956-1969 to purge political activity of dogmatism and sectarianism, attempts appeared and strengthened to divorce Marxism-Leninism from the labour movement, especially from the Communist Party, in order to create "the guarantee of Marxism-Leninism being scientific". Under the cover of the slogan of combating dogmatism, this discussion was opened by Ivan Svitak (now working for anti-communist propaganda centres in the USA) in an article entitled "Certain Causes of the Backwardness of Theory", in which he called for "the strictly unadulterated truth which would not be the privilege of position and function".''^^1^^ The process of uncovering the mistakes of past dogmatism produced among some philosophers doubt about the need for combining Marxist-Leninist theory with the revolutionary labour movement, primarily with the communist party. They rejected so-called institutional ideology and de* I. Svitak, "Nektere pficiny zaostavani teorie", Literdrni noviny, No. 16, 1956, p. 5. 430 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

377

NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 431 manded an end to ideology in science, particularly Marxism-Leninism, demands that had their roots both in the book by Daniel Bell The End of Ideology and in the sociology of knowledge of Karl Mannheim. In the course of this discussion, Robert Kalivoda wrote that Marxism was "a pure science" which had nothing in common with ideological thinking in the proper sense of the word. Marxism was said to be an ideology only in its functions. From these assertions there remained only a short step, made somewhat later, to declarations that the development of Marxist-Leninist philosophy was a matter of the humanitarian intellectual, free from the burden of ideology and, above all, the exclusive sphere of individual philosophers whose critical eye could see and reject all and everything except themselves. Passing judgement in 1958 on the discussion about the interrelationship of science and ideology, the old editorial board of the newspaper Literdrni noviny criticised "the artificial counterposing of Marxist science, on the one hand, and communist ideology, on the other---i.e., an incorrect splitting of concepts which are organically connected".* The editors pointed simultaneously to the danger of a return to a narrower, pre-Lenin interpretation of the object of philosophy, and emphasised that attempts by contemporary revisionists "to draw a line between Marxism as a pure science and Marxism as a set of ideological aspirations and as an instrument of politics merge with attempts to deprive Marxism-Leninism of militant partisanship and to do away with its revolutionary essence"."""" Some philosophers used the need to criticise dogmatism, subjectivism and voluntarism in order to qualify all preceding development of Marxist-Leninist philosophy as the development of false consciousness and to proclaim the beginning of a new era, the era of pure scientific philosophy. Though these attempts were submitted to Marxist criticism, they came to life again and again, appearing in different forms. In the discussion on the relationship between science and ideology, which took place in Czechoslovakia between 1956 and 1959, there were already apparent tendencies which in time acquired a clear-cut destructive character in regard to Marxism-Leninism. The Party Central Committee decision of 1958 noted that two deviations had appeared in the discussion: an empirical-positivist and a Hegelian."" Despite the fact that these two tendencies appeared at first glance to be diametrically opposed, they had a single common basis, a metaphysical approach and a counterposing of science and 378

ideology in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Both tendencies claimed to have a more scientific philosophy, while the first, the empirical-positivist tendency, viewed the road to a scientific approach in non-ideological, objectivist description and registration of given facts, underestimating class relations and politics; the second tendency---the Hegelian---tried to make Marxist-Leninist philosophy more scientific and more philosophical by returning to Hegel, to an abstract, non-class understanding of the object of philosophy. Speculativeness and ignoring of the facts should not have been combated by isolated, fortuitously gathered facts, as the proponents of the empirical-positivist tendency did. It was just as wrong to remove shortcomings in an understanding of materialist dialectics by borrowing Hegelian dialectics, to which the proponents of Hegelianism aspired. Attempts to remove speculativeness and shortcomings in philosophy by recourse to neo-positivist methods or the idealist dialectics of Hegel would inevitably have ended up, and ultimately did end up, in an eclectical mixture of Marxist views and views alien to Marxism and propositions which naturally led to departure from Marxist positions in general and to a complete transfer to bourgeois (petty-bourgeois) ideology. * "Zprava o soucasne situaci ve filosofii z 23.3.1958", Usneseni a dokumenty UV KSC od XI. sjezdu do celostdtni konference 1960, SNPL, Prague, I960. * "Za cistotu marxisticko-leniniskeho mysleni", Literdrni noviny, No. 48, 1958, p. 6. ** Ibid. 432 RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISMTODAY</b> NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 433 Dogmatism and revisionism are not absolutely antagonistic, mutually exclusive tendencies; to a certain extent, as Lenin said, they are twins. Revisionism often joins up with dogmatism. Dogmatism scorned a study of reality and could not essentially enrich Marxism by new discoveries; it thereby created conditions for the activity of various revisionist 379

trends. Thus, philosophical revisionism was, to a certain extent, a simplified reaction of part of the intellectuals, cultural workers to dogmatism. It would, of course, be wrong to maintain that dogmatism was the main cause of the appearance of revisionism. It was only one of the reasons that paved the way for philosophical revisionism. The fact is that as a result of dogmatism, the philosophers in Czechoslovakia were unable to find an answer to several burning questions of the development of society, science and technology and thereby provided scope for revisionism. This was also facilitated by such factors which existed in Czechoslovakia as insufficient theoretical and methodological training of young philosophers, their obsession with various fashionable bourgeois philosophies and sociological theories, the ideological diversion of imperialism, the one-sided and superficial criticism of bourgeois philosophy, in particular that of Thomas Masaryk. It is true that bourgeois ideology, including Masarykism, came under fire in Czechoslovakia before 1956, but the traditions of this ideology had deep roots in a certain part of the intellectuals, particularly those concerned with humanitarian sciences, and they became a source of attempts to ``enrich'' Marxist-Leninist philosophy with elements alien to it. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind the fact that in the social composition of Czechoslovak society the numerous petty-bourgeois strata in town and country constitute a fairly large share of the population. Lessons of the Crisis... makes the point that "these strata represented a distinct political movement with old traditions, strong organisation and a clearly defined petty-bourgeois ideology of nationalism, Masarykism and social democracy which has deep roots and has penetrated the minds of part of the working class... . For several decades, these strata have orientated themselves upon the West in a political and a cultural respect. All this created fertile soil for the penetration and implementation of opportunist and revisionist tendencies."* If we add to this the strenuous and protracted activity of ideological centres of world anti-communism, aimed at eroding the basic principles of socialism and at increasing the influence of revisionism, we can see clearly the roots for form ing the revisionist ideology of "democratic socialism''. PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF PHILOSOPHICAL REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b>

380

Between 1956 and 1959, the Czechoslovak Communist Party repulsed revisionist elements. But, in the 1960s, as a result of the lack of initiative, the indulgence and formal approach to ideological and political education of party members, and also as a result of mistakes made by Antonin Novotny, who did not see the difference between healthy criticism of deficiencies and attacks of the Right-wingers on socialist reality, there opened up extensive scope for revisionist trends. By contrast with the 1956-1959 period, revisionist actions went beyond the bounds of the country and joined up with international revisionism. In those years, the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, including its philosophy, became widely accessible to the working people of Czechoslovakia and this helped to form a new socialist consciousness. The intellectual level of the working class and the peasants rose because the political consciousness of the working people experienced qualitatively new changes and was enriched by the latest scientific and political information. These shifts in the thinking of working people were at* Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 9. 28^2332 434 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 435 tributable to socialist construction in Czechoslovakia, during which historical transformations took place in the economic structure of the country and successes were achieved in political, economic and cultural spheres. The construction of socialism and the international labour movement posed a whole number of new problems to Marxist-Leninist philosophy in Czechoslovakia. It was necessary to provide a thorough justification for the changes in socialist society, the leading role of the Communist Party during the building of socialism, the growth in popular political and work activity, the changes in class and social structure that were taking place during the building .of socialism. The beginning of the scientific and technological revolution set philosophy a number of questions demanding answers--such as, for example, the problems of methodology in the natural and social sciences, the relationship between socialism and scientific progress, the problems of governing the social 381

and economic processes, the problems of scientific forecasting, etc. Particularly urgent were questions relating to the further development of socialist humanism and the closely related question of Marxist ethics, the problems of the individual within socialist society. No less important and urgent was the struggle against bourgeois philosophy and anti-communism which had to be waged more energetically and with greater justification than hitherto. Genuine Marxist philosophers in Czechoslovakia approached these new problems with utter seriousness and responsibility; many of them achieved positive results in their work. But other tendencies appeared: some philosophers took the path of making concessions to bourgeois ideology and increasingly descended to eclecticism. Their views became a theoretical basis for revisionism. They affirmed that new ideas were coming to the fore designed to purge MarxismLeninism of dogmatism. In actual fact, these ``new'' ideas were often a rehash of ideas already stated by bourgeois philosophy and sociology, by bourgeois ``experts'' on Marx and the Soviet Union, and by anti-communists. Attempts to turn the criticism of dogmatism into a criticism of Marxism-Leninism, into a destructive force of socialist society became ever more often. ``Crusaders'' appeared against dogmatism and ``Stalinism'', who stated that their intention was to return to a Marxist understanding of philosophy as "radical criticism"; in fact, they borrowed an understanding of philosophy as "critical theory" from Herbert Marcuse. Marxist-Leninist philosophy should not, to their minds, serve the tasks of building socialism. It should become "a permanent criticism". The representatives of " critical thought" began to oppose the "doctrinaire thinking", but essentially were opposing Marxism-Leninism. This socalled contention was a direct continuation of the battle against Marxist ideology. By making an absolute of the contradiction between ideas and their implementation, the revisionists demanded that Marxist-Leninist philosophy should be divorced from the party of the working class and the socialist state. They maintained that the existing connection between philosophy and the party was turning it into "official doctrine", into "party ideology", into "an institution''. They portrayed the practical implementation of MarxistLeninist ideas as ``institutionalised'' Marxism, as, for example, Kolakowski maintained, or as a constant product of distortions and alienation of the working class and the communist party, as Fischer maintains today. 382

Lenin noted that the class basis of absolutising contradictions between ideas and their implementation was nothing more than philistinism. At every sharp turn in events, the philistine wavers and vacillates from one side to the other, swings from being an ardent revolutionary to hatred for Communists. This flows from his economic status as a small producer, a status that is contradictory in regard to capitalism and socialism. Under the oppression of capitalist monopolies, the philistine seeks a link with the working class, but as soon as he realises that he cannot satisfy his interests as a proprietor 28&raquo; 436 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 437 under socialism, he turns against the government of the working class because he feels himself ``deceived'' and `` disillusioned'' by the building of socialism. In some circumstances, he turns his hatred against socialism and, first and foremost, against its guiding force---the communist party. In Czechoslovakia, we have witnessed the conversion of " radical revolutionaries", those who come from a petty-bourgeois milieu, into out and out counter-revolutionaries and anticommunists. Typically, it is precisely these former `` revolutionaries'' from a petty-bourgeois milieu who have spoken about building socialism as a betrayal of Marx's ideas, because their ``ideals'' have never been realised. They oppose the Utopian idea of socialism to socialist construction as a natural social process. They thereby inevitably depart from a materialist understanding of society, they replace the objective laws of building socialism by idealist subjectivist and voluntarist notions. Proceeding from these ideas, the portray socialist society as one of alienation and materialisation, calling it "a dreadful Kafka prison". (Many Czechoslovak philosophers and writers have referred to Franz Kafka.) The revisionists put the blame for that ``alienation'' on "politics in general", and especially on the policy of the Communist Party. Politics today, Kosik maintained in November 1968 in an article "Illusions and Realism", are " 383

manipulation of the masses"/^^1^^' Such politics, in Kosik's opinion, are the cause of the existence of the ``police-bureaucratic'' or "bureaucratic dictatorship", "the exclusive monopoly over government and decision-making relying on terror and coercion". Elsewhere, Kosik asserts that after Masaryk, Gramsci and Lenin, the era of political thinkers came to an end and the era of political pragmatists began. After the last war, he adds, the question of who rules---the popular tribune or the bureaucrat---eventually lost all sense. In these words, Kosik reveals the essence of the philistine ``criticism'' of the leading role of the Party in socialist construction, criticism that swings to vicious attacks on socialism. These critics understand the essence of man and reality in an abstract way and interpret everything from a position "above classes"; this means in practice a departure from a materialist, Marxist-Leninist understanding of reality and its replacement by an abstract, petty-bourgeois humanism which, in social development, sees the fight between categories of good and evil, science and ideology, democracy and totalitarianism, the intellectual and the masses, conscience and technical mind, etc., instead of real class forces. This finds its reflection in the collapse of philistine illusions not only in regard to capitalism, but in regard to socialism, complaints about the imperfection of this world and the search for some third way between capitalism and socialism, some sort of new and ``moral'' socialism. At the Fourth Congress of Czechoslovak writers in 1967, Ludvik Vaculik maintained that not a single social problem had been solved during the twenty years of the building of socialism in Czechoslovakia. Such ``criticism'' does not contain a grain of scientific truth because it is based on counterposing "true socialism"---by which they understand a utopian and non-class ideal---to real socialism. This deliberate device serves the revisionists as a point of departure for attacking the leading role of the Communist Party and the socialist state, the planned use of the general laws of building socialism. The revisionists falsify the ideas of Marx propounded in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844; and try to use references to Marx in their campaign against Marx, Engels and Lenin. They interpret the idea of Engels and Lenin in regard to objective dialectics as a world scheme in the spirit of the a priori constructions of Diihring and Hegel. Yet Engels himself warned, for example, in his letter to Schmidt, against using the dialectical-materialist method of 384

thinking as a ready-made pattern, a driving belt for constructions a la Hegel. Lenin several times spoke in the same * K. Kosik, "Iluze a realismus", Listy, No. 1, 1968, p. 1. 438 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 439 vein. The classics of Marxism-Leninism showed that they never regarded dialectics as a commonplace pattern. But this does not stop the revisionists trying to prove the opposite. The subjectivisation of dialectics by its interpretation as an abstract dialectic of object and subject has run into subjectivism, sophistry and eclectics. It has been used in attacks on the objective laws of development of socialism and in justifying political adventurism, subjectivism and even termanner of romantic interpretations of social development that claim to guard authentic philosophical basis of Marxism from "the encroachments" of real Marxists-Leninists. The latter are implementing the ideas of humanism not through eclectical phraseology but by real means, which include working-class government, socialisation of the means of production, planning, scientific and technological revolution, etc. The ``romanticism'' would not merit such keen attention if it were not the point of departure for combating socialism. Alongside these trends in Czechoslovakia, other theories appeared, attempting to revise Marx and referring to the progress and development of contemporary science and technology. They, too, counterposed science and ideology and endeavoured to prove that in the circumstances of scientific and technological revolution, ideology, politics, the communist party and the labour movement did not have the right to exist and should be replaced by computer science, empirical sociology, a theory of social administration, managers, and so on. They declared outmoded Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the policy of the communist party, democratic centralism and other Marxist-Leninist principles of building socialism; these were, they said, speculative concepts and a brake on scientific, technological and economic development. Such theories found a fertile soil because the Czechoslovak Party leadership, headed by Novotny, could not fully 385

resolve several economic problems, including that of efficient scientific and technological development. These theories, taken from contemporary bourgeois ideologists, could not serve the needs of Czechoslovak economic development. In practice, they paved the way for a non-class understanding of socialist society as a political system and some sort of ``industrial'' society devoid of its class essence. This was a convenient pretext for revising Marxism-Leninism, especially its propositions concerning the ways to build socialism. The theories also opened the way to anti-socialist and counrorism. The interpretation of the theory of alienation and humanism in an abstract form and the subjectivisation of materialist dialectics have created a basis for justifying the need for a ``dialogue'' between Marxists and bourgeois philosophers. This ``dialogue'' was to take place not on the basis of a defence of Marxist-Leninist principles and struggle against bourgeois philosophy but of a reconciliation of the two opposed philosophical systems. While during the 1950s some revisionists wanted "to enrich" Marxist philosophy and make it "more philosophical" with the help of Hegelianism, the revisionists of the 1960s ``developed'' Marx mainly with the help of phenomenology and existentialism. They put forward an abstract, ``non-class'' anthropology developed in the works of Fromm, Marcuse and suchlike, in contrast to the Marxist-Leninist class understanding of man and society. Those ideas were used on a large scale to criticise socialism and communism. The bourgeois anthropological idea that socialism and communism are ``inhuman'' and ``inhumane'', especially in selecting the means of building socialism, that "in socialist society man becomes the victim of the interests of revolution", "of the communist despotism" were widespread in Czechoslovakia. Thus, for example, J. Tomes wrote in 1968: "Man was lost in a socialism understood in a dogmatic and centralist way.''^^1^^'^^1 ^^' Petty-bourgeois ideology is closely associated with all * J. Tomes, "Zamysllni nad jednou oslavou", Socialislikd zdkonnost, No. 12, 1968, p. 711. 440 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

386

NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 441 ter-revolutionary forces which regarded the future of the socialist economy in it being subordinated to the economy of the advanced industrial capitalist states in the West. The theories are a component part of the conceptions of international revisionism which sees the resolution of all social contradictions in the automatic development of science and technology. In the wider context, we are dealing here with a neo-positivist and technocratic revision of Marxism-Leninism. Many philosophers in that period deserted philosophy and began to delve into computer science and mathematics, administrative theory as the only possible, in their words, basis for modern administration and planning.* They tried to use computer science to make "more scientific" not only philosophy, but also politics, the content and methods of which they tried to reduce to a cybernetic theory of management. From the thesis of more scientific politics relying on a mathematical-computer basis, they arrived at a basically undemocratic conclusion that politics can be a sphere of activity exclusively of experts who can understand computer science, mathematics and logic---i.e., a narrowly specialised elite. Naturally, nobody objects to politics being put on a scientific basis, to computer science being applied to the administration of society. But to reduce political activity essentially to a cybernetic theory of administration is to forget the interests of the people, the real character of our era and its motive forces and the class struggle. Behind these pseudo-scientific theories lies a desire to replace political government of the working class by an undemocratic government of a managerial elite and technocrats. They suggested making government independent of the will of man. This is based on a one-sided understanding of human nature as one of the forms of the computer system. But any underestimation of the subject leads to a rejection of participation in the process of transforming reality, of man's active participation in improving the world. It `` sanctifies'' the given state of the world and spontaneity, despite the fact that it is supposed to view them from a scientific point of view. Cybernetic philosophy has presented the active participation of the subject in the purposive 387

transformation of the world, corresponding to man's interests, as a factor which creates obstacles, interferes with the rational mechanism of government and thereby hampers its effective development. They most frequently portray the communist party as the factor that creates obstacles. The ultimate objective of these desires for scientific management is to discredit the Marxist-Leninist theory of building socialism and communism. Another attempt to ``update'' Marxism-Leninism and make it "more scientific" has been the revisionist ``enrichment'' of its categories and concepts by contemporary bourgeois sociology. In the course of debate on the relationship between sociology and historical materialism, they accused the latter of being speculative, doctrinaire and ideological; they blamed it for causing crises in society. In the period 1965-1968, attempts were made to create an above-class, extra-temporal sociology on the basis of a synthesis of the Marxist and the non-Marxist approach to comprehending social reality. Many sociologists began uncritically to use categories and methods of bourgeois sociology which led them to study socialist society from an extra-class standpoint and to distort the real picture. They lost sight of classes and replaced them by various groups that took shape according to chance or tendentiously selected factors. Instead of a class approach to social phenomena, they chose a formal structural method which was most fully applied in the book by Machonin and others entitled Czechoslovak Society, The result was a rejection of the class approach to phenomena and of the materialist understanding of society. Krai a kol., Veda a rizeni spolecnosti, Prague, 1967. 442 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAf NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 443 In their exposure of these revisionist tendencies, a group of Czechoslovak Marxist sociologists wrote an article entitled "A Criticism of Positivist Sociology". The article stated in part: "They began by using sociological research with the initial aim to broaden our understanding of social reality, raise the level of scientific forecasting of future development and, thereby, increase the value of information which 388

the social sciences present to political agencies for decisionmaking on socialist development, and ended up by some scholars departing from the basic principles of Marxism (often with the very same methodological superficiality and dogmatic limitations with which they had earlier upheld these principles) and coming under the influence of Western sociological concepts without being able to give a critical analysis of them----A situation arose where many of the sociologists who had participated in a movement hostile to the present changes---in the sense of the development and strengthening of socialist society and serving the cause of undermining that society---for a long time considered themselves to be professional Marxists."* The pseudo-scientific, anti-socialist and anti-Soviet nature of revisionist attempts to ``humanise'' Marxism-Leninism and to make it "more scientific" is manifest in the theories of the ``pluralism'' of Marxism-Leninism. Behind ``pluralism'' lies above all a campaign against Marxism-Leninism as a science and, particularly, a campaign against the integrity and international character of this philosophy. The theories of the ``pluralisation'' and ``disintegration'' of Marxism-Leninism augment the struggle against Leninism as Marxism of our era and serve as weapons in the ideological diversion against the socialist community and the unity of the international labour movement. It is hardly surprising that, today, these theories have been taken up by such renegades as Garaudy and Fischer. Under the influence of various bourgeois theories about the opposition between ``Western'' and ``Eastern'' Marxism, many Czechoslovak ``Marxists'' tried to create "a Czechoslovak Marxism". A feature of this ``Marxism'' was an attempt to ``humanise'' Marxism-Leninism---i.e., essentially to revise it from the standpoint of anthropological existentialism, and to make it "more scientific"---i.e., to revise it from the standpoint of modernist positivism. They understood the Czechoslovak "model of socialism" as embodying a national version of Marxism. It is hardly fortuitous, therefore, that in 1968 and 1969 the ideas of Masaryk should appear, and some people should try to synthesise these ideas with Marxism and, in this way, to ``enrich'' it. The book by M. Machovec about Thomas G. Masaryk was in that spirit. Despite the fact that the author often criticised Masaryk's ideas, he constantly emphasised their topicality. He presented Masaryk as a philosopher proving the true nature of human existence, as a modern religious existentialist, a person whose ideas were a necessary support for the so-called Czechoslovak " experiment of 1968". Machovec defined the raison d'etre of that 389

experiment as a combination of Marx and Masaryk, socialism (up till now ``Eastern'') and freedom of speech and conviction which were, in his words, attributes of the West."" Other revisionists, on the other hand, follow the advice of Jean-Paul Sartre in seeing the Czechoslovak version of Marxism as being enriched by the ideas of Kafka.** The so-called national version of Marxism was an attempt not only to synthesise Marxism and Masarykism, the antisocialist bourgeois ideology and other bourgeois tendencies of * M. Machovec, Thomas G. Masaryk, Prague, 1968. ** Thus, at a conference on Kafka, Ivan Svitak said: "Kafka is not a document of the past, he is a tragic document of the human situation of our time, which in its profundity is a philosophical and literary reflection of the human situation in general and an anthropological basis of existence in particular. Kafka is the poet of the future" (I. Svitak, ``Kafka-filosof'', Franz Kafka. Liblicka konference 1963, Prague, 1963, p. 95). * B. Filipcova, I. Houska, M. Hilakova, I. KrejZi, M. Soukup, "K sociologii kriticky i pozitivne", Tribuna, No. 23, 1970, pp. 9, 15. 444 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY NATURE OF REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 445 pre-war Czechoslovakia such as, for example, positivism, phenomenology, pragmatism and structuralism, but also to conduct a campaign against Leninism as ``Russified'' Marxism. Such an approach fully corresponded to the interests of revisionists in other countries, who extended them unanimous support (Garaudy, Fischer, Marek, Petkoff and others). The fact is that the struggle against Leninism as an allegedly specific Russian version of Marxism became, as the lessons of the 1968 Czechoslovak events testify, a starting point for the departure from Marxism and the betrayal of 390

the interests of the working class, for eclecticism, nationalism and anti-Sovietism. Marxism-Leninism is a uniform international teaching. This does not contradict its creative application to a particular country or to specific historical conditions. The philosophy of Marx and Lenin takes into consideration both the reality of common laws and the reality of specific and unique factors. After all, a common factor may exist and develop only through a specific factor, manifesting itself in a wealth of its own specific traits. While dogmatism has converted Marxist-Leninist philosophy into ossified, abstract schemes and, thereby, has approached specific conditions, the manifestation of common and specific factors, the specific and the unique, in a nihilist way, the theories of the ``pluralism'' and the ``disintegration'' of Marxism-Leninism contradict the materialist understanding of history and society because they ultimately present unco-ordinated phenomena outside of their universal mutual relationship. They open the way to an idealist and often Utopian and adventurist approach to real phenomena. Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that the common and the specific are to be found in dialectical unity. Life confirms that successful construction of socialism can only occur on the basis of common laws with account for specific national conditions. The theories of ``pluralisation'' of Marxism-Leninism lead to its revision in a spirit of bourgeois-nationalist ideology. The philosophy of so-called models of socialism merges ultimately with the rehabilitation of a bourgeois political system and, thereby, creates conditions for the subversive activity of anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary forces. Apologists for so-called democratic socialism have endeavoured profoundly to ``regenerate'' socialism.* * Thus, Julius Strinka wrote: "For true socialism to become a political programme, it must be precisely and positively distinguished from the socialism existing up till now. We must say quite clearly that we are talking about not merely an improvement or elaboration of socialism, but of deep-going, structural changes; we are talking about a qualitatively new model, a new system of socialism. The definition of `democratic', in the positive sense of the word, is precisely what distinguishes it very clearly from the old model of socialism." 391

Further, Strinka maintained that the key to reconstructing the `` bureaucraticstate'' model of socialism and to the creation of a ``democratic'' model was the change in the political system and the system of socialist democracy (J. Strinka, "MySlienky o demokratickum socializme", Otdzky politiky a demokracie. Socialistickd akademie. Slovensky vybor, Bratislava, 1968, pp. 102-10). CHAPTER 21 CRITIQUE OF "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b> ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 447 with a human face". Some of the older generation had been members of the National Socialist and the Social-Democratic parties and they had never really reconciled themselves to accepting the leading role of the Communist Party and the course of events after February 1948. They saw in the slogan "democratic socialism" a signal to return to pre-1948 conditions. After all, the concept of "democratic socialism" had a very definite meaning in the programme of these parties and had at that time served as a weapon of combating Marxism and communism. Communists of the older generation also knew very well how earlier---under the bourgeois regime---anti-communist onslaughts had often been organised under the slogan of the Masaryk "democratic socialism''. Anti-communism in Czechoslovakia has historical traditions. It was founded not only as a theory proclaimed by fascist organisations which developed legal activity during the bourgeois republic. Anti-communism also found a place in the ideology and policies of the various bourgeois-democratic and ``socialist'' parties, in official Masaryk-type ideology and politics. Masaryk, who had been a self-appointed `` expert'' on Marxism, was the source of "scientific arguments" against communism for anti-communist propaganda. Masaryk was often called the unofficial philosopher of social-democracy. His philosophy and sociology evolved on the basis of a direct criticism of Marxist theory. He approached Marxism from a pre-established negative standpoint, treated Marxist views in an extremely simplified, 392

onesided and false way. This evaluation and ``criticism'' of scientific socialism and of Marxism well satisfied the Rightwing leaders of Czechoslovak Social-Democracy who had never distinguished themselves by a profound knowledge of theory. In his work The Social Question, Masaryk criticised Marx and Engels from the standpoint of petty-bourgeois humanist and idealist primitivism. In his opinion, they opposed capitalist coercion, but proposed replacing it by another type of coercion---socialist one. He claimed that Marx and Engels When, in 1968, the revisionist forces in the Czechoslovak Communist Party implanted the petty-bourgeois, social-democratic idea of "democratic socialism", they justified this ``new'' name in various ways. The most common was that proposed by Julius Strinka in his article "Thoughts on Democratic Socialism".* In order to distinguish real socialism in which democracy was inherent, he said, from the undemocratic model of socialism, it was necessary to add the name ``democratic''. Insofar as the hitherto existing model of socialism was declared to be not genuine socialism, he demanded a change in the name itself. The slogan "democratic socialism" and "socialism with a human face" undoubtedly enjoyed popularity. After all, everyone wanted to remove bureaucracy and formalism and correct the mistakes and deficiencies of the past. It was precisely the Czechoslovak Communist Party which first advanced the demand to restore the Leninist norms of party life in Czechoslovakia and to develop humanism fully in socialist society. People of the younger generation in Czechoslovakia virtually knew nothing of the origin and meaning of " democratic socialism" and saw no reason for opposing "socialism * J. Strinka, op. cit., pp. 102-03. 448 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 449 saw in society only classes and class struggle; such views, in Masaryk's opinion, were simplistic, incorrect and unjustified. He believed that Russian Bolshevism was quite 393

unsuitable for civilised countries. Here he was speaking not only as an ``expert'' on Marxism but, even more so, as a witness of revolution. "I experienced the Bolshevik revolution in Russia," he wrote, "and I observed it from a very short distance and with great interest; I can safely say with complete objectivity that Lenin considered his communist programme real Marxism. Lenin, however, was making a mistake. Marx went through several stages in his socialist development and it is necessary to make a distinction between two Marxisms. There is the Marxism of the revolutionary year 1848, the Communist Manifesto and the first volume of Capital; in the second stage of his development Marx, however, renounced his revolutionary youth and adopted an evolutionary standpoint; finally, Engels some time before his death rejected revolutionary activity utterly and finally."* Lenin and his supporters, according to Masaryk, took up the Marxism from which Marx and Engels had departed. Masaryk counterposes the views of Lenin to Marx and Engels. He wrote that "Bolshevik communism is impossible in principle".** The zealous proponents of the "Czechoslovak model of democratic socialism" subsequently argued their views in a similar style: the USSR cannot be an example for Czechoslovakia, Leninism corresponds to specific Russian conditions, does not possess general applicability; the Czechoslovak working class is more developed, the people of Czechoslovakia have long democratic traditions, and therefore they must build socialism according to different recipes. The tradition of "democratic socialism" was the most widespread of all the weapons in the arsenal of anti-communist ideas in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was advanced mainly by Right-wing elements in the Social-Democratic Party. It is an ideology which rejected the class struggle and proclaimed Masaryk humanism and Masaryk "revolution of the head and the heart". Otakar Machotka (former deputy of the National Socialist Party, sociologist and present resident in the USA) wrote many frank words about the role of the National Socialist Party and its experience in the fight against communism. He boasted of the fact that from the end of the last war until the February ``coup'', the National Socialists represented the main citadel of struggle with communism. He himself took an active part in the fight against communism in Czechoslovakia right up until February 1948. L. Gorlich wrote that: "Masaryk and the spirit of Masaryk show us the way today. If we take this path and 394

remain true to his ideas, we can again, as in the period of reformation, make a great contribution in the interests of mankind, create a new type of democratic socialism representing the result of the West European democratic tradition and the experience of the Russian social revolution and socialist construction."* ``Democratic socialism" was to play the part of a new model of political structure of society. ``Creative'' development lay in the fact that they added to "democratic socialism", taken from the anti-communist arsenal, the name " Czechoslovak democratic socialism with a human face". The Rightwing circles of the former Social-Democrats, the ideologists of the National Socialists, Peroutka and his company could stand under the banner of that model alongside Radio Free Europe. If anyone could with complete justification proclaim themselves to be supporters of "democratic socialism" it was undoubtedly the Right-wing Social-Democrats who had returned to their own ideology. Some Social-Democrats, like National Socialists, came to life, because the "Prague Spring" * T. G. Masaryk, Svelovd revalues, Prague, 1925, p. 211. ** "Z poselstvi Masarykova ze dne 28.10.1919", Masarykova Prace. Stdtni nakladatelstvi, Prague, 1930, p. 313. * L. Gorlich, Masaryk a dnesek, Prague, 1947, p. 12. 29---2332 450 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 451 of 1968 gave them new hope for a return of everything they had lost in February 1948. One should not be surprised, therefore, that they should try to exploit this opportunity. Right-wing propagandists and "creative Marxists" avoided explaining specifically the concept "democratic socialism". The looser the slogan "socialism with a human face" was, the wider the scope (the concept ``scope'' was one of the favourite concepts of "creative Marxists") remained for every possible illusion and myth. ``Democratic socialism" is the ideology of the Right wing of Social-Democrats which rejects Marxism-Leninism and 395

calls directly for a battle against it. The ideologists of " democratic socialism" do not conceal this. In their view, Marxism is out of date and does not correspond to contemporary conditions; it has to be replaced by a scientific ideology, which is precisely "democratic socialism". The main values of "democratic socialism" are abstractly proclaimed slogans of freedom, democracy, justice, human dignity, conscience, solidarity and peace. In view of the fact that it was allegedly impossible to obtain a common opinion on definition of these philosophical questions, the ideologists of " democratic socialism" rejected a philosophical substantiation of these concepts and proclaimed "philosophical neutrality". They were tolerant of any philosophy, except Marxism. They endeavoured to reconcile science with the bible, Thomas Aquinas with materialist thinkers. In the/Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, made in 1951, "The Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism", democratic socialism is described as an international movement which in no way demands a rigid uniformity of views. Despite the fact that socialists can base their convictions on the results of a Marxist or other social analysis or on religious and humanitarian principles, they are all striving for a single common goal---a social system of social justice, a higher standard of living, freedom and peace throughout the world.* * Ziel und Aufgaben des demokratischen Sozialismus, Berlin-Hannover, 1958. Several booklets came out in the 1960s on the subject of "democratic socialism". For example, there was the work of Jicinsky on democratic socialism of West German SocialDemocracy, in which the author disapproves of "democratic socialism" from various viewpoints and shows that it represents an ideology of a social-reformist brand which is an instrument of anti-communism and has the aim of helping to defeat Marxism-Leninism. "Democratic socialism" was also the theme of works by Z. Vokrouhlicky, What is the Socialist International and Western Europe and Communism* A short description of "democratic socialism" is also given in the philosophical dictionary compiled by E. Urbanek, who describes 'this concept as follows: "Democratic socialism is the official ideology of present-day Right-wing socialism proclaimed in the Declaration of the Socialist International Frankfurt Congress under the title 'The Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism'. This Declaration is meant to become a counterbalance to revolutionary communism; on a theoretical plain, democratic socialism traditionally relies on certain principles of neo-Kantianism which finds its expression in an ethical treatment of socialism. According to this notion, socialism is not primarily a product of the economic and political development of capitalism; it is a moral ideal to which all members of society have access in equal 396

degrees. The problem of social transformation of society is, consequently, primarily a moral problem, a problem of the education and re-education of people in the spirit of socialism. Democratic socialism refutes the class struggle, proletarian dictatorship, socialist revolution and the use of revolutionary violence. Socialism can arise only 'by democratic means'---i.e., as a result of the accumulation of a number of social and particularly cultural-educational measures carried out within the framework of bourgeois society and by the agencies of that society. Socialism exists as `democracy'---as * Z. Vokrouhlicky, Co je socialistickd internaciondla, Prague, 1961; Zapddni Evropa a komunismus, Prague, 1962. 29* 452 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 453 conformity and harmony of all members of society, including the capitalists. Democratic socialism in its objective sense and objective influence means the justification for and perpetuation of capitalist society."* A considerable number of people involved in ideological and theoretical work, knowing whose notion this is, nonetheless did not shut themselves off from "democratic socialism" and tried to justify this stand by references to the idea that it was not a matter of theoretically defining socialism, it was only a matter of political slogans of the particular stage they were going through, only a matter of the symbol of certain changes and searches for a new model of socialism. Some Czechoslovak ``theoreticians'' rejected any criticism of "democratic socialism", maintaning that the concept reflected a critical understanding of the fact of the possibility for a better state of socialism, the need to move ahead in social development. If, they maintained, socialism wants to remain socialism, it must move forward, be revolutionary and it should be measured by comparing it with the future and not with socialism already constructed. Humanity, democracy and freedom were the moral values of "democratic socialism" about which "bureaucratic socialism" had forgotten. Previously, man had allegedly been only one of the bricks in the building of socialism, now he would be at the 397

centre of socialist construction. These and similar reasonings, presented as creative and new, as searches for an original Czechoslovak model, suffered primarily from one substantial shortcoming---they all belong to the permanent repertoire of anti-communism. This was admitted by Jifi Cvekl in an article entitled "The Problem of Socialist Models and Marxism","""" which the editorial board of the magazine Nova mysl called "a self-critical analysis". Cvekl writes: "We have, all the same, really created a new model in a definite sense. But we are not the first to produce it, it was created by anti-communist headquarters in the imperialist states."* The accusation that socialism does not grant people enough freedom, that it is insufficiently democratic and humane, that Communists have unjustifiably ascribed to themselves alone socialist traditions, that every dictatorship, consequently the dictatorship of the working class, is a violence and that any violence means fascism---are all slogans known since the time of the pre-Munich bourgeois republic and the political battles of the 1945-1948 period. Such slogans as "Socialism ---yes, but our own, democratic and Czechoslovak", " Socialism without Bolsheviks", "Revolution---yes, but revolution of the head and the heart", "Socialism---yes, but not Bolshevik communism"---are all well-known since the time of Masaryk. Czechoslovak "democratic socialism" was under the strong influence of the ideas of Thomas Masaryk. The dogmatic and superficial criticism of the ideas of Masaryk in the 1950s (which, incidentally, was often made by the "creative Marxists" of 1968) could not be sufficiently convincing. The vestiges of Masaryk's ideas---in an idealised form---remained in people's minds and again appeared in January 1968 with the intention of gaining support for "the new Czechoslovak model", especially among young people. There is much evidence to show that the criticism of Marxism made by Masaryk on the eve of 1948 was borrowed by the Social-Democrats (and, of course, not only them), who readily included it in their "democratic socialism". Thus, for example, the prominent social-democratic leader, R. Bechyne wrote: "Our socialism borrowed the thoughts and compulsory principles of democracy. We complemented the Marxist principle of class struggle with the Masaryk principle of humane democracy."*"" * Strucny filosoficky slovnik, Prague, 1966, pp. 408-09. ** J. Cvekl, "Problem 'modelu socialismu' a marxismus", Nova 398

mysl, No. 8, 1970, pp. 1090-1102. * Ibid., p. 1100. ** R. Bechyne, Pero mi zustalo, 1938-1945, Prague, 1947, p. 53. 454 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 455 Even more expressively was the attitude to class struggle and revolution formulated by F. Modracek, according to whom the theory of class struggle and socialist revolution was anti-social and anti-constitutional in a democratic system. At the 20th Congress of the Social-Democratic Party, the delegates rejected proletarian dictatorship and proclaimed that social democracy was in favour of socialisation in the spirit of Masaryk, carried out by democratic means and with the help of electoral bulletins, without the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept "Czechoslovak democratic socialism" or " socialism with a human face", therefore, had already had its specific content for a long time; it is not fortuitous that Czechoslovak propagandists of ``creative'' Marxism "have forgotten" the history of "democratic socialism": they know full well why academician Santo wrote that the majority of propagandists of "democratic socialism" did not try to overcome the mistakes and shortcomings of the past, did not try to construct genuine socialism; their aim was quite different. But they could not, at least at the first stage, ploclaim this aim publicly with complete frankness. It was more beneficial to them to leave the real content of "democratic socialism" which they proclaimed as indefinite as possible. It was impossible at that time openly to recognise that " democratic socialism" was the official ideology of the contemporary Right-wing Social-Democracy. The mistakes committed in ideology before January 1968 gave the strategy and tactics of anti-communism the opportunity to use various forms of ideological influence. After January 1968, ideological disorder reached a stage where in Czechoslovakia it became possible "to refute Marxism with the help of Marx". There gradually began a transition from the stage of ``destroying'' scientific socialism, to a stage when it was necessary to proclaim "what socialism had to be". It was necessary to produce the programme of "democratic socialism''.

399

Various home-bred ideologists of "democratic socialism", gaining their ideas primarily from their West German colleagues, outdid one another in search of an argument of why it had become necessary to replace socialism in Czechoslovakia by "democratic socialism''. The spearhead of this argument was against the leading role of the Party in society. Under the slogans of `` democratisation'' and rejection of "power dictatorship" they essentially rejected the Party and its leading role, although a few propagandists of "democratic socialism" continued to maintain, in words, something different. Thus, Ota Sik wrote in an article "The Constants of Socialism": "To many uninformed onlookers, perhaps, it might seem that the role of the Party disappears amid the furious debates. As far as we know, however, there is only the optimistic delusion---ideological debate has never overflowed into openly non-socialist or even anti-socialist demands."* Sik talks of optimistic delusion, but it is sufficient merely to read newspapers of the period to realise who was suffering from "an optimistic delusion" or, to be more correct, who was trying to stifle the too frank, acute or wholely anti-socialist demands borrowed from the anti-communist headquarters. The propagandists of "democratic socialism" used self-criticism within the Party, particularly after January 1968, for their own purposes; they slandered the entire activity of the Party, presented it virtually as a complete chain of mistakes. They deliberately tried to whip up violent feelings against Party activists, they tried to bring on a crisis in the Party and in the whole of society. The press, radio and television daily worked up a persecution of Party members and activists who rejected the wholesale criticism, did not agree with the complete denigration of the past and opposed the nationalist poison and anti-socialist attacks. While the daily press was content with cheap sensation, Literdrm listy tried "more profoundly" to justify why it was necessary to reject the leading role of the Party.*"' * O. Sik, "Konstanty socialismu", Nova mysl, No. 9-10, 1968. ** A. I. Liehm, "Klidna revoluce v Ceskoslovensku", Literdrni lisly, No. 1, 1968. 456 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 400

457 More and more frequently they tried to prove that the only way to ensure the realisation of "democratic socialism" was to form an opposition and to create a pluralist system and a large number of political parties competing against one another. The authors produced these theories not only for their own country; simultaneously they demonstrated the results of their ``work'' to their teachers. Thus, for example, V. Klokocka and a few other authors published their works in West Germany."' Klokocka spoke as an ``authority'' not only by virtue of his law education and theoretical and educational activity in constitutional law, but also because he was a member of the Czech National Council and, from the summer of 1968, headed the state commission working on a new political system. In June 1968, attacks on the leading role of the Party became even greater. The "2,000 Words" document was to .serve as a platform for uniting all forces acting against the Party and those Party activists who had remained true to Marxism-Leninism and rejected "democratic socialism". The newspaper Literarni listy, reporting on ``regeneration'' in the town of Semila, openly stated that "the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia should be considered a criminal organisation, which it actually has been, and it is necessary to exclude it from public life, despite the fact that its present representatives are trying to portray themselves in the best light".** In an article "The Consequences of Words", Ivan Svitak gives the Czechoslovak Communist Party the following ultimatum: If the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia wishes to earn the support of the millions for the cause of " democratic socialism", it must get rid of hundreds and thousands of its activists; only then does it have a chance of winning in the regular elections by secret ballot.*** For Svitak, the * V. Klokocka, Demokratisches Sozialismus. Ein authentisches Mode] und ein Interview mit Rudi Dutschke, Hamburg-, 1968. ** "Obrodny proces v Semilech", Literarni listy, No. 18, 1968, p. 5. *** I. Svitak, "Dusledky slov", Literarni listy, No. 12, 1968. Party represents a military-bureaucratic organisation. He asks whether the Party in general possesses the ability to resolve the problems of the state and the nation in accordance with the basic rules of European politics. Further, he recommends that if Communists really want to win elections, they 401

must put forward candidates like the writer L. Vaculik, the author of "2,000 Words''. As it was, the liquidators of the Party understood that the society in Czechoslovakia could not, as Sik had said, develop spontaneously, that it had to be built on "the thoughts and projects which the Party brings to citizens"."' But they had in mind another party, "a democratised" party of " democratic socialism", "divorced from the mechanism of state power" and not being a party of the working class. Sik andother propagandists of "democratic socialism" wrote off the working class. They put their hopes in the so-called political and cultural elite, and considered workers to be largely ``conservative'' and therefore regarded them with scorn in their high-sounding statements, particularly at the first stage of the "democratisation process". They maintained that, in a political sense, the workers were not yet mature, that they were under the tutelage of Party activists, allowed themselves to be deceived and therefore could not think in a political way independently or understand the sense and aims of the "democratisation process''. The fact that the workers, notably the members of the people's militia, were unfavourable to the activity of anti-socialist forces can be explained allegedly by the idea that the masses were generally apolitical and that the bureaucratic system of personal power had weaned the workers away from independent thinking. According to this idea, the newspaper Prace was to become a kind of Literarni noviny for the intellectually less mature workers, to teach them to think, to stir them out of their long lethargy. Literarni listy asserted that the working class had lost its * Sik, op. cit. 458 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 459 reason and consciousness and had become an obedient mass, open to manipulation. The ideologists of "democratic socialism" deceived themselves by supposing that the worker-activists and the working class were in fact what they made them out to be in their novels and films. The revisionists were surprised that there appeared critical statements in regard to their activity among workers and simple people in 402

the countryside. When some of their works were rejected by a large number of readers, they saw this as a manifestation of lack of culture, referring to the fact that " developed foreign countries" understood their art and showed in practice their understanding by making them a number of awards. Some ``intellectuals'' conceded that although they frequently spoke of the working class, they did not know it sufficiently and they therefore had to go among the people and visit factories and other enterprises. As a result of just such a conversation, the writer L. Vaculik summed up the views which to a certain extent expressed the opinion of all proponents of "democratic socialism". In his words, the workers for many years had been deprived of their natural leaders, but they nevertheless thought that they were in power. In the state of shock in which they were, they could become a political prize for anyone who was first to come and organise a big meeting and tell them without any discussion what had to be done on the morrow. This fallacious judgement of the working class led the adherents of "democratic socialism" to work out an essentially anti-worker strategy and tactics. The revisionists did not consider that the workers could act on their own initiative, that they could not demand that those who spoke about socialism in the workers' name, yet were in fact undermining it, should stop doing so. It is not surprising that the proponents of "democratic socialism", for example, should be taken unawares by the May Meeting of people's militia members in 1968 who took a correct political attitude, adopting a resolution and letter to the USSR, the text of which the upholders of "democratic socialism" then tried to hide from the public. The resolute actions of the workers gradually forced the propagandists of "democratic socialism" to recognise that they could not push through a policy in Czechoslovakia without the workers, even less so against them. They therefore began rapidly to reorientate their activity. Literdrni listy no longer put its hopes in the newspaper Prace and introduced The Workers' Tribune as the newspaper from which they proclaimed: A united front of progressive forces, especially an alliance of workers and intellectuals, is the main condition for the further development of "democratic socialism". In turn, the revisionist Committee on Higher Educational Institutions in Prague suggested to the district committee of Prague-9 to make an agreement with them on the basis of which students and lecturers would help to speed up the 403

process of democratisation within the "bastion of dogmatism"--i.e., at the factories in the Prague districts of Vysocony and Liben. The Workers' Tribune ardently propagated the demand for mutual acquaintance, direct relations between the workers and intellectuals. The ideologists of "democratic socialism" used every means to gain the loyalty of the working class. It was a remarkable turn-around---first condemnation, a supercilious and scornful attitude to the working class, then an attempt to gain its favour, even to the extent of servility, and persuade the intellectuals to manifest maximum understanding and toleration towards it and give the workers every assistance. But the attempts by opportunist forces to win the workers to their side did not have the expected results. The letter by workers of Auto-Prague factory, published in the Moscow newspaper Pravda, really sent the revisionists into a rage. Many of them tore off their mask and revealed their real face. The sociologist Miroslav Jodl, for example, said that it was necessary "to exclude from the nation" the workers who had openly expressed their opinion. The newspaper Prace 460 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ``DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 461 tried to provoke vicious actions against those who dared to align themselves with the Auto-Prague workers. But the ideologists of "democratic socialism", those selfstyled "friends of the people", were exposed. They had staked all on nationalism, which had more than once in history succeeded in splitting the labour movement. On a wave of nationalism and anti-Soviet hysteria, they tried to unite `` intellectuals'' and workers. Yet, despite the fact that they managed to deceive and frighten part of the workers, they eventually suffered defeat. Incidentally, the ideologists of "democratic socialism", like most ``intellectuals'' in general, became divorced not only from the labour movement, but from technicians and scientists in general. The editorial board of Listy admitted that "intellectuals had overestimated their own power''. In his report to the 14th Party Congress, Gustav Husak 404

made the point that part of the intellectuals had manifested a tendency to superiority and privilege. The petty-bourgeois mutiny that occurred in 1968 had upheld the thesis about an intellectual ``elite'' which was supposed to lead society. The Right wing crudely abused its virtual monopoly of the mass media in order to manipulate the "lower strata", i.e., the millions of working people. These bourgeois and philistine notions about the status of social classes and strata had been rejected. On their own experience, the working people had seen the serious consequences of such views. The ideologists of "democratic socialism" had considered themselves, as Svitak had expressed it, Hamlets whose fate it was to put right injustice without paying attention to the consequences. In an article devoted to the ``intellectuals'' he gave instructions on how the "intellectual elite---the only genuine elite of the present day" should act.* Against whom did Svitak and his company launch their campaign? Mainly against the working class, against its leading role, its Marxist-Leninist party, proletarian dictatorship, alliance and friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. ``Democratic socialism", to his mind, should have become the basis also of newly restored parties of the National Front. This upholder of "democratic socialism" often referred to Marx in order to support his false interpretation of Marxism in abolishing the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist Party and in order to counterpose Marx to Lenin. Of course, not all adherents of "democratic socialism" acted so openly as did Svitak or Liehm. The new political system of "democratic socialism" was to abolish the leading role of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Together with non-communist parties and public organisations in Czechoslovakia, the Party was to participate jointly in government bodies and ensure its leading role by "the might of their suggestions and the rationality of their argument". It is clear where the weight of argument would lie given the demagogy in a situation of artificially fanned hysteria and anti-communist persecution. " Democratic socialism"---the ideology of Right-wing Social-Democrats---became the axis of the policy statement prepared by the revisionists and to be announced by the founding congress of a Czech Communist Party. The Manifesto of the Club of Non-Party Activists highly evaluated "the imposing idea of the Czechoslovak 405

experiment which proposed uniting democratic socialism and a lofty programme of civil liberties''. Despite the frenzied activity of the proponents of " democratic socialism", their plans utterly came to grief and the counter-revolutionary forces were defeated. The cause of socialism in Czechoslovakia was upheld. At the same time, it is an invariable condition of successful class struggles in maintaining socialist society that ideological work should continue. In that connection, Gustav * Dokumenty k nekterym problemum utvdfeni politickeno systemu CSSR v obdobi leden az srpen 1968. Vydalo ideologicke oddeleni 0V KSC, December, 1968, p. 129. 462 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 22 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM</b> IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF SOCIALISM</b> Husak has said: "The fight for the socialist consciousness of our people is an ideological struggle against all bourgeois and petty-bourgeois vestiges, trends and tendencies which still exist among some sections of society or are the consequence of the constant ideological diversions by imperialism. Recent years have provided a great deal of the subversive activity of imperialist spies against Czechoslovakia and its socialist system, the crude interference in our internal affairs. This subversive activity continues today: by means of false and slanderous campaigns in the bourgeois press, the transmissions of Radio Free Europe and similar means of imperialist propaganda, and other ways and means. The ideological and class struggle is continuing; one cannot expect anything from imperialism that would actually be of benefit to our socialist system and our party. It is therefore necessary for the whole Party to be vigilant in regard to all forms of diversion. It has been said many times that there can be no room for peaceful coexistence in the field of ideology, there can be no concession to hostile views, no compromises in regard to the vestiges of the old exploiting society.""'

406

The main goal of counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia was to destroy the political foundations of socialism. The revisionists realised that abolition of political power of the working class was the decisive question of a counter-revolutionary coup. This was the fundamental prerequisite for realising the remaining counter-revolutionary plans contained in "the new model of socialism''. The facts testify to the close connection between Rightwing revisionism and such bourgeois ideological strains as anti-communism and reformism, to which corresponded in practice "the political block of Right-wing revisionist and anti-socialist forces which, with widespread support, made a counter-revolutionary attempt to change the social system in Czechoslovakia"/^^1^^" The essence of revisionist subversive activity consisted in destroying the complete political system largely by internal changes in socialist institutions. The revisionists tried to gain control of the vital links in the political system and turn them gradually into bourgeois political institutions in the spirit of "the new model". One has only to look at the changes that took place in the Communist Party itself, in Party bodies, in public organisations associated with the National Front, and in non-communist political parties in order to XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, p. 75. XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, pp. 22627. 464 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 465 understand that it was not simply a matter of changes in personnel, it was changes in the very nature of activity of these bodies and the creation of new organisations. This entire process took place in a situation of the crude infringement of socialist laws. The Document Lessons of the Crisis Development ... stated: "Enumerable facts confirm that in 1968 a broad anticommunist coalition had formed and a new political structure had been created which actually restored the position obtaining before February 1948 and in which even elements of the pre-Munich bourgeois republic were clearly evident."*

407

The Right wing carefully concealed the nature of these changes in the political system so that the public was uninformed of the process that was taking place and the political and social consequences. The initiators of these changes maintained that they were only demanding "the improvement" of socialism. In the political sphere, they gradually departed from the general principles of a socialist political system, particularly from those that concerned the leading role of the working class and its vanguard and the socialist state of proletarian dictatorship. They used gradual methods of implementing counter-revolutionary goals which were spread out over a longer period than in Hungary in 1956. They used methods of "quiet and continual influence by penetrating the Party apparatus, state agencies and voluntary social organisations by direct political and ideological means, for paralysing and nullifying their activity from within",** as Husak noted. Right-wing revisionism in political theory was formed in Czechoslovakia long before 1968. Revisionist views on political theory and their implementation have their particular characteristics: they take into consideration the specific nature of the political and legal superstructure affecting issues of political power, the rule of the working class and other questions directly related to the interests of classes. They had to mask them more carefully. Before 1968, at any rate, they were manifest in very general and abstract propositions. The revisionists only came out into the open with a clear-cut programme in the period 1968-1969, at a time when there was the possibility of the direct realisation of those plans. They concentrated their principal efforts in the sphere of political organisation on creating "a new polical model" and the conditions necessary for "democratic socialism". The interdisciplinary group in resolving the tasks of "developing the political system of socialist society", headed by Zdenek Mlynaf, was the leading strain of revisionism in this field. This group, whose main nucleus comprised approximately 30 people who represented various social sciences, went very far in their activity in comprehensively creating the socalled new model of a political system. Their views became the theoretical platform for transforming the socialist political system; essentially they led to the destruction of the socialist political system as a

408

whole. The questions of a new political model are explained most fully in the work by Mlynaf, Towards a Notion of an Optimum Model of Political System in Czechoslovakia. This consisted of theoretical arguments which were, according to their author, of fundamental importance. By its form, it refers to a theoretical hypothesis. Despite the fact that the theoretical hypothesis was formed without a profound analysis of the object of the research, it was not discussed at any scientific forum, not examined by competent Party and state organisations, yet they began to put it into operation. Many of its principles went into the Action Programme of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. The essence of the "optimum model" was explained by Mlynaf in his articles "Democratic Political Organisation of 80---2332 * Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 39. ** G. Husak, "Aktualnost Leninovych myslenek o statu a demokracii", Rude prdvo, April 18, 1970. 466 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA ANDSOCIALISM</b> 467 Society"* and "The Problem of the Nature of Politics and the State in a Socialist Society""""". His article "Towards a Notion of an Optimum Model of Political System in Czechoslovakia" was prepared for publication in the autumn of 1968, together with other material in the same vein. This was material designed for open publication and not simply for internal use by the group. Important facts testify to the attempt at practical realisation of the "new model". Thus, for example, questions of applying the "optimum political model" in practice, rather than the concept itself, were discussed at a session in Sumava in the autumn of 1967 in which several social scientists participated. . In the period after January 1968, although the "optimum model" was not mentioned directly in Party documents, in fact its implementation had already begun. This notion, whose representatives included Mlynaf, Klokocka, Jicmsky and Samalik, relied on a liberal-bourgeois 409

interpretation of democracy in the spirit of the theory of "a legal state" and "pluralist democracy", which the authors attempted to ``adapt'' to their illusory socialism. This principal revisionist trend was supplemented by several others. The most typical were attempts to implement the theory of ``autonomous'' democracy in the spirit of the revisionists grouped around the journal Praxis. REVISION OF MARXISM-LENINISM AS A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM</b> The Leninist theory of the socialist state is a harmonious system of scientific knowledge about the revolutionary establishment and development of the socialist state. Its essence is the Marxist idea of socialist revolution and proletarian dictatorship. * Z. Mlynaf, "K demokraticke politick^ organizaci spolecnosti", Nova my si, No. 5, 1968. ** Z. Mlynaf, "Problematika charakteru politiky a statu v socialisticke spolecnosti", Prdvnik, No. 10, 1967. All the propositions of Leninism---they include issues affecting the political system of socialism---are a methodology both of revolutionary action and of thinking. The destruction of these fundamentals of revolutionary action and thinking became a prime aim of Right-wing revisionism. All talk of changing the political system of socialism began with revision of Marxist-Leninist ideology and its replacement by bourgeois ideology. Ideology is, as the revisionists have often written, the basis of the whole political system. The Right-wing revisionists focused attention on debilitating and destroying the major constructive ideas of the political system of socialism. As in other areas, their intention was to erode basic MarxistLeninist principles, to retreat from a scientifically based policy, from a materialist theory of politics, to renounce a class approach to studying social phenomena and processes. The main line of struggle of the Right-wing revisionists against Marxist-Leninist philosophy on the political system of socialism is to deny the historical necessity of proletarian dictatorship. They reject the basic laws of building socialism and its 410

development. They regard the development of the socialist state and the entire political system in isolation from socialist society and from its economic sphere and social class structure. First they used the tactics of identifying the personality cult with the essence of the socialist system; then they denied the need for proletarian dictatorship in general. They declared its basic content and principles incompatible with socialism. It is precisely the rejection of proletarian dictatorship that is characteristic of all revisionists in regard to the socialist political system. At the second stage, their main designs were concentrated on creating a new "optimum model of a political system" and on embodying it in practice. Events have confirmed that the notion of "democratic socialism", until now praised only by the Right-wing social30*</b> 468 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM</b> 469 democrats in capitalist states, was one of the main ideological weapons of revisionism in the battle against socialist revolution and served them as an instrument in preparing a counter-revolutionary coup. In this connection we should mention the relationship between proletarian dictatorship and the all-people state. The revisionists, like Mlynaf for example, first upheld the thesis of the direct transition to a state of the whole people in Czechoslovak conditions; at the same time they proposed a number of measures whose aim was to weaken the functions of the socialist state. It later became clear that this was only a tactical manoeuvre on their part to demobilise the Party in the face of class enemies and become a bridge to rejecting proletarian dictatorship itself. Yet another theoretical construction was popular in revisionist works; it was based on criticising proletarian dictatorship and distorting its real nature. This proceeded from the need to distinguish ``domination'', which contains an element of coercion, and ``leadership'', ``hegemony'' based on spontaneous consensus. It maintained that proletarian 411

dictatorship was being implemented as ``domination''---i.e., without ``hegemony'' in the present socialist states. This idea radically contradicts both socialist theory and practice. It is based on an undialectical approach to the understanding and the practice of proletarian dictatorship. Marxism-Leninism describes the concept of proletarian dictatorship in many ways: as a necessary stage in the development of the socialist state during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism; as the government of the working class; as domination over the bourgeoisie; as a form of class alliance between the proletariat and the peasants and other working sections of the population; as a continuation of class struggle in the new conditions and by new forms; as a state which is democratic in a new way and dictatorial in a new way; as a qualitatively higher stage of democracy; as an organisational system (mechanism) of political power, including state and public organisations of the working people headed by the Marxist-Leninist party. The main thing that connects all the aspects of proletarian dictatorship is its class essence as the political power of the working class. In working out their new "model of socialism", the revisionists made "pure democracy" a basic principle of the political system; they interpreted the principles of bourgeois democracy as abstract principles of democracy "in general" and ignored the fact that democracy is a reflection of social and, above all, economic relations. This was an idealist approach rejecting the idea that socialist society needs socialist democracy. An important place in the ideas about "a new political system" was occupied by its ideological justification. The revisionists maintained that political systems of existing socialist society depend on the development of a dominant ideology to a much greater extent than do contemporary bourgeois systems; they maintained that the historical experience of contemporary socialism shows clearly that the development of a political system corresponding to the ruling ideology was all that was practically possible anywhere. According to the revisionist notion, a socialist political system had to be built, not in conformity to the experience of the "Paris Commune type of state", but in accordance with the model of formal bourgeois democracy, the bourgeois " 412

legal state". Hence, democracy was regarded only as the principles of bourgeois democracy recognised as the only criterion of democracy in general and the democracy of socialist society in particular. Based on these ideological revisionist ' ideas and on his judgement of political development in Czechoslovakia, Mlynaf came to the following conclusions: (a) the political system existing in Czechoslovakia (and elsewhere) is undemocratic and bureaucratic; like the whole of socialism, it had to be transformed into a democratic system whose essence is the "pluralist model"; 470 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM</b> 471 (b) the pluralist political system is an organic part of the general concept of socialism, as "pluralist socialism" with the accent on "ethical socialism"; (c) pluralism of the political system (political subject) is reinforced by pluralism of economic subjects and pluralism of ideologies. Qualitative changes in the basic relations between institutions are necessary in the sphere of the political system. The revisionists pointed out that in creating pluralist political system of socialism, various modifications might arise, but in basic principles this system could not be constructed in any other way than according to the model of the pluralist system of bourgeois democracy. CRITIQUE OF THE "NEW MODEL"</b> OF SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM</b> IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA</b> Mlynaf believed that the internal dynamics of socialist society was ultimately the dynamics of commodity production and nothing more. If we bear in mind that the theoretical point of departure of the "new model" of the political system was the principles of pluralist democracy, it is clear that the theory of convergence, transposed to the sphere of 413

politics, means the replacement of the political system of socialism by a bourgeois political system. Departure from Marxism-Leninism, therefore, led to a replacement of Marxist materialist dialectics by bourgeois theories which rejected the idea that the two socio-economic systems were counterposed. The abstraction without which cognition cannot in general develop served in this case (and ultimately in several other cases) an incorrect view on the contemporary class division of the world as a single vast system in which capitalism and socialism are represented only as two sub-systems. The revisionists advocated the need to proceed from a general conception of the world, from which it remained logically to take a series of specific propositions in regard to the "new model" of a socialist political system. A purely abstract systems approach, therefore, is marked by a search for a political system in general, without paying attention to its specific class content. A non-class understanding of the state, democracy, law and freedom demanded, in turn, a theoretical justification, ``confirmation'' in a nonclass theory of the social structure of Czechoslovak society. Machonin and his colleagues provided this form of revisionist concept in the sphere of social structure. The MarxistLeninist theory of classes was replaced in this concept by various types of bourgeois theories, such as the theory of stratification, theory of interests, etc. The illusion that there are no classes in Czechoslovakia, that society is differentiated primarily in relation to professional interests and interests determined by age, etc., which are all of equal value, also served to produce the notion of ``pluralism'' and an idealist interpretation of politics and the political system. These views coincided in many respects with an evaluation of the state of Czechoslovak society which postulated that there were no longer any "class antagonisms''. They posed the question as follows: if the dictatorship by the working class has already exhausted its internal possibilities (they sometimes conceded that it is fulfilling its external functions in regard to capitalist states) and the class struggle within the country is no longer the main motive force of social development, it is reasonable to ask where we are going and where we should look for sources of the 414

movement of society in these "new conditions''. This question is connected with another instance of juggling with the facts which has important political and epistemological consequences. Judgement on the class political state of Czechoslovak society as "a uniform class" made it possible to replace a class division by another differentiation. The fundamental principle was maintained: social movement was the result of conflict of different interests. The class approach was, therefore, replaced by views which 472 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 473 could be called sociologising. Social movement was portrayed as the result of conflict of different interests---social, factory, national and regional, and all this essentially depended on more or less arbitrary ideas of one author or another. Kusy's article "Czechoslovak Institutional Revolution" shows to what the revisionists came from these non-class standpoints. Kusy comes to the following conclusion: "Today we do not refer to the socialist revolution in that basic meaning of the word---i.e., we do not refer to whether socialism as such should be or should not be.... It is precisely for that reason that the contemporary revolutionary process in Czechoslovakia could be concentrated on another, no less important aspect of that socialist revolution. This other aspect is the problem of form, the model of socialism which would adequately correspond to our specific conditions. This is now a revolution, whose aim is qualitatively to change the whole government system, the whole institutional structure of our society so as the system and the structure should reflect to the optimum the new altered social structure of our society. To put it plainly, we refer to the institutional revolution, the revolution in the constituent superstructure over our social base."* In one breath, this assertion rids "the institutional structure" of its class and political causality. He does not consider the institutional structure isolated from the social structure of Czechoslovak society, but he does not see society as being class-differentiated. By these views, the source of the movement of society ultimately becomes conflict between various institutions, their connection with differentiation of society, but not into classes, but rather into groups with 415

various interests. Hence, there remains only one short step to the theory of political pluralism in socialist conditions and to the theory of socialist corporations. The above-cited quotation indicates another confusion of the facts. The motivation of the need for "a new model of socialism" primarily relied on "essential class social changes" in society. Hence the conclusion that the political power of the working class should be replaced by a new political power. The reasoning was as follows: the working class as a revolutionary force has essentially exhausted its potential by the fact that it laid the basis for the political shift in power in February 1948 and the basis for political and economic change which brought society to the threshold of socialism. The tasks of the scientific and technological revolution along the way to communism should, allegedly, be performed by a new social group (it had grown up under socialism and was vitally connected with socialism) which, by comparison with other groups, shows the greatest quantitative growth---i.e., the intellectuals. These arguments and the resultant consequences were aimed not only against the leading role of the working class, but against the Party too. In the "new circumstances", the Party had to stop being a class organisation, the vanguard of the class, and had to become the party of the dominant elite---i.e., the political grouping mainly of leading personnel in all spheres of social life, from politics and culture down to science. To substantiate such ``revolutionary'' ideas or constructions, however, it was not enough merely to refer to profound social-class changes in society. It was necessary to examine the whole twenty-year history of Czechoslovak socialism and portray it in black colours, almost as a long chain of mistakes, criminal acts and lawlessness. And here the revisionists arrive at a paradox: on the one hand, they portray Czechoslovakia's socialist past as a period which "did not resolve any basic human problem" and, on the other, they rely on successes of previous years in order to justify the "new model" of socialism. These revisionist theories were associated with an incorrect evaluation of the stages of socialist development in Czechoslovakia, with a skipping of stages, with the premature * M. Kusy, "Ceskoslovenska inStitucionalna revolucia", Otdzky politiky a demokracie, Bratislava, 1968, pp. 11-12. 474 416

RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 475 proclamation of the complete and final victory of socialism. The Czechoslovak Communist Party leaders, at the beginning of the 1960s, prematurely orientated the public on creating a state of the whole people, as a result of retreating from the Leninist approach to evaluating and understanding the development of proletarian dictatorship. They ignored the need for a comprehensive study of the class structure of socialist society. Marx, Engels and Lenin always emphasised the universal nature of the class struggle from which economic, political or ideological aspects could not be emasculated in any arbitrary way. This is particularly important to remember in the formation of the person living in socialist society, in the conditions of struggle for his socialist consciousness, where there is still a strong influence of a petty-bourgeois stratum and of various social-democratic traditions and vestiges. They did not take into consideration the fact that although the exploiting classes in Czechoslovakia were deprived of their economic position, numerically the former representatives of these classes still comprised a significant social stratum. The remnants of former bourgeois classes and a numerous stratum of the petty bourgeoisie still remained. The revisionists restricted the historical role of the working class to carrying out the main political coup in February 1948 and of important economic, social and other reforms. But it is wrong to confine the role of the working class to these tasks. A non-class approach to social structure not only made it possible to obviate a class approach to studying social phenomena, it also placed insuperable obstacles between individual phases of socialist development. This made it possible completely, or at least partially, to deny continuity in the development of the socialist political system. The suggested new political system was to grow on the ruins of the old system which could, allegedly, have been used only partly and, then, with a completely new content. The theory of interests, deprived of any class or political content and reduced to psychological aspects, served as a theoretical justification for political pluralism.

417

Social interest as a whole in these theories ceased to be a class interest of the ruling working class; it became more or less a broad agreement of various political subjects on what was the interest of the entire society. This construction made an absolute of the proposition that, with the development of socialism and the rise in material and cultural standards, the range of most diverse interests of individuals and groups widens. The main point is that the very hierarchy of interests was turned inside out and made devoid of any class or political content. Mlynaf wrote: "What, however, is considered a fundamental question for understanding the further development of our political system is recognition also of other political subjects and not simply of political parties as subjects which should have the opportunity for direct participation in creative politics.""" In brief, individuals and not classes should occupy the central place in constructing a new political system of socialism. The conclusions from a pluralist notion of the political system were aimed at disintegrating society. This would pave the way for an arbitrary manipulation of society which had been dismembered, according to the statements of the authors of the new system, into a series of "political subjects''. The theory of "social pluralism", borrowed from contemporary bourgeois sociology, thereby served to justify pluralism in the political system. The authors of the new "pluralist model" of the political system paid considerable attention to creating "extra-political conditions" of this model in ideology and economics. The Right-wing revisionists, having deprived politics of a class approach, portrayed it as a struggle of groups for political power where the most diverse political ideologies and programmees, both socialist and anti-socialist, ``contended''. * Z. Mlynaf, "K demokratickS politick^ organizaci spole&pound;nosti", Nova my si, No. 5, 1968. 476 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 477

418

Hence the demand that "a natural pluralism of the most divergent ideologies" should exist/^^1^^" The Right-wing revisionists paid particular attention to the creation of ``extra-political'' conditions for the new political system in the economic sphere. They focused their attention on revising socialist state ownership of the means of production and the system of centralised planning of the socialist economy, which was, they said, the main cause of the ``monist'' political system. The transition from the property of the whole people to group ownership, and the introduction of "the commodity model" into the economy should have created, in their opinion, conditions for a &#8226; "pluralisation of economic subjects". This, in turn, should have served as a ``non-political'' condition for removing "total democracy" and introducing a democratic political system. The documents of Right-wing revisionists rely mainly on the creation of economic foundations of a new political model of socialism and the introduction of a new economic system. According to their understanding, the role of economic reform for their new political model comes down to the following: restoration of the market mechanism, separation of the economic sphere from the state, autonomy and self-government for producers, the creation of group ownership. The economic reform, therefore, was intended to create an economic basis suitable for the new political system. "Restoration of the market" was regarded as the key both to the economic reform and to the political system; it was adjudged to be more than an economic category. In politics, it had to be paralleled by a pluralist political system whose foundation was to be the electoral system based on free choice between different programmes, parties and individuals. Simultaneously, Mlynaf posed the question "of the possibilities and the boundaries of politics", especially of the relationship between political and economic power. He noted that the initial concept of socialist politics was not any longer in that stage of the empirical social movement in which changes in ownership-class relations played a crucial role. In certain stages of development they comprised the object of political activity and were realised by means of that activity by changes in politics. This was encouraged by the ruling ideology which included in politics all human activity in general. The new concept of ``socialist'' politics, from the revisionist standpoint, was based on the idea that, after the period of 419

direct confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, politics acquires its own functions as creator of conditions for people's non-political activity, primarily in production and exchange, i.e., in the economic sphere. Hence the conclusions for the governing systems of these particular spheres: (a) the sphere affecting political community generally should be reconstructed and controlled primarily according to the principles of formal democracy; (b) the spheres outside this field should normally be taken beyond the confines of political democracy, giving them the character of non-political self-administration, ensured directly by the function of co-operated labour. The specific notions of the pluralist political system proposed by the revisionists differ according to their forms, but they all coincide in the demand to do away with the leading role (``monopoly'') of the Marxist-Leninist Party. Some of them have suggested a return to the old system of a great number of political parties which would compete for power. True, the open call for a bourgeois-democratic system has come up against opposition even from some proponents of the "new model of socialism", possibly because it reminded them directly of the origin of their political pluralist constructions. Another group of projects came from the idealisation of political relations and the political system of the period before February 1948. In one of his articles, Mlynaf wrote: <SUP>;;</SUP>" V. Klokocka, Volby v pluralitmch demokraclich, Prague, 1968, p. 252. 478 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 479 ``The basic guarantee of democratic development in our present situation can be only a consistent security of a situation in which the political centre, as a platform for creating a general political line converted subsequently on the basis of state agencies into state policy, will be not a monopoly but 420

a multiple centre.""" He developed this question even more widely in his notion of an optimum model of "a new political system". He maintained that the basic and prime condition of that model was a change in the relations between the Party and other component parts of the political system, particularly relations of the parties to the state. This presupposed the separation of the Communist Party from the state, the abolition of the Party's leading role, and changes within it, particularly enabling the minority to uphold their position and to become a new majority by ``democratic'' means. Mlynaf considers the two-party system the optimum, but in view of the historical conditions for realising this solution, in his opinion, this can only happen in the near future. Approaching his optimum model from this viewpoint, he rejected the need for the National Front. The theory of pluralism of political parties, including recognition of political parties contending for political power, contradicts in principle the very essence of socialism. Pluralism, the free play of political forces, is a fiction by which the bourgeoisie attempts to mask its class dictatorship. It is a fiction masking the real monopoly of power of the bourgeoisie under the slogan of diffusion of political power. Under socialism, the fundamental interests of all classes and strata are realised under the leadership of the working class and its vanguard---the Communist Party. As experience confirms, socialist changes can take place with the presence of more than one party as long as they are all on the side of socialism, as long as these parties express and uphold the interests of the working people and recognise the leading role of the Communist Party. These parties enter the National Front, which is from the standpoint of class content an alliance of the working class, the peasants and the working intellectuals. Therefore, there can be no room for antagonism, for a system of "governmental and opposition parties", for "free play of political forces''. The Czechoslovak experience testifies to the fact that attempts to create opposition parties under socialism essentially express a desire by a narrow circle of anti-socialist groups to impose upon society---often under the guise of pseudosocialist phrases---an alternative development which leads to the restoration of the bourgeois system. The nature of the 421

concept ``equality'' of different interests in society was glaringly apparent in 1968, when anti-socialist forces were able to exert an influence and extend their positions which put the fate of socialism in Czechoslovakia in great danger. Historical experience shows that stability of the socialist system is primarily based on its class foundation and the fact that the system puts to the forefront the interests of the working class, all working people led by the Communist Party. The political system of socialism openly defends the interests of the working people (this is its essence) and it does not need to conceal itself by all manner of myths about the advantages of a multi-party system, as occurs in bourgeois society. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia rejects political pluralism as a system of administering socialist society, although socialist society is not homogeneous; it has different national, professional and other groups, and this must not be lost sight of in politics. The determining factor in the Czechoslovak political system is the fact that it serves to realise the political power of the working class. This is a system which rejects pluralism in its bourgeois interpretation. At the same time, it recognises and takes into consideration the existence in society of various social classes and groups which have their own * Z. Mlynaf, op. cit., p. 616. 480 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONISM IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND SOCIALISM 481 specific nature, but are united by a community of fundamental interests---the interests of building socialism. One of the basic demands of the opportunist ``model'' of the political system was "to separate the Communist Party from the state". In words, the Right-wing revisionists were prepared to recognise the need for the leading role of the Party in the past, in a historically limited period, when the tasks of implementing proletarian revolution and fundamental class changes were being decided. At the subsequent stages, in their opinion, the Communist Party should increasingly "separate itself" from the state and become an organisation with 422

primarily ideological and educative functions. The Party, to their minds, should cease to be a factor of power. In actual fact, as the experience of all socialist states shows, the leading role of the Communist Party grows stronger, rather than weaker, during the building of mature socialism and transition to communism. This is of decisive importance for the final victory of socialist revolution, for maintaining and upholding socialist gains, for ensuring the necessary political, social and economic guarantees of the socialist system. It is necessary for strengthening and developing the political power of the working class, for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Party cannot deprive itself of its leading position in regard to the main instrument of social change---the socialist state. The leading role of the Communist Party guarantees the purposive development of all component parts of the socialist political system in keeping with the overall programme of building socialism and communism. It carries out its leading role in regard both to the socialist state and to public organisations. Public organisations represent an important part of the socialist democratic system. It is not surprising, therefore, that from the viewpoint of the "new model" of a political system based on the principle of "pluralist democracy", the revisionists should insist upon a concept proceeding from the policy of ``independence'' of public organisations from the Communist Party. This concept bore the imprint of illusions concerning "equal rights" for political subjects, which were to play the part of "pressure groups" in regard to state power and to ``compete'' for political power. ``The socialist pluralism" of the Right-wing revisionists was completely under the influence of bourgeois political notions. They included the petty-bourgeois idea of a non-class understanding of democracy borrowed from the arguments of bourgeois ideologists and directed against the principles of the socialist political system. The socialist state fulfils the function of being the main government weapon of the working class and all working people; it occupies an important place in the political system of socialism. It therefore possesses general laws typical of the whole political structure of socialism: the leading role of the Communist Party, democratic centralism, equality of citizens and nations, socialist legality and proletarian internationalism. The socialist state is the principal instrument of economic and social change, of socialist and communist construction. 423

Therefore, any attempt to weaken or undermine socialism is normally accompanied by attacks on the political power, and by a struggle for state power. The Czechoslovak experience once again confirms that to reject the role of the socialist state as the instrument of proletarian dictatorship and to attempt to replace it by the bourgeois state has been the main aim of Right-wing revisionists. The "further development" of the state mechanism, according to revisionist designs, should have been in the following directions: (i) the main and only ``platform'' for adopting state decisions should have been representative assemblies serving as "an arena" for the confrontation of interests; other forms of political decisions should not be created (the need for the National Front was put to doubt); (ii) in the representative bodies there should have been reflected all interests which obtained necessary support through democratic elections; 31-2332 482 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY</b> REVISIONISM INCZECHOSLOVAKIA AND</b> SOCIALISM 483 (iii) the organisations expressing the interests of a nonparty type should in that system have had rights normally granted to political parties in conditions of bourgeois multiparty democracy; (iv) a link should have been forged with the economic sphere and generally with the labour of people; the implementation of the production principle during elections by means of various ways of connecting "production democracy" with political democracy, up to and including the combination of both these policies in representative organs (to raise production self-administration to the highest representative bodies); (v) power and mutual control should have been divided between representative government bodies and state administrative agencies, including the establishment of a court to examine disputes between the state and the citizen. Revisionists maintained that it was necessary to do this in accordance with theoretical principles which had been elaborated 424

over many decades in the mechanisms of the ``democratic'' parliamentary, i.e., bourgeois, republics. The problem of local self-government in the optimum model was understood as a concept ``incompatible'' with the existence of popular assemblies as the basis of the democratic mechanism. It was maintained that this institution `` ideologically'' came from the notion of the model state of a " Commune type" or "Soviet type". Popular assemblies were therefore proposed in towns and other populated areas to represent interests not as "a lower cell of the state" but as an institution which would be "the expression of relative independence of local community as a subject in the political community under socialism''. The major expression of "production collectives as subjects" in regard to the political system was considered to be: (i) the creation of agencies which would (at least partially, for example, 50 per cent of their composition) exist as electoral bodies of the whole production collective for carrying out entrepreneurial functions; (ii) trade unions stripped of their entrepreneurial functions and of the functions of state bodies would engage only in defending the occupational interests of the worker (and his human needs) before socialist institutions representing the interests of "public capital and enterprise''. Thus, the departure from Marxist-Leninist principles of building the socialist state paved the way for bourgeois theories, led to a replacement of socialist representative bodies by a bourgeois parliament or bourgeois territorial autonomy, to an undermining of the unity of socialist state power and state administration and, consequently, to a nullification of the role of the socialist state in guiding economic and cultural development. In the final analysis, these essentially anarcho-syndicalist notions were to serve the revisionist and anti-socialist forces in their attempt to undermine the power of the working class. Although Right-wing revisionists tried to be original, it is clear when analysing their theoretical sources that they actually borrowed bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theories. They also used internal social and ideological sources like reformism, social-democratism and Masarykism.

425

Their notions, in fact, served as a spiritual weapon of counter-revolution. In uncovering the bourgeois and Rightwing socialists' slander of socialism, Gustav Husak said: "Over 50 years ago, Lenin routed demagogues who counterposed abstract freedom to socialism. He did so in his book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. Yes, democracy, but for whom? ``For the ruling bourgeois class or for the working people? For whom is the social structure? That is precisely how the question stands in a class way. ``They say that the socialism which exists today in the socialist countries is unacceptable. But what other socialism is acceptable? Where is this other socialism created? The Soviet Union and the other socialist states have created a very concrete socialism and a socialist democracy---where does another socialism, then, exist? We know only about 31"</b> 484 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 23 REVISIONIST RIGHT-WING OPPORTUNIST ECONOMIC IDEAS</b> their petty-bourgeois slander of socialism which is intended to deceive the working people of their own countries, to denigrate socialism in the socialist states and to help the bourgeoisie to remain in power in the capitalist countries. We have not the slightest grounds to be ashamed of our socialist democracy created for millions of workers, peasants and all working people. On the contrary, on the basis of our 25-year experience, on the basis of the experience of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camp, we have every reason to be proud of the advantages of our social system and our democracy before any type of bourgeois democracy, before bourgeois liberties for a handful of people. . ``We are advancing to new successes and victories for socialist Czechoslovakia in firm unity of workers, peasants and working intellectuals, in firm alliance with the Soviet Union and the other socialist states, implementing the policy of the 14th Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party.""' REASONS FOR THE APPEARANCE OF REVISIONISM AND OPPORTUNISM IN ECONOMIC THEORY AND PRACTICE</b>

426

Czechoslovak society experienced revolutionary changes during the building of socialism. A major economic result of these changes was the abolition of capitalist and the formation of socialist production relations. Class structure changed fundamentally. The working class became the leading force in society and, in alliance with the co-operated peasants and other working people, this class became the political leader of socialist society. Human exploitation became a thing of the past. Public socialist ownership of the means of production, the socialist principle of distribution according to work done, the development of productive forces, science and technology, higher productivity and growing material and cultural standards---all these became basic principles of the socialist economic system. The establishment of the leading role of the Party in managing the economy and formulating the targets of economic development was aimed at satisfying the basic interests and requirements of the working people. The national independence of Czechoslovakia rests on the great power of the socialist states, particularly the Soviet Union. Implementation of the basic principles of socialist internationalism became an inalienable part of the policy of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia is today one of the world's most industrially developed countries in terms of the intensity of in* Pravda, December 2, 1972. 486 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 487 dustrial production per head of population. Her share in total world population is only 0.42 per cent, but 2.1 per cent in total world industrial output. The volume of industrial production has increased more than six-fold and labour productivity more than four-fold during the socialist years. Fundamental structural changes have occurred in the Czechoslovak economy. The share of industry and construction in the national income has risen sharply as a result of socialist industrialisation. Industry has become the major branch of the country's economy. The priority development of key heavy industries has ensured the steady construction of socialism not only in Czechoslovakia---<SUB>:</SUB>it has become an 427

important factor of industrialisation in several other socialist countries. Great advances have occurred in farming. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia carried out the Leninist co-operative plan and resolved intricate problems of transition from small private farms to large-scale socialist agriculture. The establishment of socialist production relations in the countryside altered its character in.a class and in a social and cultural sense. The location of productive forces has also changed considerably. Backward areas have now been industrialised. As a result of industrialisation, Slovakia has changed from an agrarian to an industrially advanced republic. By virtue of this, the profound differences that previously existed between the Czech and the Slovak economics have been removed; the share of Slovakia in the Czechoslovak national income has increased considerably and now comprises approximately 27 per cent. Marked changes have also occurred in foreign trade. The share of the Soviet Union in the total foreign trade of bourgeois Czechoslovakia was minimal whereas now the share of the socialist states is about 70 per cent. During the political crisis of 1968, all these indisputable achievements were seriously threatened. Right-wing revisionists played a conspicuous role in the ideological preparation for dismantling the socialist system; in economic theory and practice they began to rear their heads in the mid-1960s. One of the major reasons for the advance of revisionism in political economy was that in the Czechoslovak social structure the petty bourgeoisie in town and country constituted a large part. The petty-bourgeois elements, who relied on the ideology of Masarykism, nationalism and social democratism, represented a comparatively strong political trend which merged into revisionism and opportunism. Another reason was the positivist, uncritical and non-class approach to bourgeois economic theories. Many Czechoslovak economists, especially the young ones, lost sight of the ideological aspect of economic theories in their obsession with fashionable bourgeois ideas.

428

Another important factor was the general underestimation of ideological work within the Party, the insufficiently strong and consistent action against the penetration of incorrect ideas in the minds of working people. The ideological work of the Party was not militant enough and was marked by a toleration of incorrect views. The education of Party members and all working people in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism was greatly weakened. The penetration of revisionism and Right-wing opportunism in economic theory and practice was also connected with an incorrect interpretation of economic development, particularly of the mounting deficiencies. The relatively high rate of economic progress in the 1950s began noticeably to slow down in the 1960s. The resources of extensive development ensuring economic growth in the initial stages were basically exhausted. A mobilisation of permanent intensive factors for extending socialist reproduction was not made in time. The planning system did not effectively deal with the practical problems and the new demands of the economy. Difficulties arose also in foreign trade. Resolution of all these problems was constantly being postponed. Economic theory lagged behind the needs of economic development, while 488 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 489 Party and state leadership was unprepared to effectively tackle these problems. Insufficient account was taken of objective economic laws in economic management, particularly the law of proportional and planned development and the law of distribution according to work done. Therefore, the decisions of the 12th Party Congress stated that the main task was to even out imbalances in the existing level of productive forces both in industry and in agriculture, and gradually to bring consumption in conformity with the level of production. These circumstances began increasingly to disturb both theorists and executives. The Communist .Party of Czechoslovakia was coming to realise that it was necessary to make a comprehensive overhaul of the economic planning system. Therefore, the Party Plenary Meeting in 1965 and the 13th Party Congress in 1966 approved the basically correct 429

orientation of economic reform. The resolutions adopted contained the basic Marxist-Leninist principles of planned economic management in a socialist society. They underlined the need for centralised regulation of .economic processes by means of a plan and economic levers, the need for strengthening the leading role of the Party and the tasks of the socialist state in the economic sphere. The Party continues to base itself upon these principles, as the Fourteenth Party Congress indicated. On the eve of the 1968 events, however, they began to depart from the initial principles of the economic reform. The revisionists deformed its nature. Criticism of centralised planning developed with unprecedented intensity. Some currency was given to revisionist ideas on the commodity-money relations, ownership and the functions of industrial enterprises. This criticism went beyond economic bounds. A demand was put forward, after the adoption of "The Basic Principles of Accelerated Implementation of the New Economic Planning System", to resolve certain political questions. The struggle around the reform increasingly overlapped the economic sphere and moved into the political sphere. These revisionist tendencies were not opposed in any principled way by the Party and government leaders. In contradiction with the initial draft reform, there began the implementation of practical measures that actually weakened the role of the plan. Centralised control was greatly circumscribed. It became more and more replaced by a market mechanism. The concept of the economic reform, both in theory and in practice, gradually acquired a revisionist and Rightwing opportunist character which came to a head in 1968 and early 1969. Revisionism had always advertised its desire "to adapt" Marxism-Leninism to the new requirements. The specific feature of Czechoslovak revisionism in economic theory was that it began with absolutising and exaggerating the role of the market and the market mechanism in centralised management. It was developed on that basis by efforts devoted to dismantling and neutralising centralised control. This was manifest in deforming a Leninist understanding of the relationship between economics and politics: economics was given priority in a dogmatic way over politics. The economic sphere was divided into two autonomous parts---the centre and the sphere of enterprises. The main emphasis was made on the enterprises in which self-governing agencies (" workers' councils") were set up to paralyse the leading role of the Party in the economy. 430

The economic reform adopted in January 1965 brought temporary and positive results by 1966. These were apparent above all in a faster economic growth rate. But the former negative phenomena in the economy were not fully overcome. A considerable part of the increment in national income was immobilised in uncompleted construction and the growth of supplies over and above the norm. Economic efficiency of production did not rise in the country as a whole. In 1968 and 1969, the major economic problems became even more interlaced and complicated. Economic imbalance increased, especially in capital investment and the produc490 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 491 tion of consumer goods. An inflationary spiral was becoming dangerous. The economy reached crisis proportions, spelling gloomy prospects for the workers. Imbalance also deepened in investment which grew approximately twice as fast as the construction potential and the value expression of the technical structures envisaged for investment construction. A substantial imbalance formed in the consumer goods market, mainly as a result of the incomes of the population growing 2.5 times faster than production of consumer goods. This all occurred because the centralised wage-control system had been violated. The country's balance of payments worsened in relation to both socialist and capitalist countries. In his report to the Fourteenth Party Congress, Gustav Husak said: "The Party leadership ceased to control economic development and allowed adventure-seekers of the Sik type to seize the initiative; in contradiction of the vital interests of the working people, they opened the way for petty-bourgeois anarchy, advocated converting public ownership into group ownership, opposed planned economic management, favoured of the spontaneous operation of the market, and thereby prevented the Party and state having any effective influence on the economy and its development. Ultimately this path would have led to the abolition of socialist relations of production."* A serious shortcoming in the 1960s was that the Czechoslovak economy gradually stopped using the experience of other socialist states, particularly the Soviet Union, in economic theory and practice. 431

Revisionism and Right-wing opportunism also penetrated theory and, partially, the practice of foreign economic relations. This began with putting to doubt the existing orientation of foreign economic co-operation to the socialist countries within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Then attempts were made to ``correct'' the monopoly of socialist foreign trade after the market model. They tried to replace this monopoly with relations between an internal and an external market directly at the level of enterprises and without appropriate control from the centre. REVISIONIST DISTORTION OF THE PLAN</b> AS THE BASIC INSTRUMENT OF BALANCED MANAGEMENT</b> OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY</b> Revisionism and Right-wing opportunism in Czechoslovakia led in 1968 and early 1969 to the disintegration of political organisation of society and a weakening of the international ties of Czechoslovakia with the Soviet Union and other socialist states. A negative attitude to evaluating Czechoslovak history was a natural prologue to this course. Its culminating point was the six-part speech by Ota Sik on television in May 1968." He belittled the successes achieved in Czechoslovak economic development and exaggerated the shortcomings; all this added grist to the mill of the various petty-bourgeois forces and hostile propaganda. He ignored all the past efforts and achievements of the working people in building socialism and questioned the existing structure of administration. The leading role of the Communist Party and the socialist state was submitted to demagogic attacks. A survey of the laws governing economic development in Czechoslovakia had been accompanied in the past by discussions and, frequently, by clashes between mutually excluding standpoints. The issues of commodity production under socialism had been the focus of discussion at the end of the 1950s. The attention devoted to commodity production was natural because commodity production was regarded in connection with the problem of further improving the planned management of socialist economy, as a key precondition for its successful development. A number of different views were put forward in regard

432

XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, p. 27. * 0. Sik, Fakta o stavu cs, ndrodniho hospoddfstvi, Prague, 1968. 492 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 493 to the ties between commodity production and economic planning. Most economists admitted that under socialism commodity production was objectively based both on the two forms of socialist property and on socialist labour. There were, nonetheless, considerable differences in views on the method of using the law of value and commodity-money relations in running the economy. Views began to spread in the 1960s with increasing rapidity, according to which the main regulator of the socialist economy was not the economic plan but economic levers stemming from the action of the commodity-money relations and the law of value. By the late 1960s, these one-sided views predominated. Economic research was narrowly oriented on the operation of the law of value under socialism. Very little attention was paid to the material technical basis, the objective goals of economic development, socialist co-operation of labour on a nationwide scale and the need for centralised planning of it. As opposed to the previously adopted decisions, one-sided views aimed at changing the administrative system and divorcing it from practical problems gained the upper hand. Incorrect understanding of the law of value as the only regulator of the economy under socialism and the commodity-money relations based on it, weakened planned management of the socialist economy and the leading role of the Communist Party and the state in running the economy. The lengthy underestimation of consistent utilisation of the law of value and commodity-money relations in economic practice turned, in the second half of the 1960s, into their considerable exaggeration, and ultimately into their revisionist distortion. A just criticism of subjectivist decisions taken by some state agencies standing above enterprises, and of clumsiness 433

resulting from excessively centralised management, was then distorted to such a degree that certain positive functions of the law of value and commodity-money relations were declared panacea for all evils. The justified demand to enhance material responsibility for fixed assets, industrial output and for the implementation of the principle of economic profitability, which resulted from the operation of commodity-money relations, was not organically connected with the need to retain a common approach to developing socialist co-operation of labour on a nationwide scale. A conscious use of the law of value in socialist production presupposes that profitability be the basic criterion in evaluating the results of the economic activity of enterprises. But this also presupposes that the enterprise should fulfil its obligations stipulated in the centralised economic plan. The planned management of the socialist economy should achieve unity between the goals of the economic plan and profitable running of individual enterprises. The criterion of profitability should be used as an instrument for planned management and implementation of the plan, not vice versa. This relationship between profitability and the goals of the economic plan was violated in Czechoslovakia. The theoreticians of "market socialism" tried to subordinate industrial development exclusively to the principle of economic profitability, which was defined according to the financial result of the enterprises' economic performance, whether in the form of gross income or profit.* Instances when this principle came into conflict with state interests were just left out of account. State interests were generally not taken into consideration. Supporters of the "market socialism" motive assumed that prices, not the state plan, should become the decisive instrument of economic development. Moreover, they put forward the demand that prices should be established not in a centralised way but by the market. In doing this, they referred to the idea of "fully breaking any administrative monopoly and creating a really 'free market'. All buyers and sellers are to have the opportunity * O. Turek, O pldnu, trhu a hospoddfskt politice, Prague, 1967, p. 197. 494 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

434

REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 495 freely to choose to whom they will supply and from whom they will buy goods."* As a result of these ideas, the planned direction of economic development by state economic agencies standing above enterprises was presented as an alien element that infringed upon the objective economic laws. The subjectivism which, in the earlier economic management, had had an adverse effect on the approach to certain economic problems was now replaced by another, no less harmful subjectivism manifest in attempts to create conditions for the restoration of market anarchy. The short-range interests of enterprises took priority over the long-range interests of society, and the localised economic aims of enterprises were presented as national aims. New prices reinforced the low efficiency of production because expenditure that had served as a basis for calculating prices was artificially inflated by enterprises. Moreover, prices included higher production expenditure stemming from previously created sectoral structure which the market self-regulation advocates had criticised so severely. In determining prices, distribution processes also came to the fore, for the price level had to ensure the ability of enterprises to make common deductions for the benefit of the state. It was advertised that new prices would guarantee extended reproduction, thereby creating the possibility for the enterprises to finance themselves. In actual fact, however, retail prices rose not by 22 points, as had been calculated, but by more than 30 points, as a result of which prices, far from being objectivised, became even more distorted than hitherto. Differences in the economic performance of enterprises were not removed either; on the contrary, they became worse and created additional problems. Some enterprises became rich, others became poor. The former had an excess of finance which was not covered by material values, while the latter suffered an insufficiency. Both of them violated the principle of material incentives. The state was obliged to grant various subsidies to the poor enterprises by way of exception, otherwise they could not have functioned. Besides all this, free prices were established in 1968. 435

Wholesale prices quickly rose as a consequence of which enterprises formed huge financial resources. At the same time, retail prices rapidly rose. In evaluating economic activity of enterprises, the main emphasis was placed on gross income and rejection of a planned control of earnings; this caused an enormous growth in the wage fund and in individual earnings, and in demands for capital investment. Inflationary tendencies increased enormously and the imbalance in the consumer goods market, in capital investment and foreign trade all worsened. Because of the dominance of Right-wing opportunists and revisionists within the Party and the state apparatus, there was not even a sufficient desire to oppose this course of events. The concept of market self-regulation suffered complete fiasco. Reliance on the law of value and on commoditymoney relations as the main regulator of the economy only created economic anarchy and an uncontrollable inflationary price and wage spiral. Spontaneous use of the principle of material incentives, which would supposedly overcome the harmful levelling tendencies, also ended in a failure. If market relations are not directed and controlled in a planned way, they become an essentially spontaneous process which inevitably introduces anarchy and contradiction to the relationship between production, distribution and exchange. Although they may stimulate material interest in the results of labour, they have their negative aspects, both economically and socially. They also have an adverse effect on people's psychology. It was therefore wrong to seek an answer in the campaign against the shortcomings in the Czechoslovak economy, by * R. Kocanda, "Postaveni podniku v socialistick&pound; ekonomice", Planovane hospoddfstvi, No. 10, 1967, p. 15. 496 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 497 doing away with the principles of socialist planning and by ``restoring'' that degree of development which had been 436

typical of free-enterprise capitalism, and which had long outlived itself. An exaggeration of the market mechanism and its conversion into the main regulator of economic processes lead to a weakening of the leading role of the Communist Party and the socialist state in the economy, and then in political affairs. The Czechoslovak opportunists did not invent anything new when they revised the Marxist view on the relationship between economics and politics. Lenin had criticised Kautsky and roundly condemned Trotsky and Bukharin precisely for these mistakes. Although, under socialism, the situation remains fully in force where the economy has a decisive influence on social development, it is also necessary to bear in mind that politics is "a concentrated expression of economics"; hence the influence of politics on economics. The influence of politics on economics is of prime importance in deciding upon the tasks that relate to meeting the basic needs of the people, to ensuring the development of the individual and of society, to defining the aims of economic development and the conditions in which they may be achieved. The political sphere also determines which extraeconomic criteria must be borne in mind in the economy, for example, from the viewpoint of foreign relations, defence, cultural and educational policies. As Lenin once stressed, "without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either"/^^1^^' Criticism of the insufficient economic independence of enterprises developed in Czechoslovakia into a rejection of the leading role of the Communist Party and the socialist state in the economy. In their views on economic management the revisionists made an absolute of the difference between the centre and the sphere of enterprises."' The status of the socialist enterprises as subjects of market production was taken to an extreme. None of the targets of the state plan was considered binding upon them. They themselves decided how they would produce planned products, what they would produce, at what price they would sell and to whom they would deliver the finished product/^^1^^"* They also had the right to take decisions on creating new enterprises*** and on the form of their inclusion into trusts.**** After balancing their deductions and paying their taxes, the latter could take decisions on how to distribute their income in the form of wages, capital investment and other funds. 437

The direct effect of the state on the economy was confined merely to creating conditions for the ``rational'' economic performance of enterprises,***** to social policy and to defence of the consumer. Any other forms of state intervention in the economy were excluded. These views were embodied in practice in the bill on enterprises, which envisaged that any state influence on an enterprise which was made in the public interest had to be accompanied by corresponding compensation to the enterprise. This situation was at variance with the very principles of socialism, because it was based on a deliberate counterposing of state and public interests to those of an individual state enterprise. It also contradicted the leading role of the Communist Party and the socialist state in running the economy. The leading role of the Party in the economy does not mean that the Party has to intervene in all details of economic management. Being the guiding force of socialist social development, the Communist Party determines the basic * R. Kocanda, op. cit., p. 12. ** Akcni Program, Prague, 1968, p. 41. *** 0. Kraus, "Institucionalm podminky rozvoje obchodnich vztanu", Nova mysl, No. 7, 1968. **** Akcni Program, p. 37. ***** R. Kocanda, op. cit, p. 21. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 84. 32---2332 498 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 499 tasks of economic construction and ways to tackle them. Implementation of Party directives is done by state and economic agencies with the active support and co-operation of mass workers' organisations, particularly the trade unions. Party bodies cannot keep away from economic management issues, nor can they replace state and economic agencies in regard to running industry and other economic areas. The main function of the socialist state in the economic sphere is to protect and promote socialist property, to implement an economic programme and directives of the Party, the 438

targets of the economic plan. The positive moves to improve Party and state management of the economy, reinforced in the resolutions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in January 1965, were reduced to naught by the slogans of "democratisation of economic management" and under the pressure of the Right-wing opportunists in 1968. The bill on the enterprises practically excluded state participation in running the decisive area of the Czechoslovak economy. The role of departmental ministries and the national economic plan was also virtually nullified. The economic plan, as Lenin stressed many times, is a vital instrument which ensures centralised control over the socialist economy. In defining the plan's importance, Lenin said: "All should work according to a single common plan, on common land, in common factories and in accordance with a common system.""" Like the communist and workers' parties in other socialist states, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia had always proceeded from that principle. On the eve of the crisis, however, the plan, particularly from the viewpoint of its compulsory nature, was interpreted in theory and practice in a way contrary to the Party decisions and principles. In accordance with the "market socialism" theory, the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1966-1970) was not tied in with the plans of enterprises. The foundations of state planning were thereby undermined. The plan was approved in 1969 as a non-compulsory directive despite declarations that it was the main instrument of economic management. As a result of the revisionist actions in 1968, economic development careened off the rails, the economy suffered enormous damage and that could no longer either satisfy state requirements or ensure a growth in the material welfare of the working people. REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION</b> OF SOCIALIST OWNERSHIP OF THE</b> MEANSOF PRODUCTION*</b> Opportunism and revisionism in Czechoslovakia led to the abolition of socialist ownership of the means of production and the replacement of public property by the property of enterprises. The resolution of the plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, which took place in January 1970, states: "Under pressure from the trade unions and other organisations and with the active 439

participation of the mass media, the government was forced to promise quickly to discuss and approve the law on socialist enterprise. The aim of the law was to deprive the Party of the leading role in the economy, to deprive the state of its influence over enterprises, and legally to reinforce, in the sphere of socialist industrial large-scale commodity production, the transition from state ownership to group ownership; the situation was identical in regard to state socialist organisations in agriculture."** * We do not refer here to co-operative or personal property, since revisionist views focus mainly on the campaign to abolish state ownership of the means of production. ** "Usneseni 0V KSC k hlavnim otazfcam hospodarske politiky strany z ledna 1970", Rude Prdvo, June 2, 1970, p. 2. 32* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 292. </BODY> </HTML> </HEAD> <BODY> 500 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 501 By concentrating their efforts on abolishing socialist ownership of the means of production, the revisionists realised that it was the main economic condition for political domination by the working class without which it could not retain state power. The classics of Marxism-Leninism saw the essence of the relations of production as lying within the sphere of production, within forms of ownership. According to Ota Sik, however, relations of production were based on distribution, not ownership of the means of production. He rejected the idea of the primacy of production and considered the 440

processes of distribution to be decisive. A whole number of confused ideas about socialist public ownership went the round during the period of crisis; they had an adverse effect on socialist construction and threatened the very foundation of the socialist system. Attempts aimed at undermining and abolishing the state monopoly of the basic means of production and at dismantling socialist public ownership presented a particular danger to the foundation of socialism. The revisionists envisaged transferring state socialist ownership to enterprises in a legal and an economic sense---i.e., making individual enterprises independent market subjects. The independence of enterprises, owning means of production, from the state was the backbone of the revisionist conception of economic reform. Opportunism attacked the very economic mainstays of socialism. In socialist conditions, state, public ownership is the supreme form of socialisation. This form of property does not allow the appropriation of the basic means of production by individuals or groups of producers. It excludes any clash of interests between individual groups, a competitive struggle of enterprises, the infringement of material interests of some collectives and the winning of a privileged position by others. Public socialist ownership makes it possible to have effective co-operation among different collectives of socialist producers, an expedient combination of economic programmes, the optimisation of production capacity, effective cooperation and specialisation of production, concerted effort and means on a nationwide scale in the national interests and for developing co-operation with all socialist countries. State socialist ownership of the means of production is the base for planned economic development, for socialist cooperation of labour throughout society, and for social equality. It is an earnest of efficient development of the leading and, consequently, of all other economic sectors. This ownership is the prerequisite for mobilising and developing all the material reserves of world socialism. During the building of socialism and communism public property plays the leading role in regard to co-operative property. The disorganisation and ultimate abolition of the state ownership of the means of production and their transfer to the enterprises were objectively meant to undermine the economic basis of socialism. Opportunists and revisionists tried to instil in the working 441

people the petty-bourgeois and vulgar idea that owners of the means of production should be those who directly work at a given enterprise. Hence the demands for self-management by enterprises through the ``workers' councils" which would, in time, become organisations realising the property of direct producers. Marxism-Leninism has never believed that private capitalist ownership of the means of production would be converted into socialist ownership through the transfer of enterprises to the ownership of individual worker collectives. It always regarded any attempt to transfer the means of production out of the hands of the state to the hands of enterprises as a departure from scientific socialism and a rejection of its advantages. Lenin often spoke on this issue. In his polemic with Kautsky he said: "Just think: on August 5, when numerous decrees on the nationalisation of factories in Russia had been issued and not a single factory had been `appropriated' by the workers, but had all been converted into the property 502 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 503 of the Republic---on August 5, Kautsky, on the strength of an obviously crooked interpretation of one sentence in my speech, tries to make the German readers believe that in Russia the factories are being turned over to individual groups of workers!... About the countless facts which show that the factories are being turned over to the Republic only, that they are managed by an organ of Soviet power, the Supreme Economic Council, which is constituted mainly of workers elected by the trade unions, Kautsky refuses to say a single word."* Acceptance of the idea of the property of enterprises would inevitably lead to the appearance of hundreds and, perhaps, even thousands of independent firms having the right to own property independent of the socialist state. Petty-bourgeois theories of ``co-operative'' and "syndicalist socialism" which have nothing in common with scientific socialism are closely related to the idea of group ownership by enterprises. Group ownership cannot be considered a supreme form 442

of socialist property; it does not make it possible fully to utilise the advantages of socialism in developing production. Group ownership by various production units cannot be economically equitable. Inequality in ownership inevitably leads to de facto economic inequality of individual production units. If the status of people in the economy rests on the group monopolisation of the conditions and objective factors of production, then people are put in economically unequal relations. These relations objectively lead to a differentiation of the economic strenght of individual enterprises. When such differing economic relations are realised in the relationships of enterprises as market subjects, the incomes of individual enterprises grow spontaneously, and enterprises receive differing incomes for the same amount of materialised labour by virtue of the different conditions of production. The size of these incomes does not depend on the principle of distribution according to work done. In these circumstances the principle of labour equivalence is weakened or even destroyed. The different conditions of production for enterprises that vary according to their economic status creates merely the illusion of distribution according to work done. The transfer of enterprises to group ownership of producers weakens the essential advantages of socialism over capitalism. Enterprises are unable to mobilise and efficiently use the material resources existing in society. Group ownership inevitably erodes the productive forces of labour which arise out of socialist co-operation of labour on a nationwide scale and out of the purposive integration of economic activity in society. The transfer of state property to the ownership of individual groups of producers and its fragmentation lead to a situation where the enterprise is proclaimed the only subject of enterpreneurial activity. The operative and strategic influence of the socialist state on the economy, the realisation of its economic and organisational functions cannot be replaced by a market mechanism relying on the narrow criteria of rational action by enterprises. To reject the economic role of the state pushes central socialist agencies of economic management into the background. It is, however, clear that relations between individual elements of socialist society can be directed to a socially expedient path of development only at the centre; this does not preclude the necessary scope for developing the activity of individual enterprises. 443

The results achieved in improving centralised planned management in other socialist states show that more effective ties between social ownership of the means of production, collectives of producers and individuals cannot be established if enterprises are separated from the state and if control of enterprises is transferred to self-governing bodies--``workers' councils''. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 316-17. 504 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 505 The opportunists maintain that enterprises are deprived of the possibility to manage their own affairs in a socialist way given public socialist ownership of the means of production. This is not so. Public ownership of the means of production does not exclude the development of initiative among the enterprises themselves. It directs that activity into the channel that conforms to national and popular interests. The unlimited and isolated activity of groups of individual enterprises in many cases could be ineffective from the viewpoint of the interests of the whole of society. On the other hand, the purposive and scientifically co-ordinated activity of the socialist state serves as an important stimulus for promoting economic initiative of working people and of enterprises. State socialist ownership of the means of production is the main economic support of the socialist system. To put this to doubt is to reject the important principles of Marxism-Leninism in social and economic relations. Socialist ownership is reinforced and consolidated even more when the forces of production of socialist society develop rapidly and when they are used more purposively in the interests of the whole of society. REVISIONISTS ON THE ROLE OF THE SOCIALIST ENTERPRISE</b> Economic reforms in the USSR and other socialist states are designed to increase the efficiency of social production. Naturally, every effort is made to create conditions for developing the initiative and activity of enterprises in fulfilling compulsory state targets. Measures are taken for more effective use of public socialist ownership of the means of production, and for extending international co-operation in the economic sphere among the socialist countries. All this 444

is done with consistent observance of the supreme principle of planned control of the socialist economy---democratic centralism. In Czechoslovakia in 1968-1969, a Marxist-Leninist approach to these issues associated with the socialist enterprise was replaced by deeply erroneous views. Under the influence of Right-wing revisionism in economics and politics, the desire grew to turn the socialist enterprise into a market subject independent of the state. This was also promoted by the enhanced functions of the market mechanism in the system of planned management of socialist economy. Enterprises may be converted into independent market subjects only if they are fully subordinate to the market mechanism. A real possibility of doing this would only occur if enterprises were separated from central, state bodies. Therefore, the Right-wing opportunist and anti-socialist forces strove to carry out the economic reform on the basis of separating enterprises---autonomous objects of entrepreneurial activity---from the state. The influence of central management bodies was greatly undermined in 1968 and the scope for independent activity of the enterprises was extended in a one-sided way. The separation of enterprises from the centre led to a neutralisation of the influence of the centre on the economy, to a sharp reduction in the role of the central apparatus in controlling the economy. The influence of politics on the economy was removed by this "planned control". A political approach to resolving important economic tasks began gradually to disappear. Without this, it is impossible to realise the longrange interests of the working class and of all working people. That is precisely where the revision of Marxism-Leninism was manifest in the most important sphere of social life. Planned control lost its class character and could not, therefore, serve the tasks of developing the socialist economy. Opportunism appealed for spontaneity and relied on it. It manifested itself in vulgar anarchism which is hostile to the necessary purposive intervention in economic processes carried out in the interests of all society. This essentially contradicts the Leninist understanding of managing the socialist economy. Lenin wrote: ".. .the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, 506 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

445

REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 507 into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan---such was the enormous organisational problem. . .".* Opportunism supports only that economic development which relies on a spontaneous link between subjects of the market---enterprises. Opportunism is therefore sharing the illusions of petty-bourgeois liberals who disregard the purposive and organised activities. Interpretation of an enterprise as an independent market subject appeals to the material interest of enterprises. This notion, however, is based on gross income over which the central apparatus cannot as a matter of principle have any influence. To tie the material interest of enterprises to gross income is virtually to reject centralised control of wages, to reject centralised control of the primary distribution of newly created value into the necessary and surplus product. This notion of material interest coupled with rejection of centralised control logically led to a spontaneity of market economy. Since gross income was not bound up with a scientifically elaborated system of wholesale prices but rested on prices largely determined in a subjective way, it could not stimulate economic efficiency. Gross income could increase not only thanks to a higher economy on productive consumption, but also with the latter remaining stable and even with it diminishing in the event of price rises. Uniform deductions from gross income, which had created a common criterion for all enterprises, objectively led, given the existing difference in conditions of production at enterprises, to greater economic imbalances and other negative consequences. The incomes of the whole of society which had been obtained in Czechoslovakia through the system of deductions and taxes were derivative incomes---i.e., they objectively depended on the incomes of enterprises or on the balance of incomes obtained by enterprises. When enterprises gained the right to dispose of gross income---the newly-created value---this objectively gave preference to the interests of the enterprise rather than the interests of society. The abolition of centralised control of wages resulted in the spontaneous growth of wages at individual enterprises. 446

This stimulated an economically unjustified redistribution of manpower among enterprises with all the attendant negative consequences. The spontaneous movement of wages created the illusion that it was possible on that basis to make a purposeful and rational differentiation of wages. But the establishment of an effective link between the quantity, quality and social necessity of labour, on the one hand, and of remuneration, on the other, is practically unattainable on the level of the enterprises. This notion of distribution contradicts the principles of scientific socialism. It was not surprising that in the specific circumstances of the "market socialism" model, people began to talk of a "labour market''. In its approach to the status of the socialist enterprise, revisionism also negatively affected foreign trade. It is indisputable that the significance of enterprises will grow in extending economic co-operation with socialist states, especially those that are members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Their role can only be strengthened if there is a state monopoly of foreign trade. The existence of this monopoly guarantees the priority of state, public interests over those of enterprises which are mainly based on private, micro-economic interests. The state monopoly of socialist foreign trade makes it possible to have a single strategy in the international division of labour, which corresponds to the needs and requirements of the socialist state. Attempts were made in Czechoslovakia in 1967-1968 to abolish the monopoly of foreign trade by an excessive decentralisation of foreign trade activity. In practice, the centralised control of foreign trade was weakened to such an extent that it was impossible to implement a common state policy in this field. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 90-91. 508 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY REVISIONIST ECONOMIC IDEAS 509 The planned exchange of commodities with other socialist states was disarranged. Czechoslovakia did not fulfil its pledges to deliver certain commodities to these states and her debts to them rose. Attempts were made, under the influence of revisionism, to replace Czechoslovakia's ties with the socialist market by those with the markets of advanced capitalist states; this put to doubt the expediency 447

of Czechoslovakia trading with socialist states, especially those in CMEA. At the same time, the urge to tie the Czechoslovak economy to the West was manifest in attempts to borrow from capitalist states even at the price of political concessions. It is possible to extend contacts with advanced capitalist states on the basis of mutual benefit. But one should not forget that the steady and reliable settlement of the problems of Czechoslovak foreign economic contacts lies above all in the promotion of economic co-operation and mutual assistance with the socialist states that are members of CMEA, particularly the Soviet Union. The ``workers' councils" were an inevitable consequence of treating enterprises as an independent market subject in an economic and legal sense. Of course, one can only welcome the all-out encouragement of democratic principles in running the economy--from working out state plans to managing each enterprise. But that form of workers' participation in management which was proposed by the revisionists and opportunists, in fact demonstrated its worthlessness. The organisers of such councils pursued the aim of consolidating the complete independence of enterprises as market subjects. The ``workers' councils" as self-governing agencies of the enterprises had to resolve all questions: entrepreneurial, social, personnel and wages. All that was completely independent of the Party and government decisions and of state interests. The Action Programme adopted at the April (1968) plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia stated: "We are also beginning in our projects to free the state from entrepreneurial functions which are being transferred to its direct bearers".* The revisionists regarded the ``workers' councils" as the supreme form of working-class participation in controlling economic processes. However, workers accounted for no more than 20 per cent of the total number of council members. So the working class was involved in them more as a figurehead than as a real force shaping their activities and profile. In actual fact, these councils were to become the support of political pluralism in the economic sphere, a basis for combining self-management with political pluralism, a basis on which the central agencies that stood above the enterprises could have their control removed and the effectiveness of the higher echelons of government debilitated.

448

The framework within which certain organisations can realise their interests is objectively restricted. Only a certain area of economic initiative would, of course, be accessible to self-management. How was it possible to guarantee that this area would be sufficient for effective management, for achieving the main goals of the enterprise, for it to fulfil its functions that went beyond the bounds of the direct sphere of the enterprise? How, on the basis of the self-management agencies, would this range of economic initiative be supplemented, for example, in science and technology, in investment policy, in training personnel, etc.? All this would probably be done precisely by the fact that the ``workers' councils" would have resolved the urgent economic and political problems on the basis of a market economy of a trust type and would have become the guarantor of the "democratic version" of administering the socialist economy. But here is the basic drawback of the whole revisionist conception. Self-management of enterprises in the form suggested by the revisionists makes the concerted and purposeful activity of socialist producers a complete illusion. The fundamental O. Sik, "Konstanty socialismu", Nova mysl, No. 9-10, 1968, p. 1284. 510 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY CHAPTER 24 ATTEMPTS BY RIGHT-WING OPPORTUNISTS TO DESTROY THE COMMUNIST PARTY</b> OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA AS A PARTY OF A LENINIST TYPE</b> long-range interests of the working people can only be safeguarded successfully with the help of the leadership of the working class and its party. The nature of existing production requires interconnected relations of control and subordination and correspondingly, the hierarchical structure of governing bodies with clearly delineated tasks and powers for individual stages of control. The management of industry and the entire economy must rest on special knowledge, experience and professional ability to govern. Amateur control is the source of difficulties; it becomes sluggish and leads to losses of social labour.

449

The trend towards the nationwide control increases with the development of the division of labour and with the mounting power of the forces of production. Any weakening and restriction^ of it in the interests of the self-management of market-type enterprises comes into conflict with the major motive forces of historical progress. Democracy deprived of class content cannot stimulate a growth in popular initiative. Without a scientific programme of social development, the progress of democracy becomes problematical. On the other hand, the promotion of democracy in close association with scientific goals of social progress indicates to the people the specific target of their own creative endeavour and reveals the fundamental purpose of their lives. The real aims of social development cannot, of course, be determined on the level of self-managing enterprise agencies. They are worked out on the basis of cognising the laws of social development by the Marxist-Leninist party---the militant vanguard of the working class and all working people. That does not mean that one should not promote production democracy. It is of immense importance. But one cannot defend a self-government designed to replace the activity of the main subjects of planned management---the' Communist Party and the socialist state. THE NEED FOR A REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS' PARTY OF A LENINIST TYPE</b> The question of the revolutionary workers' party as the leading and organising force of the proletarian class struggle acquired special acuteness at the turn of the century, when capitalism entered the last phase of its development--imperialism, and the working class had to create a political party capable of leading it in an attack on capitalism. This task could not be resolved by the social-democratic parties of Western Europe which adapted themselves exclusively to the parliamentary struggle. It was necessary to form a workers' party of a new type. This party had to be constructed on consistently revolutionary and Marxist programmatic tactical and organisational principles. These were worked out by Vladimir Lenin. Throughout his activity, Lenin upheld the revolutionary principles of organisation of a party that were incompatible with the practice of social reformism. Only a party of a new, Leninist type could become the supreme form of class organisation of the proletariat, the leading and directing force in regard to other organisations of the working class and all working people. The Leninist principles of constructing a communist party as the vanguard of the working class have withstood the severe test of history on a national and on an international scale.

450

Thanks to the creative endeavour of Lenin, the Bolshevik Party, from the moment it was founded, enjoyed more ideological competence than any other workers' party. It was 512 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 513 therefore able to campaign successfully against the various enemies of the working people and to lead the working class to the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917; this marked a radical turn in the history of mankind, the beginning of a new era in world history. The October Revolution, carried out under the leadership of the Communist Party led by Lenin, showed the world the way to socialism. It is particularly sad that it was in 1968, when Czechoslovakia celebrated its 50th anniversary, having come into existence under a direct influence of the October Revolution and of the people's liberation struggle, and when it marked the 20th anniversary of the victory in February 1948---a symbol of the victory of the Czechoslovak working people over the bourgeoisie---that opportunist elements in the Party ranks should try to play down the historic importance of Leninism and to reject the international significance of Lenin's teaching. The working class and its revolutionary party---the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia---achieved successes only when they took the Leninist path. The ideas of Lenin, the activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Comintern played a great part in the formation of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and its establishment as a revolutionary workers' party of a new type, inspired the working people to fight against capitalism, for bread, the right to work, for democracy and socialism. Under the banner of Leninism, the Czechoslovak Communist Party became a class-conscious Bolshevik-type party closely associated with the masses, an internationalist party which, in severe trials which the Czechoslovak people had to bear, creatively and consistently resolved the intricate problems of social development. Under the Party leadership, the people of Czechoslovakia created a people's democracy which grew stronger as a form of proletarian dictatorship. The building of socialism in Czechoslovakia led to fundamental changes in the social and economic structure of so451

ciety and was marked by outstanding successes by the working people in political, economic and cultural spheres. This once again confirmed the universal significance of the theory and practice of Leninism. Socialist construction in Czechoslovakia, an industrially advanced country, was not at all easy. There were difficulties, mistakes and shortcomings on the way to socialism. As the December 1970 Plenary Meeting of the Party made clear, "they were apparent in self-complacency and in the inconsistent implementation of Leninist principles in the life and work of the Party, in an inadequate generalisation of practice and of the accumulated experience of the people, in the neglect of a class approach to social problems, in attempts to move too fast, in the violation of the principles of democratic centralism and inner-Party democracy. The fight against bourgeois ideology, petty-bourgeois tendencies and ideological subversion lost its force as a result of the weakening of the political and ideological work. This inevitably tended to loosen the ties between the Party and the working people."* This circumstance was exploited by Right-wing and revisionist forces, especially because the opportunist part of the Czechoslovak Communist Party leadership led by Anton Dubcek had underestimated the danger of imperialist ideological subversions. The offensive by revisionist forces within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and state agencies was closely associated with the ideological centres of world anti-communism. This was frankly confirmed by the emigre journal Svedectvi, printed with American imperialist finance. The journal evaluated revisionism as its major ally, as a political reality on which it should rely primarily. The anti-communist circles, therefore, gave every possible aid to the revisionists in Czechoslovakia, offered them space in their newspapers and magazines, paid them as their allies and even their * Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 9. 33---2332 514 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 515 452

agents. The blatant revisionists had their own patrons behind the scenes, "their friends and defenders, about whom," Svedectvi wrote in the spring of 1967, "suffice it to say that'they may be found in high party and state posts".* Party workers dedicated to the ideas of scientific communism and the Leninist principles of party construction had for many years pointed to the dangerous activity of the opportunists and anti-socialist forces. But the warning voices of Czechoslovak Marxists were disregarded for two reasons: first, because the Right-wing opportunists already held strong positions in the Party organs before January 1968. They not only resisted opposing anti-Marxist notions, they even labelled consistent Marxist Party members as `` dogmatists'' and ``conservatives''; secondly, as a consequence of the fact that the pre-January Party leadership failed to produce in time a positive programme for the further development of socialism in Czechoslovakia and simultaneously to deal a decisive blow to Right-wing opportunism. Many honest Party members were therefore disorientated and had their hands tied. They did not know how to oppose the propaganda of Right-wing opportunism, the demagogic exploitation of the existing mistakes and deficiencies. The Right-wing forces exaggerated the weaknesses and errors in Party activity, made an absolute of them and began to attack the Leninist principles of the building of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and of socialism. The Party was confronted by a twofold task: to defeat the forces trying to destroy the Party and socialism, the Right-wing and anti-socialist forces and, simultaneously, to isolate those who, by representing an administrative and bureaucratic tendency within the Party, had blunted popular initiative and hampered the further development of socialism in Czechoslovakia. The Plenary Meeting of the Party which took place in January 1968 resolved one part of that task. As the document Lessons of the Crisis Development. . . underlined, the results of the January Plenary Meeting were "an expression of the need to resolve the crisis in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and to remove from Party activity, especially from its leadership, all those who had prevented the Party and society from developing a new activity, had hampered a new upsurge" * The weak side of the Plenary Meeting was that it did not 453

expose in time the platform of those members of the Party who, in the discussion on the position and further actions of the Party, took essentially an anti-Party and revisionist stand. Although critical voices were heard at the Plenary Meeting in respect of certain statements by Sik and Smrkovsky, it did not condemn the Right-wing opportunist group which had already formed and, under the pretext of correcting mistakes, was trying to revise the general policy of the Party, to undermine its ideological and organisational principles, to dismantle the political structure of socialist society for the purpose of letting loose petty-bourgeois anarchy and changing the foreign-policy orientation of Czechoslovakia. A serious drawback of the Plenary Meeting was that "it did not outline the class content and the further development of society: it did not orientate the Party to fight against the growing Right-wing opportunism and anti-socialist tendencies"."'* After the January Plenary Meeting, revisionist and opportunist elements in Czechoslovakia acquired wide scope for their subversive activity. PLURALISM AS A PROGRAMME FOR ABOLISHING THE LENINIST PARTY</b> The opportunists could not openly proclaim their aim of departing from socialism and restoring capitalism, of abolishing the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia as a party of a new type. They tried to achieve their aim by criticising * Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 15. ** XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, p. 226. * Svedectvi, No. 37, 1967, p. 309. 33*</b> 516 RIGHT-WING</b> REVISIONISMTODAY</b> ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 517 the theory and practice of socialism, undermining the leading role of the Communist Party. Because they did not meet any real resistance, they advocated the rejection of the applicability of Leninism to the workers' movement in Czechoslovakia and to the Party. The efforts of the Right-wing 454

opportunists and ``liquidators'' in misrepresenting the Bolshevisation of the Party and the role of the Comintern in the founding of the party of a Leninist type, became increasingly apparent. The opportunists made the maximum effort to use all the mass media and the various Party committees engaged in preparing documents for the leading Party agencies to draw the Party onto the path of social-democracy and thereby to deprive it of the features of a proletarian, Leninist party. They attacked the basis of socialist state power and the leading role of the Communist Party under the banner of pluralism in the economic, political and ideological fields. Pluralism was discussed in the press, on radio and television. Gradually, pluralist ideas permeated official Party documents, particularly those prepared for the extraordinary 14th Party Congress which was to take place in September 1968. Already at the beginning of 1968, the Right-wing forces had formulated their plans in the Action Programme of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia so that this document represented "a programme of European socialism in the true sense of the word because the previously existing model had been related to other historical conditions ... and did not correspond to European conditions"/^^1^^" The Action Programme was, therefore, designed to become a programme proclamation "on the eve of the new general policy of the Party".** As the Lessons of the Crisis Development.. . stressed, the Action Programme reflected the mounting subversive activity of the Right-wing forces within the Party. It contained non-Marxist formulations concerning the role of the Party and of the state, concerning the so-called partnership understanding of the National Front and the revisionist thesis concerning the control of the economy and culture. At its Plenary Meeting in December 1970, the Party Central Committee declared the Action Programme to be an incorrect and inoperative document. The Right-wing opportunists regarded the shortcoming of the Action Programme in that it reflected "a very indecisive approach to issues of plurality of the political system".* According to their plans, the Communist Party should be converted into a party of a social-democratic type, while Czechoslovakia should have a regime of "democratic socialism" whose essence has been referred to earlier. The implementation of pluralism in politics, the economy and ideology was aimed at restoring exploiting classes whose activity had been suppressed as a result of the establishment of proletarian dictatorship in February 1948 and the building 455

of socialism. At that time, the position actually was characterised by pluralism in politics, the economy and ideology. A capitalist sector and a sector of small producers existed alongside the state and public sector. At the same time, the state sector was not completely socialist because the question of political power had not been completely resolved; the people's democracy was not yet completely a form of proletarian dictatorship as it was to become after February 1948. In order to disguise the bourgeois nature of the pluralist concept, the opportunists maintained that the class struggle had lost its acuteness in Czechoslovak conditions and no longer determined the country's development. While asserting that, they nonetheless launched a real class struggle of bourgeois forces against socialist gains, against the Czechoslovak Communist Party as the workers', Marxist-Leninist party, against its leading role, against the socialist state, against * Dialog, No. 5, 1968, p. 14. ** Ibid. Ibid. 518 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNISTPARTY</b> 519 state socialist ownership, the planned control of the economy and against all Communists true to Marxism-Leninism. At the January Plenary Meeting of the Party, it was pointed out to Smrkovsky, who had rejected the existence of class antagonisms, that although Czechoslovak society was socialist by its social and economic nature, people's consciousness still "was considerably subjected to the influence of pre-socialist ideology. Western propaganda and its publicists are trying to exploit this in their own interests. Consequently, the ideological form of the class struggle continues as before, particularly as a result of the influence of foreign imperialist propaganda".* It was pointed out further on that the Communist Party and its bodies should control the ideological struggle.

456

The opportunists Spacek, Mlynar, Cisaf and others made their position clear in a draft document prepared for the Extraordinary Party Congress, which was, in their minds, to have put a legal stamp of approval upon their programme. Their draft document said among other things: "Our party, as the pioneer of democratic socialism, tirelessly fights for a position of the Czechoslovak Communist Party in the political system which enables it to establish control of power on the basis of partnership and opponency----The Party is the pioneer of self-administration of democratic agencies, the internal activity of which should not be bound by any Party political directives. "** In accordance with the. thesis of rejection of the leading role of the Communist Party which should have become the vanguard of self-liquidation and the "pioneer of self-administration" (in socialist conditions!), one of the Right-wing opportunists, R. Kalivoda, wrote: "Undoubtedly, it is necessary to create new relationships with other parties and to recognise their autonomy----The ultimate aim of a Marxistsocialist political movement is not socialist democracy, which in one way or another is inevitably limited, but socialist selfadministration."* What does he mean by this? Is it sheer deceit or political illiteracy by the ideological fathers of Right-wing opportunism in Czechoslovakia? The opportunists talk of socialist selfadministration but they know full well that the classics of Marxism-Leninism spoke of self-administration in the conditions of a classless communist society. In opposing the opportunist disorientation on the question of self-administration and the nature of the Marxist movement, Engels wrote that the Party's economic programme "is not simply socialist in general, but directly communist .. .".** The path to social self-administration lies through the further development and improvement of the socialist state and socialist democracy. Efforts aimed at a premature weakening of the leading role of the workers' party within class society and attempts to introduce "autonomy and self-administration" by anti-socialist class forces can only lead to depriving the working class of political power and to the establishment of the domination of the bourgeois elite. It is hardly surprising that A. Liehm should write in the newspaper Liter drni listy (in the same issue which published the anti-communist document "2,000 Words") that "the main problem of the political situation in our country consists in how the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia can share power 457

with others gradually and without any convulsion".*** Such was the price which the Party had to pay "for national reconciliation", for conciliation with counter-revolutionary forces! The documents of the Czechoslovak Socialist Party in 1968 had said that "the national front is a base on which a free * Zaseddm OV KSG due 3.-5. ledna 1968. Stenograficky zdpis, p. 116. ** Analysa cinnosti strany v neiblizsim obdobi, p. 14 (Archiv tJV KSC). * R. Kalivoda, "0 perspektivach socialistick4 demokracie", Rude Prdvo, May 3, 1968. ** Marx/Engels, Werke, Vol. 22, p. 418. *** A. Liehm, "O koho se oprit", Literdrni listy, June 27, 1968. 520 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 521 play of political forces and interests of different sections of society will take place". That was understandable because, at that time, the Socialist Party had departed from the principle of recognising the leading role of the Communist Party and was striving for a large portion of political power. But to proclaim in the name of the Communist Party, as Kalivoda did, that the Party would voluntarily become an equal partner among other social organisations testifies to the fact that the "party had become really open to all voices", including counter-revolutionary. Lenin had clearly defined the attitude of the Marxist workers' party to mass organisations, notably trade unions. At the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1903, when a proletarian party of a new type was born, he emphasised that the Party was the leader of the working class which fully or almost fully operated under the leadership of the Party and its organisations. In changed historical circumstances, after the Great October Socialist Revolution, Lenin substantiated the principle of the leading role of the party, worked out the ways and means of party control of the economy and mass 458

organisations. He stressed that a revolutionary Marxist party was "the supreme form of class organisation of the proletariat". In regard to the trade unions, he referred to the experience of proletarian dictatorship in Russia and pointed out that all leading trade union bodies and, of course, first and foremost the central bodies "are made up of Communists and carry out all the directives of the Party. Thus, on the whole, we have a formally non-communist, flexible and relatively wide and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is-closely linked up with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the class dictatorship is exercised."* The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia had always been guided by these Leninist principles. But there were people in its ranks in 1968 who declared that the Party should introduce "self-administration of social organisations", that their activity should not be guided by any Party directives, that the trade unions were independent organisations over which the Party had no jurisdiction. But, in a society which has classes, mass organisations always depend on somebody, as experience shows. If they are independent of the Leninist workers' party, they are dependent, as was the case in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1969, on Right-wing opportunists and their directives. A similar situation existed in regard to the slogan of the independence of journalists. As a result of the energetic anti-Party and anti-socialist activity of a certain part of those working in the press, on radio and television, many people in Czechoslovakia were led astray, deceived and disorientated, and even infected by anarchist fanaticism. This happened because the mass media, as Gustav Husak said at the September 1969 Party Plenary Meeting, had become a weapon of Right-wing forces uncontrolled and independent of the Party; these forces had used the mass media systematically to discredit the building of socialism in Czechoslovakia over the previous twenty years and to discredit people, ideas, causes, the entire Party, its home and foreign policy; they had rehabilitated and enlivened petty-bourgeois ideals of the bourgeois period of Czechoslovak history and had launched a wide-ranging campaign against the Soviet Union and its closest allies. The lessons of the Czechoslovak crisis once again confirmed the conclusion that the leading role of the Party is a key issue of the theory and practice of socialist construction, an issue on which the very existence and development of socialism depend. Any weakening in the role of the Party opens the way to ideological anti-socialist subversions by 459

imperialism and its agents in the ranks of the labour movement---Right-wing opportunists. Conversely, the close connection between the mass media and the Communist party, which controls them and influences their work, guarantees a V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 48. 522 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 523 strengthening of socialism in very difficult circumstances, its consolidation and development on the basis of MarxistLeninist principles. Lenin was absolutely right when he said "down with non-Party, independent journalists and writers" because they are always partisan and dependent. The issue is on whom are they dependent? On the Communist Party or on its class foes? The pluralist system on the basis of "democratic socialism" was intended to conceal this class dependence. Pluralism is a multi-party system consisting of parties which in capitalist society reflect class contradictions. The internecine warfare of these parties is a concentrated expression of the political squabbles of antagonistic classes and groups for power within the bourgeois state. Why should pluralism be necessary in politics, the economy and ideology in a socialist state where all power belongs to the working class and to all working people led by the Communist Party? Clearly, pluralism in Czechoslovakia was a weapon of struggle for restoring the capitalist system. It is true that other political parties exist alongside the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia and in other socialist states. But the basic condition for stability of the socialist system is the recognition by these non-communist parties of the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist workers' party in the process of socialist construction. In other circumstances, the proletarian dictatorship system would be unstable and could not ensure the defence and building of socialism. The Right-wing revisionists made it their aim to destroy the influence of Lenin's ideas in Czechoslovakia, to abolish the so-called monopoly of Leninism in regard to the interpretation and development of Marxism. The former Party secretary for ideological work and one of the inspirers of 460

the Right-wingers, Cisaf, declared: "One cannot deny certain negative aspects of the fact . .. that Leninism has become over time the monopoly interpretation of Marxism."* At the same time, they attacked the practice of Leninism. They proclaimed literally a national catastrophe the use of Soviet experience in building socialism because such experience, which had been accumulated through solving completely different tasks, "had become the monopoly basis of dominant ideas about socialism and had de facto been the main reason why socialist construction had moved in the direction of disintegration of Czechoslovakia as a country of a 'Western type' of civilisation; in those conditions, therefore, the transformation of Czechoslovakia 'did not and could not have any sound basis'."* On what basis did they suggest creating a Czechoslovak "model of socialism"? In theoretically substantiating their "socialist model", the Right-wing opportunists in the Communist Party leadership declared: we proceed from the idea that socialism in Czechoslovakia will be firm and attractive only in the event of our people embodying "their historical national traditions" in its forms. They said not a word about the working class, MarxismLeninism or the world socialist system. They only talked about "national and historical tradition". But national traditions of the past were primarily bourgeois in character v/hile modern man, if one bears in mind the existence of two opposing social systems, is a member either of socialist or of capitalist society. Which of them was political pluralism to serve? Such questions which rely on a class approach to social phenomena are, in the terminology of Right-wing opportunists, a product of a conservative way of thinking that had to be combated. The Communist Party is the nucleus and leading force of the socialist system. In order that the former system could not cause a return to ``conservatism'' it was necessary, in the opinion of the revisionists, to make fundamental changes in the life and activity of the Communist Party. The creators of a new Czechoslovak "model of socialism" demanded: "For Rude Pravo, May 7, 1968, p. 3. Literdrni Usty, No. 20, 1968, pp. 1, 6. 524 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

461

ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 525 the Communist Party to withstand the test in contemporary conditions and for it actually to be the initiator of a new socialist model, it must itself undergo a profound process of regeneration, it must change its traditional face.... That implies the need to review the organisational principles of the construction of the Party and the methods of its work. ... The type of Party which developed during the proletarian dictatorship and during industrialisation is now part of the past----The choice we are faced with is singular: either a comprehensive new concept of socialism and the Party will be put into practice, or socialism will get bogged down in the mire of compromises."* OPPORTUNISTS AND IDEOLOGY</b> As a result of the ideological influence of Leninism, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, as a component part of the Comintern, became a Bolshevik-type party in 1929, after its 5th Congress. The Leninist ideas about a party meant for the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, as for other fraternal parties, a radical change on the issue of the role and character of the party by comparison with the former parties of the Second International. This change meant not a ``Russification'' of former workers' parties, but the creation of a party of a type that would correspond to the needs of the revolutionary class struggle and the requirements for building socialism. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia became a voluntary, militant and most active alliance which united the most class-conscious representatives of the working class, the peasants and the intellectuals. The main task of the Party in contemporary conditions, as was emphasised in the decisions of the 12th and the 13th Party congresses, is the further development of socialist society. The ultimate aim of the Party is to build a classless communist society. * "Pfed rozhodnutim. O nov^ &pound;eskoslovensk^ model socialismu", Rude prdvo, July 12, 1968. The aims and organisational principles of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia did not in any way satisfy the creators of a new, social-democratic "socialist model". Not being able immediately to proclaim openly their aims of the " withering away of the party of socialist society", they reckoned, as they themselves declared, on the historical reality of 462

prevailing political development. They therefore initially wanted to establish the principle "of a party open to all society''. What did this mean in practice? The creation of a "party of the whole people" without account for its class character, the outlook of its members, and the role of the party as the vanguard of the working class. The draft programme of the Constitutional Congress of the Czech Communist Party, which was compiled by Right-wing revisionists, set the task of "reforming the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia into a party of a really new type in which there would be sufficient place for all patriots and socialists who so far remain outside its ranks"/^^1^^' This was a call for the abolition of the Communist Party as the party of a Leninist type, for the elimination of communist principles won by the party under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, of the Comintern in the fight against social democracy and national chauvinism. What was to distinguish these new features of the Czech Communist Party? By contrast with the former Leninist-type Communist Party, it was to become a party of a new, nonLeninist type. The same aim was served by the appeal to all nationalists, who were not members of the Party, to enter the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia as if it were not a communist party but a national-socialist party. If one were even to allow that real patriots would join the Party on this appeal rather than national-socialist or social-democratic philistine elements infected by a Masaryk ideology, even so this was an appeal to turn the Communist Party into a mass organisation like the National Front, which would mean the * Ndvrh programoveho, phohlaseni ustavujiciho sjezdu Ceske komunisticke strany (Archiv tJV KSC). 526 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 527 abolition of the Leninist character of the Communist Party as the progressive and most politically conscious section of the working people. At the same time, the draft programme document pointed out that the Party should be separated from the past---i.e., 463

from people who had upheld the Leninist understanding of a proletarian party and scientific socialism. The anti-socialist forces expressed this idea as follows: "The existence of two opposing groups in a single party cannot last for long. A party of two groups can at best generate new compromises. It is therefore necessary for an extraordinary Party congress to take place at which the Communist Party would have to be either purged or partitioned."* Other reformers developed the same idea as follows: it is officially said that there are two trends within the Communist Party---a progressive and a conservative trend. The ultimate conclusion of the formation of these factions would open up the possibility of a split and of creating two political parties: a progressive faction would be the party of "democratic socialism", while the conservative faction would be the party of the Bolshevik type. The efforts of the ``liquidators'' in 1968 to deprive the Communist Party of its Leninist character were proclaimed as a ``regeneration'' of the Party. The conversion of the Party into a national-socialist, anti-Leninist party was advertised as progress, while "the conservative" direction was represented as" a party of a Bolshevik type. Leaders of `` progress'' intended, by demagogic phrases about progress, to disorientate the people and purposefully lead it to the restoration of the bourgeois system under the slogan of " patriotic and democratic socialism''. If one bears in mind that the draft programme of the Czech Communist Party envisaged, for example, eliminating state ownership, re-establishing private enterprise and other ``blessings'' of economic pluralism, this would inevitably have intensified class differentiation and exacerbated relations between classes; this would have objectively led to the restoration of antagonistic classes and groups, and the launching of a "competition for power". The various apologists for these projects hoped that the shoots of competition for power, inherent in the political system of "democratic socialism", would have less influence on society than in bourgeois states. Not having had time to restore capitalism, they already feared a future class struggle and nurtured the hope that the battle for power in a pluralist ``socialist'' state would not take such acute forms as in a bourgeois pluralist state. It is therefore clear that a pluralist ``socialist'' state is nothing more than the demagogic name for a bourgeois political system.

464

This was the programme of ``national'' and "democratic socialism" of the group which "extends a hand to all honest patriots without distinction of their origin, political and ideological outlook, to non-party members and to the members of other parties and organisations, to Christians and to people of other creeds with an appeal to bring about universal political co-operation in working out and implementing a new Czech national programme"/^^1^^' This Czech national programme for "socialist regeneration", naturally, could not be sullied by "alien internationalism". The whole programme, therefore, did not contain one word about Marxism-Leninism or about co-operation with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The other group of "democratic socialism" opened up the "humanist versions of contemporary civilised development" in its document on a "new model of socialism"; it also stressed that the party should constantly work for a situation in the political system which would enable it "to exercise con* P. Kohout, "OWane.---A co ted?" Literdrni listy, No. 12, 1968, p. 1. * Ndvrh programoveho prohldseni ustavujidho sjezdu Ceske komunisticke strany, p. 3. 528 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 529 trol of power on the basis of partnership and competition of ideas and of people".* A communist party of a Leninist type should, naturally, strive for a creative development of the theory of MarxismLeninism, for a close alliance with all working people, for the development of criticism and self-criticism, inner-party democracy, etc. All this is a law-governed development of inner-party life. Yet the compilers of the draft declaration in their critical analysis of past Party activity essentially cast out the Leninist principles, inseparable from Party life, of the all-round consolidation of its ideological and organisational unity. Moreover, the authors of the document opposed the Leninist principle of democratic centralism, alleging that it paralyses the development of ideas and the search for new uncharted paths of socialist development. But it is precisely 465

the principle of democratic centralism that helped the GPSU to take to an unprecedented level the initiative, enterprising activities, self-sacrifice, creative thinking and creative capacity of Communists. In order that a communist party could ensure creative initiative, free discussion, inner-party criticism, unity and discipline among all Communists, it needs an objective principle of democratic centralism, not a subjective demand for "mutual trust". Lenin resolutely upheld this principle in the fight against Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunists who were attempting to undermine the organisational and ideological unity of the Bolshevik Party. While the experience of the world socialist system confirmed the power and international importance of Leninism, the working people of Czechoslovakia were asked to believe that the Leninist understanding of the Party was outmoded. The demand to abolish the Leninist character of the Party was designed ideologically to disarm the working class and was a component part of the global plan to do away with socialism in Czechoslovakia. " "Pfed rozhodnutim. 0 novy Seskoslovensky model socialismu", Rude prdvo, July 12, 1968. The Right-wing opportunists deliberately undermined the leading role of the Party, particularly in ideology and culture. They asserted that it was necessary to remove from the field of culture the exaggerated ideological and political role of the Party, "to carry out a serious critical revision of the principle of ideological leadership over culture", a revision of all the existing resolutions of Party bodies in regard to culture, "to uphold the development of cultural autonomy and its self-government in the sense of ideological, national and regional pluralism".'^^1^^" This approach, directed against the implementation of Leninist principles of Party leadership in the cultural sphere, corresponded to the interests of those who wished to restore bourgeois culture, not to the interests of the working class and all working people who were building socialism. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia upholds its leading role in all spheres of social life. The directives of the May 1969 Plenary Meeting posed the following task: "To restore the leading role of the Communist Party in society, particularly in social organisations and the bodies of the National Front, in state bodies, in the field of the economy and culture."** 466

The fight to strengthen the ideological unity of socialist society in Czechoslovakia is taking place through the immense theoretical activities of the Party, and the widespread propagation of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism among the working people. LENINIST PRINCIPLES OF PARTY ORGANISATION</b> The Communist Party is the Marxist-Leninist vanguard of the working class and, simultaneously, a highly-organised battalion united by a common will, concerted action and * Analyza cinnosti sir any a vyvoje spolecnosti od XIII. sjezdu a hlavni ukoly strany v nejblizsim obdobi (Archiv tJV KSC), p. 4/4. ** "Realizacni smernice kvetnoveho plena tJV KSC pro dalsi, postup strany v priStim obdobi", Rud&amp; prdvo, June 3, 1969, p. 2. 34---2332 530 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 531 class-conscious discipline. By virtue of the high level of ideological consciousness and organisation, the Party embodies in its activity the revolutionary will of the working class and all working people. The Leninist organisational principles strengthen the Party and are a powerful weapon in the battle against opportunism. Democratic centralism is the main organisational principle of the Leninist party. If anyone should fear that the principle of the subordination of the minority to the majority limits democracy and personal freedom of Party members, one has to ask what freedom is referred to. The rules of the Communist Party both permit and demand that every Party member puts forward his viewpoint on various questions of Party policy and social life. In this sphere, consequently, there are no limitations on the freedom of Party members. If one is referring to the second aspect of the principle of democratic centralism, that every Party member is compelled to subordinate himself to Party decisions, to the will of the majority, then without that the Party could not be a revolutionary organisation. And without 467

organisation a political party is nothing. That is what the opportunists want when they demand freedom of factions. Explaining this demand by a ``concern'' for the promotion of Party activity, for its ``creative'' development on the basis of " widescale democracy", they are in fact trying to gain an opportunity to impose their own views on the majority, if not today then tomorrow, the possibility for converting the Party into an amorphous mass of autonomous groups and individuals. That is what the disorganisers of the Communist Party are aiming at, in whose name Ota Sik proposed the "draft measures for the further democratisation of the Party''. The essence of this draft project, motivated by an apparent concern for extending inner-party democracy, consisted in legalising factions within the Communist Party, particularly within its Central Committee. According to Sik, "Party members must have the chance to prepare themselves properly for a meeting and eventually to work out their alternative project. A project prepared by a group of people will be, naturally, more solid and thought out than a project of a single man. And here the obstacle is the accepted understanding of Party unity and among other things, the accepted residue of the word `faction'. According to this understanding, any co-operation of a group of people outside a Party meeting, any group preparation for a meeting are considered factional activity."* What is the basis of this demagogic argument for legalising factional activity within the Czechoslovak Communist Party and its supreme bodies? It is that Sik was arguing for the freedom of factions under the guise of ``concern'' for a higher and more ``scientific'' level of draft resolutions of Party organs. Collective leadership really is one of the principles of Communist Party leadership. Moreover, all drafts of the most important resolutions of Party bodies are drawn up collectively with the involvement of appropriate specialists and with the participation of workers in Party, state and economic bodies. Party bodies adopt decisions in a collective manner. This is an expression of collective leadership and the democratic style of work. But Sik was not concerned with this. He aimed at legalising a caucus of groups and factional activity and creating conditions for imposing a minority platform on elected Party bodies. In his desire to legalise anti-Party factional activity, Sik even made reference to Lenin, to a ``Leninist'' understanding of the term ``faction''. He wrote in his "draft measures on democratisation": "I think it necessary to return to the 468

notion [of factional activity.---Authors.] as it was understood during the lifetime of Lenin."** For a full elucidation of how Lenin regarded factional activity, particularly of the followers of Trotsky and of the anarcho-syndicalists, it would be best to cite Lenin himself * Stenograficky zdpis. Zaseddni ustfedmho vyboru KSC ze due 1921, prodince 1967, p. 157. ** Ibid. 34'</b> 532 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY <b>533</b> on this issue. Speaking at the opening of the Tenth Party Congress, Lenin said: ".. .Formal cohesion is far from enough. ... Our efforts should be more united and harmonious than ever before; there should not be the slightest trace of factionalism---whatever its manifestations in the past. That we must not have on any account.""' In the initial draft resolution of the same congress on Party unity, Lenin wrote: "In the practical struggle against factionalism, every organisation of the Party must take strict measures to prevent all factional actions."** Against whom were these words of Lenin's directed and in what situation? This was at a time when the enemies of the Bolshevik Party penetrated its ranks and tried to deepen the split and to use it to attain counter-revolutionary aims. This was in a situation similar to that in which Czechoslovakia found herself when counter-revolutionary forces and their class agents within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were conducting a struggle against the Marxist-Leninist principles of Party construction. Sik added to his attitude on abolition of the Communist Party as a party of a Leninist type in a conversation with an editor of Swiss television on November 24, 1968. To a question on whether the implementation of a new economic "socialist model", worked out by Sik and his 469

colleagues, was connected with any particular organisation of a party, Sik answered: "We had ideas on principal changes in all spheres and on the basis of the Party itself.... We believed that the Party should play a leading role only as an intellectual vanguard.... Something was necessary, precisely what could be called a political organisation or something else."*** Evidently, Sik rejects the idea that the Party should be an organisation in the full sense of the word, the idea that there should be a unity of programme, tactical and organisational principles. To his mind, the Party may be anything but a political organisation. The question of Party membership was an issue of heated dispute among Marxists-Leninists and Right-wing opportunists. Why should argument occur on this issue? It occurred because people were disputing the character of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the precise type of party it should be. Debate flared up on this question in the summer of 1968 during discussion of the Party's new draft Rules. The Right-wing opportunists within the Party were generally scornful of organisational questions and the Party Rules, but they launched a far-reaching campaign against these Rules, in particular against the principles of Party membership and of democratic centralism. The director of the Czechoslovak Communist Party history institute, a former Social-Democrat, Milos Hajek, demanded in the discussion of the first version of the new Rules that their definition of the concept of Party membership "should not prevent people joining the Party who agree with the Party programme but who do not want actively to work in any of the Party organisations, who only sympathise with the movement, vote for Communists, everywhere support them and pay their membership dues in individual cases".* He justified this proposal by saying that in the situation of competing with other parties, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia would need a large number of members even if they were not all active. This was a complete departure from the Leninist principle of communist party membership and an adaptation of the membership formulation put forward by Martov at the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party against which Lenin had spoken. This was a return to the practice of the social-democratic parties in the Second International. * Zapis I. schuze skupiny pro pfipravu novych slanov, June 470

18, 1968, p. 20. * V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 169. ** Ibid., p. 243. *** Zasedani ustfednino vyboru KSC dne 29-30. V. 1969. Stenograftcky zdpis,Vol. 11, pp. 191-92.</b> 534 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 535 The implementation of this demand would have set the Communist Party back several decades, to the period when a battle raged to create a revolutionary workers' party of a new type. The conflicting views on the question of Party membership and the different approach to whether people who were not in any Party organisation could be Party members constituted a question concerning two diametrically opposite concepts in regard to the construction of a political party, two opposing views on the nature of the Party and the principles of its construction. The question of individual participation of a Communist in one of the Party organisations is inevitably linked with the basic principle of Party organisational construction---that of democratic centralism, the question of whether the Party should be constructed as a single centralised organisation with a common discipline binding on all Communists. If those people could become Party members who do not belong to any Party organisation, as the opportunists suggested, how would it be possible to establish control over the activity of a Party member? Or perhaps there would be two disciplines in one party: one for those who take part in the work of Party organisation, and the other for those who only formally attach themselves to the Party? How then, in these circumstances, could a party act as a leader and organiser of the working people? The tasks confronting communist parties are complex and difficult not only in the period of fighting for power, but also in conditions of building socialism. Moreover, after the working class has taken power, when its party has become the ruling party, the scale and content of its tasks considerably grow, because the amount of its activity and its responsibility to the people are bound to increase. A Marxist-Leninist party does not, of course, consider forms of party construction and methods of work immutable at all stages of 471

the revolutionary process. But if a communist party wishes to be united and prepared for battle, it cannot have two different disciplines, it must have a single discipline and it must be always constructed on the principle of democratic centralism. Without that, it is impossible to ensure guidance of all party activities from a single centre and the subordination of lower party bodies to higher, of the minority to the majority. In the same way, the importance of the title of a Party member should constantly grow. How can a Party bear responsibility for those members who do not belong to any Party organisation, do not come under Party discipline and who only call themselves Party members? By merely calling himself a member, anyone could compromise the Communist Party at any particular moment. Therefore, as Lenin stressed in the beginning of the century, it is better to have a dozen activists who do not call themselves Party members than to have one babbler who has the right and opportunity to be a Party member. In regard to the argument about the Communist Party, in conditions of socialist construction, needing to have "a wide hinterland of people, even though they are inactive", this problem is resolved not by free Party membership but by the fact that the Party is connected with a whole number of mass workers' organisations which are far wider than the Party. As for the supreme form of the workers' class organisation, the Communist Party has to lead these organisations. The Party is the vanguard and leader of the whole working class and working people who carry out their activities under the leadership and influence of Party organisations, but are not members of the Communist Party en masse. If they all entered the Party, this would lead to a lowering of its militancy. By opening the doors wide to anyone, the Party would be penetrated by all manner of opportunist and other elements. Right-wing opportunists in the spring of 1968 produced a project for implementing federalisation of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Jindfich Fibich, who participated in the discussion on the draft of the new Party Rules, demanded that the principle of federalism should be extended not only to relations be536 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY

472

ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE CZECHOSLOVAK COMMUNIST PARTY 537 tween Czechs and Slovaks, but to relations between district and regional Party organisations, republican bodies and the Central Committee. He advocated that the main principles of Party organisation should be "autonomy and solidarity" rather than centralism and democracy.* How did he justify this suggestion? Why did the Leninist principle of democratic centralism have to be replaced by the principle of "autonomy and solidarity"? It would appear that Fibich had noticed that the development of "classical democracy" in the West was moving in the direction of federalism. It was therefore, he thought, necessary for Czechoslovakia to have "a universal extension of the principle of federalism. The opportunists demanded that organisational relations within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia should be constructed, not on the basis of the Leninist principles with account for the experience of the international communist movement, but in accordance with the development of "classical democracy" in the Wes't. A struggle took place between two opposing lines in the discussion on the new draft Party Rules: between MarxistsLeninists and representatives of Right-wing opportunism, liquidators. The Marxists-Leninists won the day. The healthy forces within the Party, its active members who were true to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism emerged from the historic trials of 1968-1969 with honour. As a result of the international assistance from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Soviet people and the peoples of other socialist states, conditions were created in Czechoslovakia for the active advance of the Marxist-Leninist nucleus of the Party and society, for the defeat of the anti-socialist and Right-wing opportunist bloc, for the defence of socialism. The lessons which the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia learned from the acute clash with the class enemy have a relevance for other socialist states and Communist parties. This experience, as Leonid Brezhnev underlined at the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, reminds us all that "it is the sacred duty of the Communists of the socialist countries strictly to adhere to Lenin's behests, to the revolutionary essence of his great teaching, resolutely to rebuff any attempts at distorting and falsifying Leninism, any manifestations of opportunism"."" The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and each of its 473

members underwent a historic test of the firmness and power of their socialist convictions. In the acute political struggle against revisionists, opportunists and counter-revolutionary forces, the Party was cleansed of all opportunist and passive members. Zdpis, I. sch&amp;ze skupiny pro pfipravu novych stanov, June 18, 1968, * L. I. Brezhnev, The CPSU in the Struggle for Unity of all Revolutionary and Peace Forces, Moscow, 1975, p. 232. P. 27. CHAPTER 25 FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT</b> ON SOCIALIST INTERNATIONALIST PRINCIPLES</b> FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULTON</b> SOCIALISM 539 Experience shows that anti-Sovietism has since 1917 been fulfilling a constant and vital function in the ideology and policy of anti-communism, that it plays a leading role in the strategic plans of imperialist aggressive circles. Its ways and means, its tactical ploys and modes of argument change with the changes in the objective situation and in the balance of power between socialism and capitalism. But its aim remains the same: to weaken, by any means available, the unity and solidarity of the world socialist system, the decisive political force of the contemporary world, to undermine fraternity and the natural class relations, built on the principles of socialist internationalism, with the Soviet Union as the main bastion of world socialism. In the fight against the forces of socialism and progress, present-day imperialism directs its main blow against the Soviet Union and its Leninist Communist Party as the leading force of Soviet society, the vanguard of the entire international communist and working-class movement, of all anti-imperialist forces. It is precisely the Soviet Union that is exerting the decisive influence on the revolutionary process. To begin with, the Soviet Union is the country where socialist revolution was first victorious, having shown the way to the whole of humanity to build socialism, the country 474

where, under the leadership of the CPSU, mature socialist society was constructed and where the material and technical basis of communism is now successfully being built. The CPSU is consistently carrying out its part as the vanguard of world socialist revolution. It has accumulated the richest revolutionary experience in the world, the experience of preparing for and carrying through socialist revolution, building socialism and communism, experience of political leadership of the working people, of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, of controlling the socialist economy, creating equitable relations between nations and nationalities within a socialist federation. The CPSU has created a model of unshakeable unity with the people. The The documents of the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia show quite convincingly that the coalition of anti-socialist and Right-wing revisionist forces in Czechoslovakia in 1968-1969 was orientated on preparing counter-revolution to destroy the principles of socialist internationalism, to weaken the friendship, co-operation and class alliance with the other countries of the socialist community, primarily with the Soviet Union. Lessons of the Crisis Development ... states that "the antiSoviet orientation of Right-wing forces in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia became also part and parcel of the international revisionist trend for which the so-called Czechoslovak experiment was a shot in the arm and a new argument for demanding the revision of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism within the communist movement"."' It was precisely anti-Sovietism which is today the principal content and nucleus of anticommunism and which held the key to the broad spectrum of methods of anti-communist ideological diversions, directed in 1968 not only against Czechoslovakia but against the whole socialist community in whose vanguard stands the Soviet Union, against the entire international communist movement. Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 43. 540 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 541 Soviet Union is the main political bastion of all socialist countries and of the entire anti-imperialist, democratic and 475

national liberation movement. Secondly, the Soviet Union, of all socialist countries, possesses the greatest economic potential and is giving assistance in ensuring the growth of the other socialist countries. It is creating a sufficiently wide and comprehensive material and technical base for effective international socialist division of labour and socialist economic integration. On the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit, the USSR is proffering technological, economic and personnel assistance to countries which have only recently liberated themselves from the oppression of the colonialists; this helps to strengthen their political sovereignty and economic independence. The USSR is the major material support of the international communist and national liberation movement, of all anti-imperialist forces. Thirdly, an exceedingly important role of the Soviet Union is to ensure the organic combination of the attainments of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of socialism---i.e., in that field which today is becoming the main sphere of class struggle on the international scene. Fourthly, of all socialist countries, the Soviet Union has the most powerful military potential on which the defensive capacity of every socialist state and of the entire socialist community directly depends. The Soviet Union, therefore, has an important defensive function to perform. The Soviet Army saved human civilisation from the horrors of fascism at immeasurable cost, sacrifice and heroism; it brought freedom to the peoples of Czechoslovakia. No socialist state in the present circumstances of the class struggle and with the existence of aggressive imperialist blocs can alone defend its socialist sovereignty, without the military assistance of the Soviet Union, which is the principal guarantee of the further development of socialism in peaceful conditions. Soviet military might is the result of the purposeful policy of the CPSU and heroic efforts by the Soviet people; it is today the main obstacle in the way of the bellicose circles of international imperialism, particularly American imperialism. The people of the Soviet Union bear on their own shoulders the bulk of expenditure necessary for defending the socialist community from imperialist attack. Fifthly, nobody can replace the peace-making function of the Soviet Union as the country which, since Lenin's Decree on Peace, has consistently pursued a peace-loving policy. The Soviet Union gave the world a real prospect of averting 476

a world thermonuclear war; it consistently strives to convert the principles of peaceful coexistence between the states with different social systems into an inalienable norm of international relations, and struggles for lasting peace and security among all peoples. The USSR is the bastion and the reliable support of all peace forces in the world. Thanks to the Leninist peace policy of the Soviet Government, international imperialism has been forced, on more than one occasion, to agree to a peaceful settlement of disputed issues which had earlier been resolved by force of arms. The wideranging Peace Programme, launched by the 24th Congress of the CPSU and consistently implemented by the Soviet Government, enjoys support from all fraternal socialist states and all peace forces. It indicates a real prospect of peaceful development to the whole of mankind. Sixthly, the Soviet Union is fulfilling the important ideological function in the world communist and international revolutionary, anti-imperialist movement. The CPSU is the party of scientific communism which first embodied the theoretical, principles of Marxism-Leninism, as the world outlook of the working class, into social practice. In the difficult conditions of class struggle in the world, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always remained loyal to the principles of socialist internationalism, which is clearly evident in fraternal assistance to the Czechoslovak working people. In the new historical situation, the Soviet Communist Party is creatively developing the theory of Marxism-Lenin542 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 543 ism and making a great contribution to the practice of scientific communism. Through a profound cognition of the objective laws of building socialism and communism, the CPSU has put into practice the behests of the founder of the Party and the Soviet State, Vladimir Lenin, on the possibility of socialism being victorious in a single country. It has carried out socialist industrialisation, co-operation of agriculture and attained success in resolving the national question and the problems of a socialist cultural revolution in a Leninist way. The Communist Party and the Communist International, created by Lenin, have provided invaluable assistance to the Communist parties of other countries and helped them 477

to educate a whole galaxy of outstanding professional Leninist revolutionaries for many detachments of the international communist movement. The CPSU is consistently striving to strengthen the unity of the communist movement and of all anti-imperialist forces. It serves as a reliable support of the international proletariat in its class struggle against capitalism, a reliable support for the fighters against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism. It is as a result of the immense ideological influence of the Soviet Union and its Leninist Communist Party within the world liberation movement that the ideological centres of anti-communism are orientated on support for all manner of ``centrifugal'' tendencies within the international communist movement; anti-communists revive and encourage primarily nationalism, which becomes a soil for anti-Sovietism. The lessons of the crisis development in Czechoslovakia showed beyond all doubt that any weakening of the principles of socialist internationalism and of the fraternal relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist states leads to the revival of nationalist vestiges and trends in the minds of certain sections of the population which become a potential source and social carrier of anti-socialist views and positions. The year 1968 in Czechoslovakia demonstrated that it was precisely the anti-Soviet direction of Rightwing revisionism which was the common ideological basis for various pseudo-socialist theories and the political practice of the renegades from the communist movement and of the anti-socialist forces. Czechoslovakia is a country in which profound friendly feelings towards the Soviet Union exist traditionally. In spite of these traditions, however, the Right-wing forces managed in 1968 to enflame anti-Soviet sentiments among some working people and even to whip up an anti-Soviet hysteria. What were the negative factors that they were able to rely upon in their foul deed? The victory of the October Revolution was a decisive factor in the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the establishment of an independent Czechoslovak state. The class-conscious part of the Czech and Slovak proletariat, particularly the Left-wing Social-Democrats, warmly greeted the victory of proletarian revolution led by the Bolsheviks. The downtrodden and exploited workers and peasants saw in it a hope and an example. However, the ruling Czechoslovak bourgeoisie, represented then mainly by Masaryk, 478

Benes, Kramaf and Stefanik, regarded the Bolsheviks' historic victory with undisguised hatred and displeasure. The official ideology of the Czechoslovak bourgeois state was built around the cult of Masaryk, the implacable enemy of the Bolsheviks, and around the myth of the so-called liberating mission of the Czechoslovak legions in Russia, although they, as a result of their counter-revolutionary leadership, had played a counter-revolutionary role in the crusade of world imperialism and the whiteguards against the young Soviet state. The threat of occupation by nazi Germany that hung over Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s encouraged a growth of warm feelings among many people towards the Soviet Union, particularly because the Soviet Union was the only power which expressed a readiness to help Czechoslovakia if it would accept this help and would repulse the aggressor. 544 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 545 But the bourgeois government of Czechoslovakia turned its back on any resistance to the aggressor. During World War II, the Czechs and Slovaks saw in the powerful Soviet Union a force which had defeated nazism and brought freedom to Czechoslovakia. After the liberation of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Army in 1945, relations of genuine gratitude, sincere respect, admiration and love for the Soviet Union began to develop. Throughout its existence, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia has fostered among the working people a conscious attitude to the Soviet Union and its Leninist Communist Party, proceeding from class solidarity and principles of socialist internationalism, strengthening the love and respect for the Soviet people---the builders of socialist society. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia achieved many successes in developing friendly relations with the USSR over the twenty years of socialist construction. Unfortunately, besides the unquestionable positive results, there were also mistakes and shortcomings. Alongside underlining the social dynamics and propagating the fundamental importance of social and class changes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union during .the 1950s, tendencies developed in Czechoslovakia towards a simplified 479

understanding of Soviet experience. Propaganda often used superficial, mechanical analogies and thereby, in a certain sense, made Soviet experience profane; it violated the dialectical principle of the connection between the general and the specific, and underestimated the definitive role of common laws in building socialism, which had been fully confirmed and enriched by Soviet experience. As a result of the formalism, the petty-bourgeois sections of the population gradually became more and more sceptical and nihilist, a mood that was encouraged by mounting pressure from the anti-Soviet bourgeois ideology and anti-communist centres abroad. These sections tried to play down the importance of, and gradually to discredit, the political, economic, cultural and scientific co-operation between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. Additionally, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia did not oppose this ideological subversion with sufficient firmness, which provided an opportunity for the propaganda of a so-called consumer way of life, for the idealisation of relations in the developed capitalist states and for uncritical praise of the decadent bourgeois culture and the arts that were presented as ``innovation''. During the gradual destruction of the principles and the policy of socialist internationalism, the Right-wing revisionists, together with anti-socialist forces, put their hopes in enlivening a nationalist mood and developing feelings of national exclusiveness. By their policy they violated the international ties between Czechs and Slovaks, between one nationality and another living in Czechoslovakia; they also strove to rock the boat in regard to fraternal feelings towards socialist states, particularly the Soviet Union. The numerous petty-bourgeois sections of the population in town and country were first and foremost the class carrier and potential source of nationalist tendencies and positions. "These sections represented a formed political trend with old traditions, strong organisation and a clearly expressed petty-bourgeois ideology of nationalism, Masarykism and social-democratism which had deep roots in and penetrated the consciousness of a certain part of the working class."* Nationalism became the soil on which anti-Sovietism grew. It was able to implant itself among a considerable part of the petty bourgeoisie, particularly in towns, which until then had not fully freed itself from the ideological influence of Masarykism---an ideology with a typically anti-Marxist and anti-Soviet orientation. In some industrial centres, there were strong survivals of Social-Democratism and reformism tinged by anti-Sovietism. As 1968 showed, Right-wing Social-Democracy throughout the period of building socialism 480

in Czechoslovakia supported an illegal connection with foreign emigres and leaders of the Socialist International, * Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya..., p. 9. 35---2332 546 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 547 and in 1968 even created a network of underground agencies to govern their regional organisations. The anti-Soviet orientation of Right-wing revisionism found suitable soil particularly among part of the intellectuals, among writers, journalists, artists, editors, lecturers and those working in the arts. Various versions of the elite theory that had come to Czechoslovakia from the capitalist West found a ready response in the social and political atmosphere of personal dissatisfaction and excessive egoism of some intellectuals. The Right-wing and anti-socialist forces orientated themselves in their anti-Soviet attacks and propaganda on the younger generation, particularly students. They concentrated attention on that part of the youth which was not under the ideological influence of the working class because it had not participated directly in material production. It was at an age when it could not have gone through the fire of anti-fascist struggle and class confrontations during the early years of building socialism; it had no emotions for the Soviet Union as the liberator from fascism. The political educative work among young people, particularly students, had long been stagnant; young people had not been tempered politically or filled with revolutionary enthusiasm which is gained at socialist construction sites. A certain part of the Party members also allowed themselves to come under the influence of refined ideological subversion, particularly that using the regeneration of nationalism as the basis for anti-Sovietism. Until January 1970, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia had over 270,000 such members who, prior to 1945, had been members of bourgeois political parties where the ideological spirit had long been anti-Soviet and anti-communist. 481

The Right-wing leaders gradually seized the mass media, with which they were able to form and deform public opinion and disorientate the social and political activity of the people. Even before 1968, they occupied the most responsible ideological posts on the editorial boards of newspapers, magazines, artists unions, in the radio, television and newsreels studios, in some Party and state agencies and in public and scientific institutions. As soon as they felt, in the first weeks after January 1968, the ambiguity and opportunism in the policy of the Dubcek wing in the leadership of the Party and the state, they launched a consistent anti-Soviet campaign in all areas of public life that reached hysterical and mass psychosis proportions. "They used every possible means to frighten anyone who defended the principles of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, alliance with the USSR and our membership of the world socialist community, anyone who expressed disagreement with or opposed the rising wave of anti-socialist and anti-Soviet hysteria, demanding his expulsion from the life of our society.""" The attacks of the Right-wing and anti-socialist forces, which were expressed above all in the fanning of sentiments against the Soviet Union, came out into the open in 1968 in all areas of political life, science, culture, art and the home and foreign policy of the country. The assault in foreign policy was spearheaded against the alliance and friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist states. The Right-wing revisionists rejected the principles of socialist internationalism in foreign policy and the class approach to an analysis and resolution of problems of international relations. They tendentiously stressed the need for some form of ``own'' foreign policy which the then foreign minister Jifi Hajek tried to implement. Smrkovsky described the essence of this policy in a speech on May 11, 1968 in Pilsen; he said that it was primarily a policy distinguished from that which had been jointly worked out by the states of the socialist community. The foreign-policy ideas of the Right-wing revisionists were aimed at taking Czechoslovakia out of the Warsaw Treaty defensive alliance, as is evident from the document Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya. . ., p. 41. 35*

482

FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 549 548 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY of the former leadership of the Military Political Academy published in the first week after the counter-revolutionary policy document "2,000 Words". In this memorandum, the Right-wingers demanded that the security of the Czechoslovak state be guaranteed by neutrality of territory or a neutral policy and that the opportunity for self-defence be worked out exclusively by their own means.''''' This influential group of Right-wing revisionists proposed in the notes on the "Action Programme of the Czechoslovak National Army" that Czechoslovakia should leave the Warsaw Treaty. Similar attacks on the Warsaw Treaty were made by the former general Prhlik at a press conference to journalists from capitalist countries. At the same time, articles began to appear in the press, that was in the hands of the Right-wingers, advocating a renewal of the so-called Small Pact which, during the 1930s, had served the international bourgeoisie as part of a cordon sanitaire against the Soviet Union.** As a result of these anti-Soviet attacks and campaigns, which had occurred with the use of the mass media prised from Party control, a serious danger overhang Czechoslovakia's foreign political stability, socialist sovereignty and security; the country became a weak link in the socialist community, and this was fraught with far-reaching serious consequences for the whole socialist community, the international communist and revolutionary movement and the cause of peace in Europe. "The foreign policy of the Rightwing forces, which was a consequence of counter-revolutionary development in the Czechoslovak Communist Party, led not only to presenting a threat to the internal stability and security of the state and its sovereignty and peaceful conditions for the trouble-free labour of the people, but also to exposing the Western border of the socialist camp, whose firm bastion Czechoslovakia was supposed to be, standing as it was at the boundary of the socialist and capitalist systems in Europe. Consequently, the defence and maintenance of socialism in our country affected not only the direct interests of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and our own working people, but inevitably became the common cause of the socialist states, the fraternal parties of these countries 483

and the entire communist movement."* The anti-communist centres abroad, the anti-socialist forces and their Right-wing revisionist allies within Czechoslovakia had to reckon, however, in their plans for the ideological preparation for counter-revolution, with the fact that among a considerable number of working people there existed friendly and fraternal feelings for the Soviet Union. They had retained these feelings from the time of the anti-fascist struggle, the liberation of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Army and the building of socialism. So the enemies of socialism preferred more modern methods of anti-Soviet propaganda to the crude blind hatred, although the latter also had its place in their arsenal. In analysing the crisis in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic from the standpoint of rejecting the principles of socialist internationalism, one may note another typical feature of present-day anti-Sovietism: it unites the superficially opposing opportunist directions---Right-wing and ``Left''wing revisionism; revisionism and Maoism. In 1968, it became virtually the fashion in Czechoslovakia to ``tolerate'' the divisive, anti-Soviet policy of the Maoists. Some Rightwing theoreticians demanded that a "rational nucleus" should be sought in the Maoist ideology. It is hardly surprising that at the peak of anti-Soviet hysteria, the Prague newspaper Prdce appealed for help to Maoist China as an ally against the entry of the allied forces of the Warsaw Treaty. Neither can one ignore another typical feature of anti* M. Starosta, "Jak vznikl pozadavek neutrality?", Tribuna, August 20, 1969, p. 16; "Dva tisfcc slov", Literdrni listy, 1/18, June 27, 1968, pp. 1-3. ** J. Hanak, "Mala Dohoda---zdrava myslenka". Reporter, HI/30, July 24-31, 1968, pp. 24-25. Uroki krizisrwgo razvitiya. . ., p. 43. 550 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 551 Sovietism in Czechoslovakia during the crisis, viz., its connection with Zionism, this variety of militant nationalism 484

that is at the service of American imperialism. This connection was often manifest during the preparation of counterrevolution (for example, the journey of Gabriel Laub to Israel as the emissary of Eduard Goldstiicker in May 1968 for talks with representatives of the Israeli Government and the interview that Goldstiicker gave to the Israeli newspaper Yediot on the change in Czechoslovak foreign policy in regard to the Arab states). The centres of anti-Soviet propaganda abroad did not surrender after their political defeat in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but continued their activities. They are trying to adapt themselves to the new conditions, operate with more sophisticated methods, direct their efforts to attaining their long-term strategic and tactical goals in discrediting the principles of socialist internationalism. They are trying above all to use mistakes in the activities of certain Communist Parties and socialist countries. A prominent Sovietologist in West Germany, Klaus Mehnert, after the conclusion of the treaty between the Soviet Union and West Germany, recalled that despite the treaty, the West European centres of anti-Soviet propaganda would work with no less intensity. He was prepared to slightly change his tone, but the content, intensity and constant impact of anti-Soviet centres would not change even within the framework of peaceful coexistence; "just the opposite, the data of Sovietology must also be placed at the disposal of people in the communist world"* While the Right-wingers in the Communist Party leadership and the state played into the hands of anti-Soviet propaganda by their opportunist policy, the healthy forces of the working class and the Czechoslovak Communist Party--which suffered moral and physical terror from the anti-socialist forces with the connivance of the Dubcek wing---bravely withstood the attacks on the principles of socialist internationalism and defended the alliance with the Soviet Union and other socialist states. Nearly 11,000 activists of the People's Militia signed a letter to the Soviet people declaring their defence of the ideals for which blood had been spilt in the Slovak National Uprising, on Dukla and on the Prague barricades, the defence of the ideals of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of socialist internationalism/^^1^^" During the anti-Soviet campaigns launched by the mass media, 99 workers of the Prague factory Auto-Prague raised their voice in defence of allied contacts with the USSR. These courageous Communists and non-Party members wrote in a letter to the Soviet people: "As our Klement 485

Gottwald once said, we cherish our friendship with the Soviet Union like the apple of our eye and we declare that we shall not permit anyone to sully or slander our friendship with impunity, a friendship which has been sealed with our blood, we shall not permit anyone to do that, even if that person sits in the highest place. We know who is our friend, we know who is our ally, we know who will not betray us, to whom we can turn in our most difficult moment."""* On the occasion of the approaching twenty-fourth anniversary of the Slovak national uprising, 40 Slovak commanders of partisan battalions sent their greetings to their Soviet comrades-inarms with the pledge: "We are resolved to uphold the gains of socialism and to pass them on to the future generation with honour and dignity. We shall preserve the freedom bought at such a high price, the socially new and nationally just Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the alliance and friendship with the Soviet Union."*** This was a clear statement of the working class, Communists and non-Party members who, '<SUP>:</SUP>~ Fakta nelze zamlcet---Svedectvi lidi a dokumentu, I., Prague, 1971, pp. 141, 144. ** Ibid., p. 143. *** Ibid., p. 144. * K. Mehnert. " `Spielregeln' des ideologischen Kampfes?", Osteuropa, No. 5, May 1971, p. 290. 552 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY FAILURE OF REVISIONIST ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM 553 even in the difficult situation, remained true to the principles of socialist internationalism. After the accession to power, in April 1969, of a new, Marxist-Leninist leadership headed by Gustav Husak, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia regards as one of its most important tasks further to promote the fraternal ties of co-operation and friendship with the Soviet Union, with its Leninist Communist Party and with other socialist states and fraternal parties. The Fourteenth Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia expressed its profound gratitude to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to the Soviet Government, 486

to Leonid Brezhnev, and also to other socialist states because they in a difficult situation "understood the fears of the Czechoslovak Communists for the fate of socialism, heeded the requests of many Party and state officials, many Communists and groups of workers to offer assistance, because this international assistance to our country averted civil war and counter-revolution and, thereby, safeguarded the gains of socialism"."" A correct and principled Marxist-Leninist policy conducted by the new Party leadership has helped to reveal that the anti-Soviet propaganda spread during 1968 and 1969 by the mass media had not had any firm support in the minds of the Czechoslovak people. The working class and the collective farmers were virtually unaffected by the anti-Soviet propaganda. The most affected were the intermediate groups, part of the younger generation and of intellectuals. The revolutionary nucleus of the working class and the healthy forces of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were the main political force which purposefully guided, organised and directed the process of restoring the principles of socialist internationalism and fraternal ties with the Soviet Union and other socialist states---as they had been many times in the difficult periods of the Czechoslovak revolutionary working-class movement. The Fourteenth Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia noted that, thanks to the efforts of the Party and its Marxist-Leninist leadership, Czechoslovak-Soviet relations since April 1969 had gradually been restored and had reached a higher qualitative level. Now they are firmer than they have ever been and they are directed to fulfilling the vital tasks of socialist and communist construction. Czechoslovak working people regard the fraternal ties with the Soviet Union as the highest principle of foreign policy. This is served, too, by the new treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Soviet Union, signed in 1970, which is one of the most important international political documents of contemporary history and which will be consistently fulfilled for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries and of world socialism. The main lesson that the Czechoslovak working class learned during its revolutionary battles for socialism and national security has been formulated by Gustav Husak: "The whole course of history convinces us that close and comradely relations with Soviet Communists have always been a prerequisite for success in the fight of Czechoslovak Communists against capitalism, in the cause of building socialism. Any weakening of these relations has been to the detriment of 487

our Party and our people. We were again convinced of the veracity of this during the 1968-1969 crisis... ."* Fraternal attitude to the Soviet Union and its Leninist Communist Party is the cornerstone of socialist internationalism. It cannot be, therefore, circumscribed by conditions, it cannot tolerate only a ``partial'' agreement or an agreement with reservations. It is of decisive importance not only to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia but is a principle of the entire international communist and revolutionary move* XIV syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, p. 30. * XXIV syezd KPSS. Stenograficheskii otchot, Vol. I, Moscow, 1971, p. 261. 554 RIGHT-WING REVISIONISM TODAY merit, the basic criterion of a truly communist conviction of every individual person. Any retreat from the principles of socialist internationalism, any attempt or tendency to exaggerate national exclusiveness and to underestimate or play down the objective international revolutionary role of the Soviet Union and its Leninist Party inevitably open the way to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism which are a fertile soil for anti-Sovietism---the main ideological weapon of anti-communism. During the years of nazism, the German writer and antifascist, Thomas Mann, described anti-communism as "the greatest folly" of the age. Today, we subscribe to the words of the General Secretary of the French Communist Party Georges Marchais: "No matter in what form it appears or from whence it comes, anti-Sovietism is a crime against the interests of the working class and all peoples. We are fighting and we shall always fight against it in the most decisive way."* REQUEST TO READERS Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications. Please send all your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR. 488

* XXIV syezd KPSS. Stenograficheskii otchot, Vol. I, Moscow, 1971, p. 224. PROGRESS PUBLISHERS</b> PROGRESS PUBLISHERS</b> PUT OUT RECENTLY</b> WILL SOON PUBLISH</b> Progress. Theories and Critical Studies Series</b> Progress. Theories and Critical Studies Series</b> ARAB-OGLY E. In the Forecasters Maze. This book is written by a. well-known Soviet philosopher and publicist who takes a look at the concepts put forward by the representatives of modern futurology in the forefront of public attention---H. Kahn, A. Wiener, D. Bell, D. Meadows to name but a few. Arab-Ogly considers that one of the reasons giving rise to utopian theories in this modern age is the presence of unsurmountable obstacles to the solution of major social problems and, in particular, problems linked with the scientific and technological revolution and born of capitalism. Hence the arbitrary character of the basic premises used by various forecasters regardless of whether they belong to the optimist or pessimist camp. The basic contradictions inherent in contemporary utopianism are analysed in this book from a MarxistLeninist standpoint. SILIN M. A Critique of the Theoretical Concepts of Masarykism. This work by Doctor of Philosophy, Mikhail Silin analyses aspects of the ideological struggle in the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia. With reference to factual historical material Silin traces the underlying patterns of the gradual emergence and triumph of Marxism-Leninism in Czechoslovakia and the struggle of the Communist Party against bourgeois ideology, of which Masarykism was the dominant form for a long period in that country. 489

Silin brings the reader a profound and comprehensive critique of Thomas Masaryk's anti-Marxist conceptions, underlining their scientific inconsistency. Considerable space is devoted to the analysis of the Masaryk's theories in relation to the critical events of 1968-1969 in Czechoslovakia, and the reasons underlying the emergence of Masarykism and its adoption as the ideological banner of Right-wing," revisionist and anti-socialist forces in the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia. PROGRESS PUBLISHERS</b> PROGRESS PUBLISHERS</b> WILL SOON PUBLISH</b> WILL SOON PUBLISH</b> Progress. Theories and Critical Studies Series</b> Progress. The International Communist and Working-Class Movement Series</b> Anti-Communism Today. Politics and Ideology This book is the fruit of creative collaboration between writers from the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic aimed at providing a comprehensive study of modern anti-communism. It traces the evolution of the forms and methods of anti-communism, the ideology and overall political strategy of imperialism in its struggle against world socialism and the international labour and national liberation movements. The changes outlined are the result of the increasingly powerful onslaught of world revolutionary forces, the advancing of scientific and technological revolution and profound processes at work within state-monopoly capitalism. This historical survey is then followed up by a critical analysis of the theory and practice of all basic trends of anti-communism today. Theory and Practice of Proletarian Internationalism. This book put out by a team of writers from the Institute of Philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences, treats a wide range of topical issues connected 490

with proletarian internationalism as a unified ideology, policy and moral principles of the working class in relation to the national question. With reference to the experience amassed within the world socialist system, the impact of the general principles of proletarian internationalism in the concrete conditions of the socialist community is analysed and likewise the practical significance of the theory of proletarian internationalism for the policies of Communist and workers' parties. ERRATUM Page 230, line 6 from top should read: more than 30,000,000 people, its size has now grown to 3AK. 2332 </BODY> </HTML>

491