You are on page 1of 61


fxgblem s
of Socialist

Translated from the Russian b y - / ^ Riordan
r 6
« C V I3

Ha ons/tuiicKOM n3U,ne
Preface ............................................................................................. O'
I. Socialism and International R e la tio n s............................... 15
II. Historical Materialism and the Historical Inevitability of
Socialism ................................................................................. 21
III. Socialism:Essential andManifest F e a tu re s ........................... 39-
IV. More About Socialism andInternationalRelations 90

First printing 1974

® T » m l.U « n toto Enslish. Progress Publlskers 1974

pm ud » >»« V M - ol Soviet Soetollel ReveUle,

10504-000 6 6 -7 4
K 014(01) ^
We take our stand entirely on the
Marxist theoretical position: Marxism
■was the first to transform socialism
from a utopia into a science, to lay
a firm foundation for this science,
and to indicate the path that must be
followed in further developing and
elaborating it in all its parts.
(Collected W o rks, Vol. 4, p. 210)

There is no trace of an attempt on

Marx’s part to make up a utopia, to
indulge in idle guess-work about what
cannot be known. Marx treated the
question of communism in the same
way as a naturalist would treat the
question of the development of, say,
a new biological variety, once he
knew that it had originated in such
and such a way and was changing
in such and such a definite direction.
{Collected W orks, Vol. 25, p. 458)

It is easier for the reader than the author to judge a book’s

worth. He does not possess the emotional involvement
that inhibits him from rejectiitg the author’s long-nurtured
notions and applauding whati from the author’s viewpoint,
is inconsequential.
It is easy to say why the book was written. In an age of
rivalry between, two systems and ideologies many young
people have to make a paramount political choice. Some
may say that one’s choice is determined by the society and
milieu in which one lives, studies and works. There is an
' j
i element of truth in that, since we are all creatures of the
class or major social group to which we belong. Yet it does
not apply automatically to every individual.
It is hardly surprising in our complex age that some
people should lose their bearings and take the wrong road.
Social change occurs at a frenetic pace as mankind is in
transition from capitalism to socialism; moribund forces in
society vainly flaunt their synthetic wealth to stave off
inevitable change; they urge the public to join the “rat
race” and “keep up with the Joneses”; schools of petty-bour­
geois socialism proliferate, each as impotent as it is pre­
tentious; people’s frustrations mount because of the wide­
! spread ethic of “living for today’” at the same time as they
! have to perform boring, monotonous, repetitive and difficult
i• jobs; the amount of information has burgeoned and the man
in the street finds it hard to unravel the intricacies of modern
life; the rhythm of private and public life is all the while
embodiment in the revolutionary class struggle of the pro-'
It is impossible not to be involved in the turbulent letariat headed by Marxist-Leninist communist parties;
stream of sL ial and political affairs. To avoid being swept (c) a social system or system of social relations that arose
along with the tide one has consciously to face and resolve as a result of the overthrow of capitalism and private owner­
the harsh alternative; either to accept the ^ f.^ ship of the mehns of production and as a result of the imple­
vate enterprise and exploitation, or to opt for ^ e coHectav- mentation of class interests hy the industrial workers backed
S i c socialist system of labour with ^ rg^ ty-Jo evade the
in their struggle by all working people. Such a system first
<'hoire one risks tragic consequences and may find oneseli came to Russia and is associated with the name of Lenin,
ingfy iaying with .n IrtM ly dlaguiaed teacUonary the pupil and continuer of the traditions of Marx and Engels.
On the occasion of the Lenin- centenary, the Central
^^Particularly when they are dealing with an ardent yenng Committee o f ‘the Communist Party-of >the Soviet Union
audience these reactionaries are less inclined these day published the Theses which contained the following passage;
to make a direct assault on the new society. There are even “Socialism, turned by Marx and Engels from utopia into
times when they make a hig show concept’ science and enriched by Lenin with new conclusions and
though they hasten to qualify or mollify discoveries, has been embodied in social practice on a world­
A W i n g audience of well-meaning but not far-seeing
wide scale and has become the main revolutionary force of
socialist supporters may well accept this formula withou
realising that it is the bogus design of bourgeois politicians our time.”^
It is socialism in the above sense that forms the subject
S n g their “socialism” for counter-revolutionary purposes
rnatter of this monograph. Space has not 'permitted more
I firmly believe we have to counteract'the attempts J o n r than a brief exposition ‘of*some central themes. The author
e n e m S to distort socialism by expounding the exact and tecogPises’the heed systematically to study the vast mate­
authentic views of scientific rial -accumulated during socialist development and intel­
is iust forming his views on life should learn the principles lectual discussions in many countries. He hopes that the
of Scientific socialisih in the,ilanguage of its originators, in reader will not be deterred by the many quotations in­
the terms of classical Marxism. The more successfully w tended to popularise some of the lesser-known ideas of the
are able to combat false notions ^ gocSt founders of scientific communism.*
vigorously will the younger generation join the socialist Socialism has become the aim and philosophy of many
cause. millions of people and is spreading its influence throughout
the world. This widespread popularity is perfectly natural
* * *
but its corollary is frequently a superficial acquaintance
The word “socialism” generally designates three social with its theoretical principles. Any amount of harm may he
and has been done to the socialist cause by acceptance of
^^W ^S S ogical and political views on a just social system. just the form of Marxism and its terminology without any
In their initial utopian, state, these notions confined a profound appreciation of its creative and revolutionary
critique of exploitative societies, on the .one hand, and a content. Lenin many times criticised such a demonstrative
nebulous programme of an “ideal” human society, on the respect for Marxism without-a solid basis. In a reference to
other. Due to the contributions of Marx and E n p ls, these the liberal Narodnik Mikhailovsky, Lenin recalls the Les:
notions gradually gave a scientific socialist theory, ^ L en in 's Id e a s an d Cause A re I m m o r ta l, Moscow, p. 3".
(b) a s^ocial and political popular-liberation movement of \ ® This monograph is based on a paper presented in the autuinn of
classes and organisations pursuing avowed socialist aims 1966 to the International Relations Section of the World Socialist
tvhich have found their most consistent and successful Economy Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

he proclaimed in April 1917 were actually contrary to Marx.

sing verse ‘Wer w ird n ich t einen K lo p s t o c k loben? D ock w ird
The leaders of the Second International and the Russian
ihn ieden? N ein . W ir w ollen w eniger erhoben, u n d flessiger Mensheviks criticised the theory and practice of Bolshevism
gelesen sein"! He goes on; “Just so! Mr. Mikhailovsky should primarily because they alleged it ignored the economic and
praise Marx less and read him more diligently, or, better cultural backwardness of Russia, and the lack of the objec­
still, give more serious thought to what he is reading. tive prerequisites for socialism. They propounded the “theo­
Unfortunately, Mikhailovsky was not the last to merit ry of productive forces” according to which it was futile
such a reproach. It would seem from contemporary ideolog­ for the working class to try to seize power in countries
ical polemics that bourgeois .theoreticians are counting on which were far from reconstructing their economies in line
the gradual fading away of MarxistrLeninist philosophy; with large-scale machine production.
they either claim that its salient concepts..are outmoded or Such critics maintain that the approach applied by Le­
they revise them arbitrarily, justifying their Mtions by ninism is in complete contradiction to that of Marx and
demagogic references to modern science.- In his-book I h e Engels. Lenin and his followers were taken to task by such
L ife of L en in , the American writer Uouis Fischer asserts that
prominent Social-Democrats as Karl Kautsky who brand­
“words like ‘socialism’, ‘communism’ ... are empty bottle? ed the Bolsheviks as “dreamers”, conspirators and Blan-
into which one person pours poison and another wine; they quists who shut their eyes to reality, grossly exaggerated
are not scientific terms, nor< are they unchanging terms: the part played by a small band of ardent revolutionaries,
they change in time and space”.^ and gave priority to political and subjective factors over
Gustav Husak, First Secretary of the Central Committee economic and objective factors. The first Russian Marxist
of the Czechoslovak Cpmmunist Party, made reference te Georgi Plekhanov who at one time had been with the Bolshe­
such views in a speech in July 1969 in which he explained, viks "but then sided with the Mensheviks and social-chau­
how they had become a dangerous threat in Czechoslovakia. vinists, went as far as to ascribe “Nietzscheism” to Lenin
“Primarily we want to he clear in a Marxist way of where and his “supermen”.
we stand, what we are, what we want and what are our The controversy continued unabated between revolution­
political objectives. First of ^11 we must elucidate the situ­ aries and opportunists, a conciliatory wing of Marxism. But
ation within our Party. Some people have so, emasculated Lenin turned out to be absolutely correct.
the word that we do not know apy more what they mean by The deep-going roots of the validity of Lenin’s ideas can
‘socialism’. In their version it is some sort of social-democrat­ only be understood by explaining the essential difference
ic concoction of petty-bourgeois rejection of class attitudes, between the nationalistic approach of the Second Interna­
the creation of all manner of privileged groups, of a jour­ tional pedants and the Leninist stance which Lenin himself
nalistic or some other elite, a break with socialist states und called “truly internationalist”.
a negation of socialist internationalist principles and the This polemic is as relevant today as it was then. It rever­
leading role of the Party, e tc ”® berates in one form or another in all the theoretical debates
I would like to make the point in this preface that Lenin
did not “revise” the basic notipns of Marx. There are some of the present time.
people who maintain that 'Lenin’s contribution to Marxist
theory of socialist revolution and the socialist programme

^ V. I. Lenin, Collected^ Works, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.

2 L. Fischer, The ^Life-of L e n in , New York, 1964, p. 479.
3 G. Husak, Selected <A r t i c l e s a n d Speeches, P ra v d a Publishers,
Moscow, 1969, p. 190 (in Russian).

No social system owes as much to international relations

for its birth as socialism. Conversely, no other social system
has produced such radical changes in international relations.
The reason may be found in the Marxist-Leninist analysis of
the changing alignment of internal and international social
The fact is that the genesis of all former societies, includ­
ing the capitalist, took place within the framework of more
or less closed social structures. The English, American and
French bourgeois revolutions occurred in an environment of
hostility from their feudal, semi-feudal and even bourgeois
states. The internal progressive forces that were attempting
to transform social relations acted on the assumption that
conditions were ripe for revolution within a particular
country and that they could not seriously rely on assistance
from related social forces from other states. The revolution­
ary potential of classes in each country was national,
although not to the exclusion of certain international forces.
Nonetheless, any international influence was of minor
importance. This situation existed as long as mankind was
structured in the form of local societies, and as long as—
due to the lack of the vital economic prerequisite of a world
market—it could not consolidate itself into a world-wide
Capitalism, the first society to become a world-wide
system, differed from all previous societies in that its imma­
nent economic laws extended from in tern a l to in tern ation al
relations because of the world-wide division of labour and
wide-scale trade. The capitalist exploitation of the working
class and othdr sections of the working population within
16 R . K O SO L A PO V

each country was supplemented by imperialist exploita­ of profit in international economic relations, it is impossible
tion of backward peoples, developed capitalism, in also to provide any exhaustive |description of the conditions
bringing closer together nations that have already been necessary for the emergence of progressive social systems in
fully drawn into commercial intercourse, and causing them any one country by referring only to its internal economic,
to intermingle to an increasing degree, brings the antagon­ cultural and human resources. While a narrowly national
ism between internationally united capital and the interna­
treatment of revolutions sometimes led to major mistakes
tional working-class movement into the forefront.”^ when capitalism was emerging, it is simply absurd at a
The internal and international social relations came to time when capitalism is changing to socialism on a world
acquire a social homogeneity and became so intertwined scale. Considerations of revolutionary stiniggle on the basis
that the abolition of exploitation in one country was bound only of one’s own forces aro invalid, if only because they
to encroach upon exploitative relations throughout the have to rule out the >possibility of socialism being' built in
world. Lenin wrote that “from the point’of view of Marxism, countries where capitalism is weakly or only moderately
in discussing imperialism it i's_ absurd to restrict oneself developed; they also exclude the possibility of patriarchal
to conditions in one country alone, since all capitalist coun­ and feudal societies changing to socialism, bypassing capi­
tries are closely bound together”.^' talism, through an alliance of their progressive. leading
Having ensured that its avowed principles of profit had forces with socialist states. Such an approach would be tan­
universally penetrated all spheres of social relations, capi­ tamount to ignoring half a century of social development on
talism was faced with the prospect of any local reverse turn­ the basis of public ownership^ in-countries at very different
ing into a fact of in tern ation al importance. Any victim levels of social and economic development On the Euro­
of capital who tries to escdpe the web of capitalist exploit­ pean, Asian and American continents, and. the experience
ative relations and imperialist' dependence is now unable to of hundreds of millions of people.
break the web without causing shock waves and damage in In order to understand the whole significance of the new
many other places. correlation of internal and international relations, let us
The revolutionary possibilities confronting the working look more closely at the history of Leninism.
class, the peasants, the middle class, the intellectuals and We have already seen that the main bone of contention
national-democratic forces in each country, and the content,
scale and tempo of social change in a country have become between the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and the leaders of the
in tern a tio n a l factors. Any revolutionary success of any
Second- International on the possibility- of socialist revolu­
people, therefore, immediately has an international reso­ tion was-the recognition by the former, and the rejection by
nance and shakes the systefn of internal and international the latter of the possibility of a socialist revolution being
relations, while, at the same time, the revolutionary poten­ implemented by the Russian working class—which consti­
tuted a minority of the population. The Russian Menshe­
tial of individual countries ineluctably links up with the viks interpreted Marx dogmatically, and continually reit­
revolutionary potential of other peoples, and the power of
example of the world socialist 'system multiplies it mani­ erated that Russia was not industrial and cultural enough
fold. to commence at once the transition to sopialism. Lenin,
Just as it is impossible to imagine the highest stage of certainly, did not ignore the social and economic backward­
capitalism by describing only the production of surplus ness of Russia; he admitted that large-scale production was
value within individual states and by ignoring the sources the only, possible material, basis o£ socialism. Moreover,
he stated quite categorically that nobody could consider
himself a Communist if he forgot this. Marxist axiom.J
^ V. I. Lenin, C ollected W orks, Vol. 20, p. 401.
2 Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 238.
^ See V. I. h&„ Collected. W orks, Vol. 32, p.,408. .



Where then is the crux of the controversy with the Men­ The merging of the roles of internal and international
sheviks? Where is the new factor which gave the Bolsheviks relations in the affairs of every nation is particularly evident
reason to believe that they could break out of the imperi­ today. While, in the 1950s, imperialism still had the power
alist system and begin building socialism in a country to export counter-revolution and thereby to reduce or even
that was not a developed capitalist system? It was not only nullify (as happened in Guatemala) the chances of victorious
a matter of the tremendous power, scope and organisation of revolutions in small states, this power is now largely para­
the working-class movement, the presence of a Marxist- lysed—as events showed in Hungary and Egypt in 1956,
Leninist party, an alliance of the working class and the poor and in Cuba and Czechoslovakia during the 1960s. This
peasants, and other subjective and political factors. With­ applies both to attempts at military intervention and to
out a doubt, they were important. But where is that vital economic sanctions and blockades, and to attempts at erod­
and fundamental principle—those forces of production ing the socialist awareness' of nations. When it is united,
which enabled them to begin the transition to a new social the socialist camp is able not only to balk the export of
system? counter-revolution, but to compensate for losses incurred
They exist, Lenin maintained, but it is not absolutely by the rupture in traditional economic ties, to proffer the
necessary that they should a ll be present at a given moment necessary technical, economic and cultural aid, and to
in a country making the transition to socialism. Of course, exchange social experience.
that country must have a certain minimum development of Furthermore, even the minimum of capitalist develop­
capitalism. The fusion of in tern a l w ith in tern ation al relations ment which was necessary, for .example, for Russia is no
in the im p eria list era changes the approach to the socialist longer required for the transition to socialism. Many peoples
possib ilities for people in revolt. who lag by one or two formations can compensate for that by
In December 1921, Lenin said: “Since large-scale industry a strict and consistent reliance on a union with states in
exists on a world scale, thete can be no doubt that a direct the world socialist community. The new type of internation­
transition to socialism is possible—and nobody will deny al relations enable some nations to obviate entire systems
this fact.... And if, owing to the backwardness with which we of internal exploitative social relations, which have already
came to the revolution, we have not reached the industrial been replaced in several states by relations of co-operation
development we need, are we going to give up, are we going and mutual assistance. As a vehicle for the most advanced
to despair? No. We shall get on with the hard work because forms of social organisation, these international relations
the path that we have taken is the right one.”^ The success are becoming an enzyme of social progress. L. I. Brezhnev
of socialist changes within national frontiers may in the said that if one looks at the difficulties of building a new
in itia l perio d be guaranteed by the condition of world­ society “by themselves, isolated from the international situ­
wide productive, forces.. ation, they may well appear insurmountable. Today, how­
This being so, countries with lower industrial and techno­ ever, the birth and the victory of socialist revolution are
logical levels than advanced capitalist states can today taking place at a time when socialism has become the domi­
create relatively high forms of. social and political organisa­ nant trend in human development.’”-
tion which may be put completely at the service of the By virtue of these circumstances, Marxist sociology now
working man. Every nation building socialism has to con­ takes a new “systems” approach which is based on account
solidate this achievement by creating a fter the revolution a for the possible integration of social relations inside a country
higher productivity and greater scientific and technological and the in tern ation al relations in which the country par­
potential than capitalism.’ takes. The contemporary epoch demands such an addition to

1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 160. ^ Pravda, June 28, 1972.
20 II
the existing methods of historical and materialist analysis; HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND THE
due account must be taken in .all world events of the rivalry HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM
of the two systems—socialism and capitalism. .It is an essen­
tial task of Marxist-Leninist social science to recognise and
to study this “systems principle” and to define the param­
eters of its application. f‘ .
The communist social andi economic system takes shape
in relations between individual states as well as within
them. The ultimate .outcome of this process is a social
uniformity of national and international ties^ of external
and internal social traits, their organic fusion and the con­
solidation of socialist spcieties” into a communist common­
wealth which Marx called “socialised mankind”. Among students of socialist society, thepe are those'who
We shall see how these preliminary observations facilinte believe that the self-sufficing principle of their studies is the
an-understanding of problems of socialist theory. . fight against what seems .to them a one-sided approach. T,hey
In the course of what follows we shall deal with principles are fond of talking of socialism as a great variety of fedture?
-and analytical methods that fully conform to Marxist- and. they.prefer a multi-factpr analysis in which they them­
selves often,become confused. The impatience and intoler­
Leninist methodology and, at the same time, by no means ance whicH they sometimes.display are all the sadder when
aspire to be unique or exclusive. Given the limited aim
which the author has set himself in this work, ^hese prin­ they proclaim themselves to be the only .consistent Marxists-
Leninists and,angrily attaqk all and s.undry whom they
ciples and methods may be taken as satisfactory. consider, to be dogmatic.
Partly by contrast and partly by coincidence, the words
come to mind of the French seventeenth-century philosopher Marxism-Leninism strives for the fullest possible knowledge
Rene Descartes: “The true sPrinciplesI‘by which one may of social reality. That does not prevent, however, fighting
arrive at the highest degree of Wisdom and in which con­ against eclecticism, a variety of metaphysics masquerading
sists the sovereign well-being»of human life, are those which as dialectics. It is characteristic of Marxism-Leninism that
I have put in this Book; -And two alone are sufficient for the determining fiactor in its historical study is precisely
the same in real history. This factor is labour —which pro­
that, of which the first is- that they phould be very clear; duces material, and spiritual, blessings—the operation of
and the second is that one can deduce from them everything the productive forces. Since, therefore, the genuine prin­
else; for there are only these* two conditions which should ciple has been shown, it is not difficult to observe the contin-
be required.”^ i * . * uation» having established step by stej) the entire hierarchy
’ Mankind has in the. last ..third, of the twentieth century of social phenomena. At the Eighth Congress of the Russian
come a long way from the naive self-assurance of the Carte­ Communist Party, Lenin said: “)Ve educated the party of
sians who at one time* represented a progressive trend in the proletariat with thp aid of the Marxist programme, and
the fight against papist obscurantism;, but time has not the tens of millions of working people in our country must
changed, the basic, principles*. Moreover, even if we are be educated in the same way. We have assembled here as
considering a granden ultimate jobjective there is no need ideological leaders and we must say to the people: ‘We edu­
for principles other than the tw a conditions named by Des­ cated the proletariat, and in doing so we always took our.
cartes at the present level, of, l^nowledge. stand first and foremost on an exact economic analysis’.”^.
^ R. Descartes, L es p rin c ip e s de la p h ilosoph ie, Paris, 1898, p. 25. ^ V. I. Lenin, C ollected W orks, Vol. 29, p. 192.

A scholar who takes this path is naturally not infallihle; i.e., they are inseparable either in empirical activity or in
he may err because of his subjective limitations, hasty people’s minds.
judgement, or because of the limitations of contemporary If we designate a person by the letter P , the means (or
knowledge. These mistakes, are, however, of a special kind tools) of work by the letter M , the object of labour by the
which sooner or later can and will he put right. letter 0 , then the technological connection between these
elements is invariably:
* * 4>
p - ^ M —^0
Let us try the following intellectual experiment. J f we
base ourselves on the unquestionable premise that socialism A person places between himself and the object of his
is the last link in the development of a given stage of histo­ work an article or a group of articles (the means of his work)
ry and, at the same time, the negation of previous social as a vehicle for his action in realtion to that object.^
and economic systems,^ we shall discover how formations In regard to the economic connection, it naturally takes
essentially differ from one another and how they link together the person as its starting and finishing point, and may be
into a continuous chain. expressed as follows:
The most widely used criterion of difference in systems is
the nature of economic relations, above all relations of
ownership and ways of appropriating the means of produc­ If we combine the two formulae we have:
tion. The first question that springs to mind is; how does
the working man connect his labour power to the means
and objects of his labour?
The idea that the technological process, the process of (The arrows represent the direction of labour effort, and
production and labour itself cannot occur otherwise than the lines—possession of the means of production.)
by combining the working hands of a person possessing a This triangle which, in a very general way, is valid for
certain level of knowledge and experience with working all epochs, is in fact broken due to progress in the division
tools and raw materials is sufficiently popular to require any of labour and to the class division of society. When the
special proof. Incidentally, in the period between the de­ possibility of accumulation occurs within primitive society,
cline of primitive society and the socialist revolution, the it leads to gross economic inequality and relations of depen­
direct producers (are predominantly not the owners of the dence which in their first clear-cut form have a slave-owning
means of production which they apply during their work. character. A person (P) becomes either a slave (S) or a slave­
The technological combination of labour power and physical owner (So). In the new arrangement the direct worker
elements of production is a universal and eternal phenome­ (slave) is not only deprived of ownership, he is himself the
non, hut there may or may not be an economic combination property of someone else (a “talking implement”) along
and’ it continually changes its form. with the cattle and other implements. He does pot belong to
In primitive society, the technological combination of himself like any other material object. His master combines
labour power and means of production coincides with the in his hands S , M and 0:
economic factors. The latter is just as direct as the former.
1 Marx wrote that “the entire movement of history is, thpefore, So s
both its actu a l act of genesis (the hirth act of ... empirical existence)
and also for its thinking consciousness the com prehended and know n
process of its com ing-to-be". (K. M a.rx,^'Econom ic a n d P h ilosoph ic 1 See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1972, pp. 174-75.
M a n u scrip ts of 1 8 4 4 , Moscow, 1961, p. 102).

The combination 6f the personal with the m&terial element formulae we already know are're'peated: first, partly slave­
of production becomes indirect rather than direct (through owning: , ■ , . ■ • . •
the owner o f both)-. Labour acquires an undisguisedly coer­ F ^ -T -7 P e . . ,
cive character and is'subordinate to the arbitrary rule of
someone who himself does hot work.'
Alongside this form the disintegration of primitive groups second, the formula for the" small private-production which
engenders individual labour in small private (family) farms is, in elementary abstraction, a non-corvee farming of the
which, in a microscopic form, repeats the same formula but serf:
ha§ a different future. Instead'’of P in the clkn or tribe *we
now have P as an indiyiduai owher earning hi^ bread at his
own risk: ‘
The existence of a worker free frofih personal dependence and'
from the means, of production was the prerequisite for the
capitalist mode of production. Thus we have the capitalist
A major distinguishing feature of the serf economy in its (C), the owner of M (means of .labour) and 0 .(objects o‘f
“classical” form is that the property of the feudal lords was labour):
primarily land—the major .object,of labour in agriculture.
The enserfment of husbandpien could occur in various ways,
but what they all had in comnion was that a person was al­
ways regarded as an appendage of the land on which he lived Here.we have.reproduced the direct unification of the produc-
and managed his -farm. By acquiring the land one acquired er-with the •means of production, with the exception of one
a worker. ,' -, • • • thing—implementation .of the technological process., For
. The feudal lord {F) needed not.simply land, but land that this to happen we need the free labour power that is available
was worked and bringing him an income. This .was only on the market. The proletarian, owner of his hands and
possible by allowing the husbandman a cert?iin minimum of brains, here stands opposed to the owner of M and O.-The
farming independence.- The labour po-^^er of -, the peasaqt capitalist has to jbuy them for-production to commence. From
{Pe), as opposed to the. slave, was not fully appropriated-by time to time the proletarian (Pr) has to- renew their sale so
the feudal lord or squire; Owners'hip ef ,ther -v^orker wns not as to have a minimum of means of existence:
absolute both because it -was qnforced indirectly, througTi.
owning the land, and b.ecause many peasant means-of labour
were also- outside the 'direqt qjvpe^hip of the squire. This
was an indicator of the bifurcation of serf farming which,
once it had developed, brought,about its own disintegration.,
Thistcorinection takes the following form: Although the proletarian, befng formally free and indepen­
dent of a given single capitalist, sells his ability to work
only for .a period without selling his -qierson to anyone, he
is nonetheless bound by the chain of economic dependence
to the capitalist class as' a whole. Here lies the hon-coin-
(The dotted line signifies the incomplete ownership of the cidence and striking similarity of the position of the hired
peasant by the squire through land and, in turn, by the worker and that of the slave. Marx put it as follows: “The
peasanf of land through-the sqnire.) Thq, features of the two slave belongs to a certain master; the wprker'must, it is

true, sell himself to capital, but not to a definite capitalist, and a loss of clear understanding of the oppositeness of the
and thus within a certain sphere he may choose to whom he class interest of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The
will sell himself and may change his masters. All these state of being bound to the capitalist class as a whole is
changed relations make the activity of a free worker more in­ reinforced by the semi-voluntary establishment of personal
tensive, more continuous, more mobile and more skilful than dependence on large shareholders. The similarity with pre­
the activity of a slave, not to mention the fact that they vious antagonistic societies increases if we also consider
make him the most capable of fulfilling another historic the growing possibilities which tie the worker to his workplace.
role.”i All this means that in many, cases a worker sells his labour
Any comparison of capitalism with slave society is some­ power to a given company for an indefinite period.
times taken as a purely propagandist exercise. It is unlike­ On the basis of the postulated principles of analysis and
ly that the people who suffe'red at the hands of the nazis referring further to socialism and communism, one may
will soon forget, however, the regeneration of a system say that the following direct connection between the worker
of forced and inhuman labour; they include the hundreds of and the means of production is typical:
thousands of deported French, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Rus­
sians and Ukrainians. The preservation of slave labour in
former and existing colonies is also well known.
It may be objected that these examples are uncharacter­ This formula, however, applies to primitive-communal
istic of developed capitalist states. And this is true. These society, to private individual economy and to both phases
countries have considerably surpassed many others both in of communist society. We find ourselves in a methodological
their level of production and culture and in the material impasse, insofar as we are faced with only inoperable abstract
welfare of the employed population. At the same time, formulae. It is clear that their specific usefulness can only
even the privileged workers who own shares in capitalist be found with a different approach.
firms, nonetheless, retain the status of hired slaves. If we place together all the formulae so far constructed we
The last statement naturally appears patadoxical. It have the following picture:
lumps together disenfranchised people, those living below
subsistence level and the shareholders. But there is a simple
explanation of the paradox. First, the class status of these
workers does not change qualitatively; the dividend which
they receive as shareholders serves only to supplement their
wages and does not obviate the need for them to sell their
labour power. Second, having begun to receive albeit a
small income, the worker is gripped by the false conscious­
ness that he is the “boss” of the enterprise and is, therefore,
less likely to cause trouble; he is more likely to come to We now have a group whose separate elements seem to
terms with the entrepreneurs and is markedly more pliant. have various types of interrelations. History seems to be
Third, the worker improves- his attitude to work. Fourth, playing a game with all manner of permutations of the same
he associates his personal plftns with the fate of the enter­ subjects within the bounds determined by their properties.
prise. All this results fin an erosion of class-consciousness Why in a given period should one permutation be played
and not another? We have no answer to that question. Con­
^ K. Marx, F. Engels, A rch ives, Vol. II (VII), Moscow, 1933,
sequently, an objective justification for the whole historical
p. 115 (in Russian). development jis feeble. In other words, it does not seem to
use the expression, all the trump' cards, and' the consolida­
be a natural historical process. It is’, in particular, incom­ tion of socialism will be assured.
prehensible why mankind should lose the formula “In the first place, econom ically, state capitalism is immea­
surably superior to our present economic system.
“In the second plafce, there is nothing terrible in it for
Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the
although it. w ill eventually return to it m communist soci- power of the workers and 'the poor is assured.”^
ptv Our intellectual experiment is obviously limi For a relatively long time in reiterating Lenin’s critical
remarks in relation to Kautsky’s “theory of productive
forces”, some experts on socialist theory, nonetheless,
gation. avoided applying the criteria of the state of the productive
* * *
forces in e'valuating the level of development of socialist so­
Let ue return to iietory At the ^ ^ ciety. No one doubted that industry and, above all,, heavy
industry was the main root of socialism. Yet they did not
systematically and consistently define all the consequences
of its development, its influence on the most diverse sec­
™uey by the New EcoLmic policy; he said that all J ie ^ tors of social relations—from technology to consumer ser­
ton s to this new policy nltimately came down to a single vices, nor did they undertake to deduce from this the trends
in the evolution of the social and political structure of society,
'‘“S ^ C w l l l gain most by tb is-th e petty bomgeoWe, in the forms of management and democracy, or establish
the degree of the proximity of Soviet society to communism.
The Russian Revolution of October 1917 ■discredited
politically the demand (in relation to ^le beginning of
the socialist revolution) for a maximum level of the pro­
ductive forces which, according to Kautsky, prevented the
proletariat of all countries (where the level had not yet
been reached) from taking power into its own hands. It did
‘T ^ % p U n g Lenin sometimes put fomard not iruply a rejection of the Marxist principle that both
evolution and revolution were ultimately dragooued into

srpT^srrnd»jHlS M existence by the development of the technology of produc­

tion. This principle operates with particular force as the
revolution continues: as socialism is being built and as
the new system matures, when, according to Lenin, politics
begin to take a subordinate position in relation to economics.
ills While Lenin could refer to pre-revolutionary Russia as
a country in which “we can do nothing without a certain
level of capitalism”,^ he referred to post-revolutionary Rus­
sia in terms of the need to„create a productive potential
al »ale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, li 1 may 1 Ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 338-39.
2 L e n in M i s c e lla n y X I , Moscow-Leningrad, 1929, -p. 397 (in
Russian). . ’ ,
1 V. I. Lenin, Collected W orks, Vol. 32, p. 235.
according to the latest scientific methods, that was capable It is principally wrong not to differentiate between Marx
of ^curing a level of productivity higher than and his teachings on the one hand, and previous socialists
^ T finin thought that the maximum which Kautsky and their views on the other, to which Lenin referred in his
capitalism ^emn revolution could he attained criticism of “the subjective sociology” of the Narodniks.
S S l e ' n t powe“ i; S S , had limited iteelf to the minl- Pre-Marxian socialists considered it sufficient to indicate
the oppression of the people in an exploiting system and the
” l ” n ? r m o t e S i U s \ S n S w for the huilding of superiority of a system in which each person would appro­
socialism But why could we not first create such prereq- priate the products of his labour and which would correspond
u S s “ f'civilisation in our country as the e/P^l^ion o to human nature, the ideal of sensible and moral life. Lenin
Sie landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start wrote: “Marx found it impossible to content himself with
such a socialism.... In just the same way he did not find it
” I S u t ^ e r e f o l c iw r e is required for the building possible to content himself with asserting that only the
socialist system harmonises with human nature, as was
?M:uCe?t tril M e S ‘“st'Sl claimed by the great utopian socialists and by their wretched
imitators, the subjective sociologists. By this same objective
P ,^ ° S H e 7 lA X C lT e v d analysis of the capitalist system, he proved the necessity
f r 7 MV i “ t o , with the aid of the workers’ and peas­ of its transformation into the socialist system”.^
ants' goiernment and the Soviet system, proceed to over- The hypothesis of historical development expounded] by
Marx in C a p ita l “for the first time made a scientific soci­
“ s i™ S r s “ aM °iLlined to hasten to the conclusion ology possible”, because “only the reduction of social rela­
that Lenin departed both from Marxism and ^^om his own tions to production relations and of the latter to the level of
earlier ideas of socialism as a system which, having ^c^troyed the productive forces, provided a firm basis for the concep­
t^ rfo rm e r exploiting productive relations, should retain tion that the development of formations of society is a pro­
S : S a n i T o ” orynised l"rge-scale c a p i t a l cess of natural history.”* Marx explained the structure and
production. It is nothing more ^han the reaction of th development of the capitalist system “exclusively by rela­
^i<?am)earing small-scale producer and the intellectual, tions of production” and, at the same time, traced the super-
structural phenomena corresponding to them. The results of
ofterunaw fre through his anarchism P f H'ea''S^“co- Marx’s analysis turned historical materialism from a hy­
mind to ascribe to Lenin simultaneously the idea ot co
operative” and “market” socialism (usually associated with pothesis into a “scientifically tested theory”.
Diilirinsr^ and Gconomic pluralism. ^ For Lenin “it is quite natural that the necessity for such
One or another specific aspect in its emergence is given a method extends to other social formations, even though
out as th e eternal truth of Lenin’s concept of socialist society. they have not been subjected to special factual investiga­
Thev usually try to ascribe to the essence of socialism w tion and detailed analysis—just as the idea of transformism,
Ic tu a lirb e lo n S to a merely transitional and far from which has been proved in relation to quite a large number
S S e r form For example, they refer to periods when it of facts, is extended to the whole realm of biology, even
completes resolving tasks which were left over froin though it has not yet been possible to establish with preci­
capitalist epoch. One sees here the mark of narrow-minded sion the fact of their transformation for certain species of
empiricism which likes to parade its limitations as something animals and plants. And just as transformism does not at
1 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 157-58.
1 V. I. Lenin, Collected W orks, Vol. 33, pp. 480, 478-79. “ Ibid., pp. 140-41.

all claim to explain the ‘whole’ history of the formation instruments of labour, although existing in the germ among
of species, but only to place the methods of this explana­ certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of
tion on a scientific basis, so • materialism in history has the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines
never claimed to explain everything, but merely to ind­ man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments
icate’the ‘only scientific’, to use Marx’s expression {C apital), of labour possess the same importance for the investigation
method of explaining history.”^ of extinct economic forms of Society, as do fossil bones
For the purposes of our exposition, the idea of “fransform- for the determination of extinct- species of animals. It is
ism” in history is particularly valuable. If we add it to not the articles made, but hdw they are made, and by
the process of socialist construction in conditions of “the what instruments, that enables us to distinguish different
reduction of social relations to production relations, and economic epochs. Instruments of labour not only supply a
of the latter to the level of the prod.uCtiv& forces”*, we have standard of the degree of development to which human
the only realistic, true and specific concept of the stages labour has attained*, but they are also indicators of the
of' development of socialist society' as a social; organism. social conditiqns tinder which that labour is carried on;
This idea has already been tried sufficiently in .regard to Among the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical
bourgeois society and it is expressed in the idea of the nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone
primitive accumulation of capital, of the manufacture and the and muscles of production, offer much more decided
industrial, the pre-monopoly and monopoly stages of capi­ characteristics of a given epoch of production, than
talist production, of state-monopoly capitalism. It. is now those which, like pipes, tubs,' baskets, jars, &c., serve only
to hold the, materials for labour, which latter class, we may
the turn of socialism.* >
in a general way, call the vascular system' of production.
A few decades of development of the new system, provide
enough material to see historical development of socialist The latter first begins to play an important part in the chem­
ical industries.”^ '
society over a perio d of tim e aS a chpiJi of social structures
H a vin g talfen as our sta rtin g p o in t “the bone and muscle
which grow out of one another and are constantly improving
on the single basis of collective ownership and working class of production”, we cannot begin our analysis without
power; or, to put it another way, as the eihergence of a sin­ having first decided how and in w h at facets the various means
gle organism that is progressing by stages from being a child, of labour will be manifest. The lack of an answer to that
a'sibling and a youth. Within the'iframework of the world question has prevented a number of writers from crossing
socialist system this process may be observed, at’ one and the bridge from technology? to social relations, and has
the same time in the socialist, societies that, exist! alongside made, in their eyes, the thesis concerning the primacy of
one another and co-operate with one another;, they differ the development of the forces of production in the social
both in profoundly national characteristics and in the, level process as some sort of inexplicable divine “spark of life”.
of historical development, passing, thrm^h! different, stages The consetjuent conclusion.that social relations are divorced
in building the new society ahd representing different degrees from their prime material, basis is a major, although
remote, pre-condition for making* subjectivist errors.
of approach to communism'. From a purely practical point, of view, even from a com­
Before we apply the only existing scientific way, olexplain­
ing history, according to Marx and Lenfn, it is appropriate mon-sense viewpoint, which here coincides with science,
to recall -the manner in which Marx formiilated his subject. the means or the tool of labour is significant for human beings
in three respects:
In C a p ita l Marx wrote that “the use and fabrication of

1 Lenin, Collected W o rks, Vol. 1, p. 146. ^ K. Marx, C a p i ta l , Vol. I, Moscow, 1972, pp. 175-76.
® Ibid., pp. 140-41. 3 -0 1 2 9 0

F irst, in the sense of the nature of its application, the of labour. Such a classification has several impottant char-
conditions of a purely professional manipulation of it by ■acteristics.
whoever implements the labour process. On this basis One characteristic is that there is only a semblance of
tools may be divided into two categories—tools of in d ivid ­ coincidence with the previous classification of tools accord­
u al use and tools of collective use. The first category, wheth­ ing to nature of use. Tools of individual use made of stone,
er they he an axe, a chisel, a hammer, a bow, a hoe or a bone or wood were so unproductive that they were oriiy
spade, presupposes by purely external and physical prop­ effective when people came together in large groups. If we
erties the possibility of adding to them the labour power put aside the mystification arid romantic descriptions about
of a single person; this is a tool of m anual labour which the primitive group, its power was based on the weakness of
predominates at the premachine stages of production. Here individuals and families that had at their disposal only
lies the principal reason for the disassociation of working primitive means of labour. The transition to the smelting
men from the very beginning in the technological process. o'f metals—first bronze and then iron—and to their use as
The prevalence of such tools and types of activity associated the basic material of tools undermined the foundations
with them bears witness to the low development of the divi­ of the communal life and paved the way for its Inevitable
sion of labour in society and the isolation of individual pro­ demise. Metal tools remained tools of individual use and,
ducers. at the same time, guaranteed higher productivity and extend­
Tools of collective use are a sure sign that direct muscle ed the limits of individual talents. That is why they were
effort is being replaced by the power of domesticated ani­ able to serve as the basis of an individual rather than a col­
mals and controlled natural forces (water, wind, steam and lective organisation of labour.
electricity) and, depending on progress in discovering and The second characteristic of the above-mentioned classi­
mastering power sources, gradually do away with manual fication is that only a group of ’tools whose productivity
labour. From the very simple forms, like the battering makes it possible to have an economy separate from thd
machine, to up-to-date automatic flow lines, these tools commune’ is more or less similar. A small farmer, husband­
are links connecting individuals with the single technolo­ man or artisan constitutes very stable types of producers
gical process. whose economy has existed for thousands of years—from
The part they play is most -manifest in industrial pro­ the slave-owning system to socialism. Meanwhile, the class
duction which is taking shape' under the influence of the of means of labour which presuppose its collective organisa­
scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth tion, in turn, consists bf two subclasses: collective organisa­
century. tion arises first on the basis of extremely unproductive
Secondly, the tools of labour differ from one another primitive tools, and the second time is reinforced on the
according to their productivity which is objectively deter­ basis of highly productive machine production using mddern
mined by their properties. No matter how skilful a crafts­ technology. A similar organisation on diametrically opposed
man may be who applies them, the limits to his potential foundations! A negation of the negation, 'brit without a
are always set by the technology applied. From this view­ repetition of the form.
point tools once again can either strictly determine the need T h ird ly , the tools of labour may be sribdivided according
for common activity and thb joining together of people in to how the worker is- associated with them. If he partici­
clans, or permit labour in isolation and the possibility pates on an equal footing with other workers in the owner­
of a person securing the means of existence outside the ship of the means of production, we have tools of collective'
organised group and from an individual economy. On that possession, direct appropriation by a labour association of
basis all means of labour, naturally, fall into those requir­ the means, objects and ptoducts of labour. On the other
ing a collective organisation of labour and in d iv id u a l means hand, if one individual is the owner and another is the woCk-
SB h. itoSoLAt>6V-

er, we have private or individual appropriation and the The same formula retains its validity in the feudal econ­
worker’s association with means of labour which cannot be omy. Apart from corvee labour on manorial lands, however,
but direct in the technological process is indirect in the the peasant appears to be virtually free on his own land,
economic sense. We, therefore, have two basic classes rela­ according to the formula: / —/ —/ , so that overall the for­
tively indifferent to other properties of the tools. It is true
that at first glance the harmony of this classification is mula of feudalism consists of two halves: ( /—C—/)-
{ I —I —I ) , and this duality, as we have mentioned already,
spoilt because there exists a small individual economy in destroys it.
which the owner works himself with his family without Capitalism is the forerunner of a new system that is basi­
taking on other labour power. In this situation, however, it
is clear that the status of the h?ad of the family and that of cally different. This is apparent because for the first tim e
in history it secures the mass reconstruction of social labour on
its members are different in regard to their, economic connec­
a m achine fou n dation —on the basis of tools th a t p e rm it only
tion with the means of production; this form- of produc­ collective use.
tion, therefore, historically has a tendency towards becoming
a capitalist form, that is to become the second of the above- It is precisely under capitalism that the contradiction is
glaringly apparent between the collectively exploited means
mentioned groups. of labour ’and its collective organisation, on the one hand,
A fleeting acquaintance with the principles of the classi­ and the individual appropriation of the means of objects
fication of “bone and muscle production” may .produce mere­ of labour and its results, on the other (C — C —I).
ly confusion and judgements about the poverty of the In The German Ideology Marx and Engels wrote that “our
abstractions at which we have arrived. But one sljould not investigation hitherto started from the instruments of pro-
make hasty fina). conclusions. The general abstract concepts . duction, and it has already shown that private property
are rather like standard constructions from which we may was a necessity for certain industrial stages. In Industrie
produce diverse combinations. ‘ extractive private property still coincides' with labour;
If we turn to the sources of human history, we, find there, 1 in small industry and all agriculture up till now property,
labour that is individual (/) by the nature of the utilisa­ j is the necessary consequence of the existing -instruments of
tion of tools, collective (or common) due to low productiv­ production; in big industry the contradiction between the
ity (C) and collective by the nature of appropriation (C).- Instrument of production and private property appears for
The formula for primitive society I — C — C is inherently the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover,
contradictory in that co llectivity is ,n ot being stim u la ted by big industry must be highly developed to produce this
the collective nature of the technological process and, as expe­
contradiction. And thus only with big industry does the
rience shows, is in evita b ly destined to fade aw ay.
Its decomposition may take two forms. The first lead§ abolition of private property become possible.”^ This gives
to the organisation of labour and a form of ownership in I us the formula C —C —C. In other words, once collectivity
i 'begins to perm eate the technological a p p lica tio n of m eans of
accordance with the individual nature of the use of tools; I labour , a ll the m eans of production should become common prop-
this produces a small owner to whom we have already re­
I erty. That dynamic law is just as necessary as the progress
ferred several times: I —I —I . of technology and cognition which inevitably prepares the
The second belongs to the slave-owning economy which way for the communist future.
invariably follows from the commune, and which has an Now we have the following formulae (the symbols are
individual method of using tools, and a collective orga­ presented vertically):
nisation of labour due to low productivity, but changes I
the mode of appropriation which becomes private or I ----------------
individual: I — C —I . , - • ■ . ^ K. Marx apd F. Engels, The Qerman Id e o lo g y , Moscow, 1968,
pp. 82-83,

c I c C-f I C •c
c I I I I I c
■primitive- small pri- slave-owning feudal- capital- socialism-
-communal vate produc- society ism ism -communism
society tion

By contrast to the formulae drawn earlier when we took

into account only the economic structure of the forces of
production and ignored their technical characteristics, these
new formulae contain specific differences for each of the
social formations and provide a symbolic “description” of The new social structure that replaces capitalism was
the main trend in historical development. Again we see described by the founders of scientific communism as em'anat-
taking place what we have already observed; history plays ing exclusively from the economic law of the development
out all the combinations, exhausting all the possibilities of capitalist society itself. According to Lenin, the inevi­
presented in them, and then, on the basis of the accuhiulat- table arrival of socialism, whose distinguishing characteristic
ed wealth of material and spiritual culture, performs a is that the means of production change from being privately
qualitative leap forming an essentially new material and owned to commonly owned, is the natural culmination of
technological basis of social progress. “Within* the bounds-of the process of technological and organisational socialisation
the whole planet,” writes G. N. Volkov, “communism be­ of industrial labour which takes place in capitalist countries
comes not only a social, political and economic requirement, in a thousand form's.
but also a technological need of our epoch."^ The development of large-scale production, on the one
hand, increasingly demonstrates the redundancy of the
G. N. Volkov, The Sociology of Science, Moscow, 1968, p. 323 bourgeoisie (and all exploiting classes for that matter),
(in Russian). which replaces itself in the production process by a stratum
of hired managers. On the other hand, it leads to a growth
in the number and skill of the working class, to the inclu­
sion in its composition of ever new groups of people of phys--
ical and mental labour. A situation objectively occurs
where the working class “economically dominates the centre
and nerve of the entire economic system of capitalism,
... expresses economically and politically the real interests of
the overwhelming majority of the working people”.^ It,
therefore, follows that the working class can and must take
over the organisation of production and, together with that,
the organisation of all social life, Being “the intellectual and-
moral motive force and the physical executor of this trans-

^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 274.


formation”^ the proletariat impletoents this in a fierce class become firmly established. Socialism implies work without
struggle with the bourgeoisie, attracting to its side the the aid of the capitalists, socialised labour with strict ac­
many millions of exploited people and gaining political counting, control and supervision by the organised vanguard,
power. the advanced section of the working people; the measure of
Lenin indicated precisely the aim and the essence of labour and remuneration fod it must be fixed.
socialism: “the transfer of the land, factories, etc., in gener­ Lenin imagined socialism as an integral,' live and devel­
al, of all the means of production, to the ownership of the oping organism. In his words, “infinitely mendacious is
whole of society and the replacement of the capitalist mode the ordinary bourgeois conception of socialism as something
of production by production according to a common plan in lifeless, rigid, fixed once and for all, whereas in reality
the interests of all members of society....”*
* He considered the only socialism will be the beginning of a rapid, genuine,
formula provided by Plekhanov, “...‘the planned organisa­ truly mass forward movement, embracing first the m a jo rity
tion of the social process of production so as to satisfy the and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public
needs of society as a whole, as well as its individual mem­ and private life”.*
bers’”,® as unfeasible. “That is not enough”, he said. Orga­ , Like Marx, Lenin viewed the birth of. the new s.ociety
nisation of that kind will, perhaps, be provided even by the out of the old as a natural historical process -^hich-, affer
trusts.”^ Lenin goes on to say: “It would be more definite to the socialist revolution, acquired a vital new characteristic:
say ‘by society as a whole' (for this covers planning and indi­ it was no longer spontaneous, but began increasingly to
cates who is responsible for that planning), and not merely be determined by the scientifically organised and purpose­
to satisfy the needs of its members, but with the object of fully directed-activity of the people. In consistently applying
ensuring fu ll well-being and free, all-round development for the Marxist materialist dialectics, Lenin treated the evolu­
a ll the members of society.”® In Lenin’s work socialism is tion of the socialist system as a natural scientist would
portrayed as a system of social relations which is conscious-* treat the development of a -new biological species. Follow­
ly optimised in accordance with cognised laws of devel­ ing in Marx’s- footsteps, “instead of scholastically invent­
opment of society, with resources which the given society ed, ‘concocted’ definitions and fruitless disputes over words
possesses and with which it, therefore, aims to satisfy the (What is socialism? What is communism?)”, he demanded
mounting material and spiritual requirements of the popu- “an objective analysis of what might be called the stages of
1h c 0 the economic maturity of communism”.®
Soon after the October Revolution, Lenin said: Social­ When Lenin compared the social state of a country during
ism is the society that grows -directly out of capitalism, it is the proletarian dictatorship with “metal that is being melted
the first form of the new society. Communism is a higher to prepare a more stable alloy”,'* he defined th6 principal
form of society, and can only develop when socialism has trails of socialism at the next stage of its Inaturity and
directly preceding the communist stage: to underpin all
economic sectors with an up-to"date technological base and
^ V. I. Lenin, C o lle c te d W o rks, Vol. 21, p. 71. to turn agricultural labour into a form of industrial labour;
2 Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 275.
3 Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 54. . , ^ • v,- +
^ It is relevant to rememljer in this connection that in his notes 1 Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 284.
on the first draft programme of Plekhanov, Lenin was against the 2 Ibid,, Vol. 25, p. 472.
vulgar notion that the proletariat owned nothing but his labour 2 Ibid:, Vol. 25, p. 471. Cf. Engels’ words: “The so-called ‘so­
power; “The proletariat possesses’ certain articles of consumption cialist society’ is not anything immutable. Like all other social forma­
(and partly means of production too)”. (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, tions, it should be conceived’in a state'of constant flux and change.”
Vol. 6, p. 19.) „ , „ (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow, p. 485.)
5 V. I. Lenin, Collected TVorfcs, Vol. 6, p. 54, * V- L Lenin, Collected fPorfes, Vol. 27, p. 218,

to outdo capitalism in labour productivity first psing simi­ only in a few branches of the economy, while elsewhere a
lar equipment and then on the scale of the whole of the technology existed which largely corresponded to private-
economy; to adapt flexibly the work of all institutions of pwnership relations.
working people “in the way th,at large-scale machine indus­ The Russian economy immediately after the Revolution
try should work”...^, to secure a standard of satisfaction constituted a mosaic consisting of five forms of economic
of spiritual, cultural and social as well as of material and structure: a) the patriarchal, i.e., to a large, extent a peasant
physical requirements of the people as a whole and of each natural economy; b) a .petfy commodity production (that
individual that is higher than that achieved by capitalism. included the majority of peasants who sold their grain);
Lenin foresaw that progress towards this stage would c) private economy of capitalism; d) state capitalism; and
take a long time; he maintained t^iat “even the more devel­ e) a socialist economy. The productive forces, the technology
oped generation of the immediate future will hardly achieve and organisation of production which were being prepared
the complete transition to socialism”.^ This transition be­ for socialist public ownership were, apart from the fifth
came the purpose of the everyday activity of the generations category, in the fourth and, to a relatively minor degree,
of people born under Soviet power and the peoples of the in the third categories. The third was largely, and- the first
socialist states who are tackling the contemporary scientific and second wholly, based on means of labour of individual
and technological revolution and are building the material use, i.e., all three used manual labour rather than machine
' and technological base of communism. labour, and they predominated throughout the country.
SoCiialism did not spring ready armed from capitalism We, therefore, have the following types:
like Athene from the head of Zeus. Therefore, it would he 1. C —C — C (nationalised industry);
merely an abstract comparison of capitalism and socialism 2. I — C — C (state and co-operative socialist economy pro­
to use for tfie latter’s description only the formula—the visionally served by the technology of manual labour);
collective technology of labour, its collective organisation 3. C — C —I (state-capitalist and partly private capitalist
and collective appropriation {C —C — C) without supple­ enterprises);
menting and specifying this in any way, without being 4. I — C —I (private capitalist enterprises and rich farmer
absolutely clear about the forms and stages of transition economy);
from one to the other. Lenin wrote that “the teachers of 5. I —I —I (a peasant economy without hired agricultural
socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capi- labourers).
I talism to socialism and emphasised the ‘prolonged birth- In these circumstances the first and second forms existed
I pangs’ of the new society. And* this new society is again an at the same socialist enterprises, and the third and fourth
I abstraction which can come into- il^eing only bypassing forms existed at the same capitalist undertakings. Such was
through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts- to the typical picture of the transitional period. The dictater-
create this or that socialist state.”® ship of the working class was the only possible political
i Suffice it to say that when ,it established the dictatorship structure then. Economically, it. meant the spreading in the
I of the working class, no socialist state had the first G, nor­ economy of the form C —C — C and the exclusion of all the
mally conditioned by the machine nature of labour, which other enumerated forms from all sectors. The degree of
held undivided sway, and in the majority of cases it was proximity to a solution of this task serves as an objective
not even dominant. That meant that the socialist system criterion of the extent of the socialist maturity of society.
began to develop with a technology that corresponded' to it Lenin wrote: “The most difficult task in the sl^arp turns
and changes of social life is th^t of taking due account of
1 V. I. Lenin, C ollected W qrhs, Vol. 27, p. 212, the peculiar features of each transition. How socialists should
2 Ibid., p. 301.
fight within a capitalist society is not a di^ficqlt problem
Socialism anc manifest features 45
talism to socialism, but do not bother to obtain a distinct
and has long since been settled. Nor is it difficult to picture of the ‘We’.’”^ The entire experience of ^he Soviet
alise advanced socialist society. This problem has also been • Communist Party and the Soviet state confirms that social­
settled. But the most difficult task of all is how, in practice, ism urgently needs precise and regular self-analysis and
to effect the transition from the* old, customary, familiar comprehensive self-cognition if only because it is a society
capitalism to the new socialism, as yet unborn and without run on scientific lines. Self-analysis and self-cognition make
any firm foundations. At best this transition will take many it possible both to avpid a subjective setting of unfeasible
years, in the course of which our policy will be divided into tasks and to display sufficient boldness in regard to issues
a number of even smaller stages. And the whole difficulty whose resolution has objectively matured. Lenin wrote:
of the task which falls to our lot, the whole difficulty of “Our strength lies in complete’clarity apd the sober consid­
politics and the art of politics, lies in the ability to take eration of a ll the existing class magnitudes, both Russian
into account the specific tasks of each of these transitions. and international; and in the inexhaustible energy, iron
Two axioms are especially important to us from this resolve and devotion in struggle that arise from this.”^
Leninist judgement. ' j i j The theoretical picture of mature socialism formed by
The p s i axiom is that it is easy to imagine a developed Marx, Engels and Lenin presupposes a number of basically
socialist society (for those who today make out that they complete social and economic processes. Above all, these
do not recognise its characteristics, let us note that Lenin include, the process of universal machine production and a
was speaking about this at the first session of higher level of cultural and technical qualifications of
sia Central Executive Committee on February 2, 1920), workers, associated with machine production, the gradual
The second axiom is thal the whole problem is that one exclusion of unqualified manual labour, the process of the
'must consider the distinguishing features of each stage, technological and organisational socialisation of the econo­
primarily the present stage, i.e., the stage of transition to my and its centralisation.
mature socialism. . Given such prerequisites, the period of proletarian dicta­
It is my belief that reference to the first axiom is relevant torship is of necessity short-lived, for its majqr and, in
dimply because notions of mature socialist society, which essence, its only action would be to transform the means
were given by contemporaries of Lenin without special of production from private ownership to collective ownership
difficulty, have today received so many versions that it is (as well as the .associated measurq of arranging a collective
extremely difficult to see the original notion. The notion accounting and control.fop measuring labour and supply and
fias been emasculated by both Ldft-wing and Right-wing introducing individual .distribution of products depending
revisionists and representatives ’df' innumerable schools of on the quantity and quality of invested labour). Engels
non-Marxist socialism which have sprung up in the last two wrote: “The first act by virtue,of which the state really con­
decides ' stitutes itself the representative- of the whole of society—
In regard to the second axiom, it is a reference to the the taking possession of the, means of production in the
need for observing a measure in defining the stage of devel­ name of society—this is, at the same time, its last indepen­
opment that we have reached afid its possibilities which dent act as a state.”®
cannot either be minimised or exaggerated. Lenin was per­ ■This logical conclusion, in, regard to the establishment
fectly clear in his caveat 'to revolutionaries on possible of the new formation expresses its law as such. In the life­
miscalculations: “We are afraid to look the ‘vulgar tru th ’ time of the founders of scientific communism and in the pre-
squarely in the face, and too often yield to ‘exalting decep­
tion’. We keep repeating that ‘we’ are passing frbm capi- 1 Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 349.
2 Ibid., p. 361.
® F. Engels, A n t i - D u h r t n g , Moscpw, 1969, p..333.
1 Y) 1- Lenin, Collected tgorfcs, Yol. 30, pp. 330-31,
R. k o so la pov SO C IA L ISM AND M A N IF E S T F E A T U R E S 47
What Marx said did- not apply only to capitalism. For
evolutionary activity of MsWry of example, socialism, aS it arose and develops in several states
historically, has to resolve those social problems whose
;S S n 'd ic u S ^ n d k ^ n U ^ ^ ^ ^ resolution is essentially a preliminary condition for its
S o n T o w c ^ e r i o " xpciSnco did not always coincide with emergence. They include industrialisation, the conversion
of agricultural labour into a form of industrial work, elec­
the forecast. -+ Qnviet Union and abroad
1 ,0 trification in production and in domestic use, the abolition
Much has been treatment as a fa- of illiteracy, universal urbanisation and the creation of a
abont this; it has . . anti-Leninist and anti-com- large modern communication network. Logically, these are
vonrite ploy j^^tural that the theoretical fore- tasks of capitalism; they have generally been resolved in
munist propaganda. It is pvTiressing the essence of advanced imperialist states.
casting which, whde At the same time, in thnt part of the world where the
future events, at gj^^uld turn out to be differ- pre-revolutionary level of social and' economic development
a few decades and certai theory That does not mean was lower than in the West, socialism is frequ en tly
ent in practice than do not obliged to m ake up for the deficiencies of c a p ita lism . The
that the theory and ^ mission of thP proletarian dictatorship is thereby consi­
coincide. The fj^g theory of M a rx , E ngels derably complicated and extended; it goes far beyond the
conclusion lies in ® , protracted {and more bounds of the socialisation of the means of production
as forecast by Engels. This does not mean Engels ‘was
wrong. His forecast is relevant to the industrial states of
Western Europe and North America, insofar as the work­
MSetver^, it is relevant ing class, as a result of the development of state-monopoly
about the relationship betwee l^g capitalism, receives a production apparatus as a result of
in regard to the society m r \ 2857-1858 Marx the revolution which is virtually already formed and adapted
society). In for administering a socialised economy. The working people
wrote: “It would ’^^^''fdmissrW ^ of the West whill not have to equalise the levels of ecoifomic
economic categories r^r ^he or ^^j^^j.ary, their order is development of the various regions in their countries nor
decisive role historically. find one another iron out the many different layers of the economy, nor spfeiid
determined by the relatio ^^is relation is years on overcoming lack of culture and the very gi*eat
in contemporary bourgeois corresponds discrepancies between town and country. The history of
directly opposed to that whica proletarian dictatorship will here basically coincide "with
ta th e order of ^ristorical d^elopm em ^ tako ^historically the logic of scientific forecast.
that situation which ccondm another. Even Let us now turn from future socialist revolution tb so­
in various social ^ j.-j^g ‘an idea’ {P rou dh on ), t o cialism as it arose. Five* nibnths after the October Revolu- I talking about the urocess -I am referring to tidh Lenin wrote that tlus^a Was in a situation where a
i h S r i S o V S r p I r ^ , Withm contemporary bourgeois whole number of essentihl prerequisites existed for thd tran­
sition from capitalism to- socialism: “On the other hand,
society.”^ (|hite a number of these prtecbnditions are absent in our
noun try, but can be borrowed by it fairly easily from the
experience of the neighbouring, far more advanced coun­
V, 'j • K ritik der nolM schen O kon om ie (Rohent-
1K. Marx, G ru n drisseder K r i t i k der p tries, whom history and international intercourse have long
wurf) 1857-1858, M., 1939, S .-28.
R . K O SO LA PO y S o c i a l i s m A kC M A M PtesT PteA 'ruR E S 43
tions of socialist co-operation and any memory of it, finding
since placed “ dome‘ | in the slogan “relying on their own resources” a convenient
r a n r r n ; if f .r c o „ d is ■disguise for nationalistic schemes and a breakaway from
®the world socialist community.
moderately developed hishest worker concentra- The second error in the notion of “relying on their own
its monopoly stage, and had a lesources” is that, in 'appealing to the popular conscience
tion in the world at large * ’ which had acquired ■and advocating a responsible attitude of the nation to
very intensive working-class ^ f^om the West
experience of class struggle at home ana building socialism, the concept at the base of the internal
and foreign policy of the state can only, in the circumstances
® T h K i S " even n ,« e of China and states like it, cause socialism to stagnate.
The present policy has not brought China anything worth­
capiUlism ™ ^ “ j‘7 % r c e n /e l the, population and the while. I t has only isolated her from the socialist world,
f Z S > m evU ent prodominanay hampered her economic development, brought succour to
anti-leudal and imperialism and facilitated her aggressive actions. As
the Chinese example illustrates today, the self-isolation of
its class content. Moreover, had to build socialism a country from its natural allies can only deform both its
blockade the Soviet ^ therefore, had -to' face foreign policy and its internal situation. Socialism in the
"'""^^p'dim cX es 'while
diihcuities, wui this immense
. effort of the.Rns^
peasants, nonethe- Chinese People’s Republic can only develop successfully
and attain mature forms if its internal conditions are com­
Sian p ioleuriat In ol the ques. bined, integrated and intertwined with international condi­
less, '> 'e h s Z ’ Z e ? e ’a™n was that the internal preteqnjsiVts tions. What the Peking leadership has at its disposal at the
"tion for Gnin&. J- 'T'lm*' vatv issu.6 of socicilist present stage is a gigantic social and economic form of so-
for socialism I^ ly by account ^cialism which still has to be filled with industrial, technolog­
ic a l, organised, scientific and cultural content. If this is
Iheld up for many years, the very existence of that form is
k e U & R and f " ^ ^ J f'X o w T d a S S a rs X T demagogic threatened, inasmuch as it cannot be maintained forever only
The Maoist leadership . „ qihis idea is utterly
and mainly by the support of political factors—such as
flag ol “relylus ou thM own^
■government, armies and propaganda—while it, naturally,
s r z i 9 4 9 Z o in tio h - : r — tends to be brought in line- with the existing forces of pro­
organised socialist forces, ,^P a build the founda- In May 1918, Lenin wrote in his article “‘Left-Wing’
enabled the Chinese Peop p onHalism to attain a modern Childishness and Petty-Bodtgeoia. Mentality”, that “today,
tion of the industrial ^asis of
only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalised,
scientific, developed states. They did confiscated, beaten dowrt and put down more th an we have
the gap separating j .. o f‘“rX in g on their own had tim e to count. The difference between socialisation and
not then | they felt that what they simple confiscation is that confiscation can be carried out
by ‘determination’ alone, without the ability to calculate
;and distribute properly, tvhereas socialisation can n ot be
• brought abou t w ith o u t th is a b ility ”

1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 71. / i Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 334.
R. KOSOLAROV SOCIALISM: a Nd Manifest features 51
Atiart from turning the means and objects of laboiu into although expenditure on its production is evidently
™ W o p ro p e l™ w S conditions were necessary m Russia known.^
?o socialise production in fa c t and to introduco The estimated overall Cost of the Chinese nuclear pro­
gramme for 1957-64 is sometimes put at | 2,500 million, while
ioeo the e trof
Sstribution te «products,
‘ and to secure ihigher
- T labour ™o
pro- current nuclear expenditure is put at $ 470 million,per annum.
Some scholars have estimated that investment of such capi­
" T h l t e t t n S U p U e X T t i e whole of the economic tal into civil spheres could ha*ve secured one of the follow­
worr a n f r exSting "resources of the country would he ing targets:
— a doubling in the generation of electricity (by com­
u e l VrOhTese°\eSr™^^^^^^^ parison with 1963);
different. Non-socialist aims are given out as wanted by ■ an increase in steel production by 25 per cent;
a doubling in oil output (by comparison with 1963)";
^^The‘"cbmese leaders formulate the basic line of their the satisfaction of the minimum requirement of agri­
The all forces, to strive ahead and culture for chemical fertilisers which at present has less
than a quarter of its requirements. The American, expert
James V. Barnett has estimated that by spending | 2,500 mil­
lion on the manufacture of the atom bombs and not od the
chemical industry, the Peking leaders have doomed millions
bounds ironical here since everything is reduced to what of Chinese to starvation;
— the creation of a level of paper production which would
enable the country to receive 2,500 million every year for
its paper exports.
By diverting the Economy from the aim of socialist pro­
duction, i.e., by lending a blatantly irrational character to
the account and control over the production and distribu­
S 7 o f r s ? n g T S ”& a T i p ™ ^ S l : n f f J i e c j i n g tion of products, the Chinese leaders are actually blocking
the possibilities and advantages of socialism. Experience
Sg" £ s“ :T fT e r n d = Lnom m shows that the problem of higher productivity, which Lenin

"irh^, nfs , ti£ ‘raU considered ultimately the principal issue for the new system,
to be successful, cannot in China be resolved normally.
Because the Chinese leaders have infringed upon interna­
" ^ l? th e opinion of many .foreign specialists, fg e l tional socialist solidarity, they have consciously or-uncon­
testing of the first Chinese atom bomb in sciously reduced the degree of socialisation, intensified for-
demonstrated that China was Inal elements in it and put socialism at risk. Public owner­
whole energv of the nation on fulfilling that tasK. i t canuou ship which, due to the assistance of socialist states, consid­
L e L S e d that the Chinese leaders, having commenced erably forestalled the development of its internal basis—
^ S c t i o n of atomic weapons, have not appreciated the productive forces—has vegetated and been deprived of
the future difficulties. They surely do even now real opportunities for manifesting its lofty social and humane
what the atom bomb is taking from the Chinese peopl i» .— : r a t u i u i q u u . queue a coute a
1 apiculture et a 1 Industrie . En L a docu m en tation fran caise. Articles
1 Marx/Bngels, W erke, Bd. 18, S. 426, et documents. 15 mars 1968, Numero 0. 1895, pp. 21-26.

complicated the process of their actu al socialisation turns

out to be, the more grounds there are for differentiating
S r e “ SalisUcally even though the economy is dominated between the actual socialisation, on the one hand, and! the
preliminary approaches to' it and the formal and legal mea­
t t t l ° 5 “ r s S s e the U m nist d « e r e ^ sures taken by the new government, on the other.
hetweon nationalisation can S Uacod hack to Marx pointed out that with such a great shift as the subor­
dination of labour to capital there may well not be an essen­
tial change in the real mode of the process of labour or the
is w
labour to c a p ita l. I t scientific currency. actual process of production straightaway. Just the oppo­
site. It is perfectly possible for capital initially to subordi­
“ S a r S S a X h e ^ t o peasant 4 o previonsly produced nate to itself the prevalent process of labour, i.e., for exam­
independency and t o him s^to^^^^^ ple, artisan labour or small-scale peasant farming corre­
sponding to it.
The fact that labour becomes more intensive or labour
time increases and that, under the gaze of an interested
capitalist it becomes more orderly, by itself does not yet
r r k r fw h e : to f t S S £ o " o " « h^ «»mer alter the nature of the process of labour or the actual mode
of work. I t is a different matter in the circumstances of a
specifically c a p ita list mode (labour on a large scale), which
revolutionises the mode and real nature of the whole process
of work. It is in contrast to this labofir transformed by capi­
tal that Marx calls the subordination of the mode of pro­
s 7 s « ‘^i3irpaS:
t o entering into the “ P ' * * ' ' * ' d e a l for
duction (which had developed before the emergence of the
capitalist relation) the last form al subordination of labour
to capital.^
pants, ‘“ ™ “ S,,^®”'lahour mower, ‘W lh in the process of Mari^, refers to theXscale on which this labour occurs' as
buying and selling ianou P uersonified function-
one of dihe distinguishing features of work which is subordi­
nate to capital if only in a formal sense and differs from its
previous state. He writes that, “what, for example, on the
top T s‘'d * 4 S ° e d 'S y S a o t t o t lah'onr (has heoome) a basis of the workshop mode of production is regarded as the
maximum (for example, in relation to the sum total of
“ r . ' “ “ %e° t o t o “ “ L ? o f t o socialist socialisa­ submasters), can hardly comprise the minimum for the
tion o r p t o u c l n the victonons g " capitalist relation ... this expansion of the scale forms the
actual basis on which arises^ the specifically capitalist labour
^ d ; r « p S s T U ia Q e t e — production in other favourable historical circumstances__
It is scarcely necessary to emphasise the importance of the
sS F a
3 B ri= -.“ ..
increased scale of social labour for a system which replaces
capitalism, that is socialism.

1 Marx, Engels, A rch ives, Vol. II, P- 91- Ibid., p. 93.

? Ibid. 2 Ibid., p. 95.
Only such forces of production can form the' material'
M ar. a s s o iia ^ the and technical basis and a scientific and technological poten­
tial from which, after the revolutionary replacement of
private by public ownership, the economic foundation of'
feature of the form al su bordin ation vera^ins, ’ socialist society directly grows. Only such forces of produc­
tion—after the working people led by the working class
have come to power without dallying at the stage of nation­

r:^zs7prT^'^p-f r:7frt tr^ii

H o n -w h lc h m m to v m . the ,t ™ p i« S d
alisation and formal-legal socialisation—can be socialised
comparatively rapidly. Lenin considered that state capital-'
ism, permitted on certain conditions by the proletarian
dictatorship, was incomparably closer to socialism than
! 1 l o i ”1 TTrLes on to say that “there develop social the small ownership and private capitalist elements, while
state-monopoly capitalism was the most complete material
preparation for socialism and its precursor.^
How then would socialist revolution take place in coum
M tio lT o T lS o m to L p ltal there takes place a complete tries where only conditions have matured on a mass scale
? ‘a ^ootioL llv recprring) revolution in the very mode of for a formal subordination of labour to capital, where the
actual subordination had occurred in a small part of the.
economy? Would not it be better to continue to develop
capitalism in order to create the cultural and technological,
prerequisites for socialism?
or% dnctlve?orcesddm ec«^^ The experience of successfully building socialism in the
USSR and several People’s Democracies provides an un-,
l h e T s S ’' i n c r y and, generally, the qualified negative answer to the latter question.
U c e ss of production into the The solution lies in nationalising industry and collectiv­
machines, Vises p ,„ d £ tto n on a large scale ising petty-commodity production] along with the com -,
and so on, ]ust as * e J this socialised pu lsory condition of conducting them on a single higher;
corresponding to all the cnan^esj v- a vaTocess of pto- contemporary technological level on the basis of domprehen-*.
labour is capable f human development, like sive electrification and mechanisation of production pto-'
cesses, the universal introduction of a rational organisation
of labour and management, and a rapid improvement in .the
Cultural and technological level of workers. We underline
the com pulsory nature of this cohdition because it is some'-,
times forgotten or regarded merely as secondary.
The Chinese leaders in the mid-1950s thought that turn-'
ing the means of production into collective ownership
would be enough to bring the transitional period to an end.
cess-of. pro d u ctio n ....... * <
2 See Lenin’s “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat
1 Marx, Engels, Archives, p. 119. •; It”, “ ‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality” and
2 Ibid., p. 121. “On the Food Tax”. . _ , , ., . . <
3 Ibid., p. 99.
to bring the superstructure into line with ship to be demonstrated'fully over private ownership. To
over directly to building communism. The fact that during illustrate this point one,may say that the primitive technol­
the 1960s, China gave way to the opposite idea (of extend­ ogy of artisan production, which, naturally, does not pre­
ing the stage of socialism with features of the transition I suppose an extensive application of science, is too small
period for decades and even centuries), only goes to show within the shell of socialist appropriation. Public ownership
that an important link had dropped out of the theoretical in this situation means allowing for growth. The most
reliable way to consolidate public ownership lies in creating
analysis in both cases. 4.
large-scale industrial and scientific and technological poten­
Lenin wrote: “The workers having grown out of the in­
fancy when they could have been misled by Left tial. Conversely, the quickest way to destroy it is to pre­
or p^tty-bourgeois loose thinking, are advancing towards vent or even undermine this potential.
socialism ... through the capitalist management of trusts The Communist Party of the Soviet Union displayed its
S u g h gigantic machine industry, through enterprises, keen' awareness o f'th is issue' in the early 1930s when it
which have a turnover of several millions per year only warned about the danger 'of exaggerating and canonising
through such a system of production and such enterprises. the collective farms as a socialist form of farming for “which
..Socialism is impossible unless it makes use of the achieve­ correct management, prdper planning and their conversion
ments of the engineering and into model agricultural undertakings had allegedly been
scale capitalism.... Only those are worthy name ol guaranteed beforehand.
Communists who understand that it is im possible to create The collective farm is a socialist form of economic organi­
or introduce socialism w ith o u t learn in g from the organisers sation just as the Soviets are a socialist form of p o litic a l
of the trusts. For socialism is not a figment of the imagina­ organisation. Both the collective farms and the Soviets are
tion, but the assimilation and application by the Proletar­ the supreme attainment of the October Revolution and of
ian vanguard, which has seized power, of what has been the working class. But they represent only a form of organi­
created by the trusts , . v. sation, it is true, a socialist form, but only a form of orga­
The only addition to these words of.Lenin s which expe­ nisation. Everything depends'oh the type of content which
rience has subsequently produced and will be given to that form.
significance for the Chinese leaders is that they oould make Looking at the political aspect from the Leninist point of
use of the experience of socialist management already accum view, the collective farms, like the Soviets, should be taken
ulated in the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries, as a form of organisation, as a weapon and only as a weapon.
instead of borrowing the experience of the capitalist nr^nag^ That weapon could in certain circumstances be turned against
ment of large-scale production. For the rest the problem the revolution. The probability of this use of socialisa­
remains the same. The p a r ty , th a t directs socialisation where tion in both economic and political respects is apparent
form s of labour predominate,.which had grow n up on ly befoix in present-day China. The lengthy manipulation there of
th eir form al subordination to c a p i ta l , should d isp la y forms of public ownership without them being imbued
care to see th a t th is socialisation loses its form al character w ith with a corresponding industrial and cultural content, the
manipulation only with the aim of accumulating material
*^^^he absence of 'suitable productive forces and culture, resources in interests alien ta the people and to socialism
the associated problem of ian insufficient intensity of so­ is the petty-bourgeois utilisation of forms of socialist econom^J
cial relations do not permit the advantages of socialist owner- ic organisation which has become fact. This fact* has to be>
faced and has to be appreciated, bearing in mind that petty-,
j 4 «
bourgeois nationalist reaction ds eager to become a source
I V. I. Lenin, C o lle c te d -W o r k s, V o l. 27, pp..349, 350.i of international tension today,) alongside'-imperialism.
A political leader who makefe the ahthoritative statement associated with the abolition of private property and resolu­
that “socialist changes in regard to property have basically tion of the problem of “who will win” in favour of the work­
been completed” should first be asked whether the process ing people may have ended, the process of socialisation
of socialisation of the economy really has been completed and may, nonetheless, continue. Formally subordinate or not
whether it has been ptit at the servide of the working people. yet subordinate labour may be socialised in the initial period
In regard to China one should hear in mind that the creation only in a formal way. *One more stage is necessary before
of public Ownership brought econolnic relation's into accord socialist productive forces and culture can enter the frame of
with the level and nature only of part of the productive socialist ownership. This stage of pre-industrial which be­
forces, precisely thoSe that were created in capitalist machine comes industrial, i.e., mature socialism, may be termed 'Hhe
production. For the rest, socialisation resulted in a lack hiiiden tra n sitio n a l period”—although it is hidden only from
of accord; the productive forces based oh routine technology Left-wing revisionists.
turned out to be lagging behind, on this occasion not the In recent literature the distinction seems to have been-
production and economic relations. Historidally, it was lost between countries that are still tackling the transition
precisely these forces that now had to be brought up to the from capitalism to socialism and-those that have already
level of the new economic organisation. completed the transition. Both types are called socialist,
When labour is actually subordinate to capital (as in thereby giving them a political description in regard to
advanced capitalist states), socialisation has a single their aim aiid not necessarily their specific state. This
“an th ological” direction^ i.6., to confirm and consolidate phenomenon is hardly explained by the basically correct but
public ownership with all the socio-economic consequences inherently unconvincing formula; “The socialism constructed
that follow (from a shift in the purpose of 'production to in the Soviet Union on the basis of two forms of public
shifts in cultural policy). ownership is the typical and classical form of socialism.
The situation is more complex wheh labour is both actu­ This socialism is being built in all the People’s Democracies.
ally and forihally subordinated to capital (as ih moderately If anyone were to invent a pure socialism and study the laws
developed capitalist states, like Russia of 1917, and a num­ of its development, they ■'yould stand aside from those tasks
ber of Latin American states taday): alongside the direction which’ our society is presently resolving at the stage of grad­
mentioned above, there exists a tfend, whennational­ ual transition from socialism to communism.”^
isation serves not as a conSecfuence but a prerequisite -for At first glance it may appear that such a categorical'
the creation of socialist productive-foi'ces.^ statement was dictate’d by harsh demands of life or that
This last task may not be reSolvbd immediately. A certain a thorough acquaintance, with revolutionary practice stands
period must pass while sociali'Scitian that is formal in part behind it. The situation, alas, is rathet different. The frater­
of the economy must becorfie rbal through industrialisation nal parties, having taken upon themselves responsibility
and cultural revolution, and the country will become a com­ for directing the construction of the new society, of course,
pletely advanced socialist state. borrow much that is [useful .from each other’s experience
Finally, if because of its 'backwardness the country con­ and cannot discharge their duty properly without correlat­
tains a formal subordination of labour to capital or it retains ing their experience. This by no means obviates, rather it
vestiges of pre-capitalist sttucture that have not had time underlines, the need ultimately [to compare periodically
to grow into a system of capitalist economy, the completion o t all the [specific historical societies building socialism with
socialist changes will not necessatily follow from the popular “pure .socialism”, with the thebretically [anticipated new
government confirming publib ownership. On the contrary,'
only from that ihoitient can they really develop extensively ^ Moscow, 1959,
The L a w of V alue a n d I t s Rule U nder Soc ia lism .
and. in depth.- Although the 'phvious transitional period. p. 34 (in Russian). . - ■- .
Socialism a Nd MANikteSt pteAftmfis 61

system in Marx’s C a p ita l and his C ritiq u e of the G otha P ro ­ revolutions of the countries that are today part of the world
gram m e, in Engels’ A n ti-D u h rin g and in Lenin’s S ta te a n d socialist system, only Germany and Czechoslovakia were
R e v o lu tio n and in other works of classical Marxism. The mcluded in the first group, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland,
statement made at the 5th Congress of the Polish United Russia, Rumania and Yugoslavia were in the second^ and
Workers’'Party in November 1968 is particularly deserving Albania, Vietnam, China, Korea, Cuba and Mongolia were
of serious attention in this respect: “Paths to socialism not in the third. Today, due to the action within the bounds of
only may be different, they’should be different even’though the socialist community of the law of equalling up the levels
there is only one socialisrh. Its essence lies in the power of of socio-economic, political and cultural developments of
the working people led by the w'orking class and also in individual states, this picture has greatly changed. But it
economic planning of the socialised means of production.”^ would be wrong to consider all socialist states equally
The question of the singular essence of socialism and the advanced.
inevitable multifarious nature of its emergence is not a new In applying universally the same specific historical approach
one. 'It was posed and resolved in 'th e Program m e of the at the new stage of transition from capitalism to social­
C om m un ist In tern a tio n a l: “The international proletarian ism, the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet
revolution represents a combination of processes which vary .Union notes that “the fact that socialist revolutions took
in time and character; purely proletarian revolutions;! ■place at different times and that the economic and cultural
revolutions of a borgeois-democratic type' which grow ’into' levels of the countries concerned are dissimilar, predetermines
proletarian revolutions; wars for national liberation; colo­ the non-simultaneous completion of socialist construc­
nial revolutions. The w o rld d icta to rsh ip of the proletariat tio n in those Countries and their non-simultaneous entry into
comes only as the fin a l resu lt of the revolutionary process. the period of the full-scale construction of communism”.^
“The une'ven develop'ment of capitalism, which’ became The first factor taken into consideration when talking of
more accentuated in the period of imperialism', has'given rise' the maturity of socialism in a particular country is the pro­
to a variety of types of capita:lism, to different stages of portion of socialisation of the means of production, or, more
ripeness of capitalism in diferent. countries, and to a yari-’ precisely, their conversion into public property. It is accept­
ety of specific conditions of the revolutionary process. These ed that the higher this figure is, the nearer society is to
circumstances ma'ke it historically inevitable that the pfo- resolving the tasks of the transitional period. In this sense,
leta'riat will come to power by a majority of ways and'd'egrees the world socialist system is fairly homogeneous. The pri­
of rapidity; that a number of countrie’s m'ust pass’ through vate sector in agriculture is still large only in Poland and
certain transition stages leading to'the dictatorship nf the pro­ Yugoslavia.
letariat and must adopt varied fo rm s of so cia list construction."'^ In view of the fact that the degree of socialism is, as
In’ac'cordance with this statement, the Comintern Programme njentioned above, measured not simply by any socialisation
divided all Countries into three-'main types:'countries of but by actu al socialisation, another criterion has great
highly developed capitalism, countries' with- a medium importance, i.e., the level of industrialisation of the country,
development of capitalism and colonial and'setdi-colonial ’ qf its scientific and technological development, the domina­
countries.® It is useful to note that on.the eve of socidlist’ tion of machine labour over manual, with all the conse­
quences that follow.
, The socialist states in this sense even by purely economic
^ 5 th Congress of the P o lish United^ Workei-'s' P a r ty , Moscow, 1969, signs (if, of course, we bear in mind a certain incompleteness
p. 314 (in Russian). c^.^this approach) today belong to th ree main groups:
® The P rogram m e of the C om m u n ist In te rn a tio n a l, London, Modern
Books Limited, 1929, p. 39. ' ' ■ '
3 Ibid., pp. 39-40. ; • ' , ^ The R o a d to C om m u n ism , Moscow, p. 579.
R. feOSOLAl>OV socialism a MD MANlpfiSf pEAfUftES 63
— the group with complete socialisation of the means of tern more and more_fully reveals theadvantagesof its econom­
production and a material and technological base that is ic, social and political organisation and its inherent
genuine democracy”.^
.adequate for socialism;
—the group of countries with complete socialisation but The common features of these states are their highly devel­
which’have not yet completed the building of the material oped industrial and scientific and technological potential
and tecnological base of socialism; that enables them to tackle successfully problems of the
—the 'group of states which in productive capacity are contemporary scientific and technological revolution in
close to the first group but which still lag in relation to the concert with the socialisation of the major means of produc­
first and second group in the scale of socialisation. tion both in industry and in agriculture. They have, typically,
Let us now see how this is reflected in the documents and an increasing mutual attraction towards international social­
speeches made by spokesmen of the international communist ist economic integration by which they are laying the
movement. initial foundation of the future world communist economy.
The birthplace of socialism, the USSR, continues to How do the ruling parties in this part of the world social­
consolidate and to improve the new system and is making ist system define the present period?
rapid progress in creating the material and technological The B u lg a ria n C om m unist P a r ty . Report by T. Zhivkov at
basis of communism. This alone shows that the USSR has the 10th Party Congress in April 1971: “Bulgaria has em bark­
an advanced socialist society^ —as was pointed out at the ed upon th e b u ild in g of m ature socialism as a result of the
meeting to mark the Fiftieth Anniversary of the October s'ocialist revolution, the successful completion of the tran­
Revolution (1967), at the Centenary of Lenin s birth (1970) sition from capitalism to socialism and the final victory of
and at the 24th Congress of the CPSU. Resolution of the socialist relations of production—and the quantitative and
problems of developed socialism in the present period great­ qualitative changes in the whole system of social life
ly coincides with securing".reserves for building communism, that have occurred. During this period, we shall have to
which corresponds to an important principle in the Party finish building the material and technological basis of social­
Programme: '"The CPSU being a party of scientific communism ism, improve socialist relations of production, enrich our
proposes and fulfils the task of communist construction spiritual culture, raise the standard of living and gradually
in step with the preparation and maturing of the material overcome unevenness in the development of the social
and spiritual prerequisites, ‘considering that it would be system.”®
wrong to jump over necessary stages of development, and The H u n g a ria n S o cia list W orkers' P a r ty . Report by
that it would be equally wrong to halt at an achieved level J . Kadar at the 10th Party Congress in November 1970:
and thus check progress;”^ t t
“The social programme of our Party and people in the coming
This example is by no means the'only one. L. I. Brezhnev, four years must be to continue to cotnplete the construction
in a speech to the Internatibnal Meeting of Communist and 'of socialism a t a higher level." Explaining this line, Kadar said:
Workers’ Parties in 1969, said'that “the 1960s will occupy “Our state and social system is already socialist by its
a special place in history oP world socialism. It was in nature and class relations and by its forms of ownership.
this decade that many fraternal countries completed the The complete construction of socialism in our country,
foundations of socialism and went over to the building of however, is not yet finished. The Party believes that the time
developed socialist society. As it matures the socialist sys- has not yet come to proclaim our country a socialist repub­
lic. In our opinion it is better to be precipitious in creative'
^ See L. I. Brezhnev, F o llo w in g L en in 's Course, Moscow, 1972,
pp. 18, 270; 2 4 th Congress of the C P S U , Moscow, 1971, pp. 47-48. ^ L. I. Brezhnev, F o llo w in g L en in 's Course, p. 163.
" The R o a d to C om m u nism , p. 512< ^ U n der the B a n n e r of In te rn a tio n a lism , Sofia, 1971, pp. T32-33.
endeavour and to be dilatory in anquiring a new nomencla­ - There is hardly need’ to underline the basic, similarity
ture than to do the opposite. ^ t-,- j.- ^ of problems which the abbve-mentioned parties are tack­
The S o cia list U n ity P a r ty of G erm any. Directive of the ling, just as there is no nee'd to draw attention to the specific
8th Party Congress in June 1971: “The Five-Year Plan, 1971- conditions in which they operate. The latter are to a large
75 will serve further to consolidate the German Democratic degree rightfully a matter for the individual parties which
Republic. It embraces an important stage for the further for'various reasons, primarily objective,' cannot yet tackle
development and strengthening of the material and techno­ the problem of building communism or- mature socialist
logical basis of socialism in the'GDR. The Plan continues society; This has its own strict logic. M. A. Suslov said
the programme of full-scale construction of socialism and the that “the socialist phase has its degrees of maturation
forming of an advanced sociah system of socialism . depending on the level mf development of the productive
The W orkers’ P a r ty of K orea. Report by Kim Ir Sen at the forces, the perfection of the relations of production and on
5th Party Congress in November 1970: “As a result of the ■the specific histerical situation....
implementation of the historic task of industrialisation, our • “Different countries take different lengths of time to
country has become a sociaZtsi in d u stria l s ta te .... ioday eur resolve socialist tasks and especially to form mature socialism
Party and people are confronted by the vital issue of attain­ which presupposes a suitable matetial and technological base
ing on the basis of the successes we have already made in and advanced' social relations. Those which have taken the
revolution and construction, a further cdn solidatw n and new path, being- economically advanced, have a relatively
developm ent of the socialist system in the Korean People s easier task m building socialism..Countries which have, as
Democratic Republic and accelerating the com plete victory they begin to form socialist relations, an inadequate material
of so cia lism .”^ ^ , ht
arid technological base have te trdad a long historical path
The R u m a n ia n C om m unist P a tty . Report by N.
Ceausescu and resolve more problems.”^ ■• . •
at the 10th Party Congress in August 1969: “The major ^ je c - jLet us return to the realm of facts. The socialist develop­
tive of the programme of the Rumanian Communist I^ar y ment of such'States as Albania, the Democratic Republic of
in the period up to 1975 and its tentative plans up to 1980 Vietnam; China, Cuba and Mongolia Ytas considerably com­
consists in constantly extending and improving the materi­ plicated’by the wedk initial basis.' This. Was supplemented
al and technological basis of the country and creating an during the years of the ■popular d'emo'cratic system in the
all-ro u n d developed socialist society. * , n ’abovd-mentioned' countries' '(with the exception of the
The Com m unist P a f t y of Chechoslovakia. Mongolian People’s Republic) by extreme circumstances
by G. Husak at the 14th Party Congress in May 1971: The which even today pre-vent the normal resolution of the- tasks.
Congress has adopted a programme of a ll-ro u n d developm ent Such circiimstancfes in Albania and China (which has-been
of our socialist so ciety, its political system and economy, Inferred to in some detail abo-s^e) include the military and
a programme of raising the living and cultural standards of bureaucratic practice of’the personality cult and-unjusti-
the people.”® ■fied self-isolatiori from the world Socialiat eommunityi-the
-Democratic Republic of Vietn&m and Cuba had to deal witb
direct aggression or the constant threat of it. The distinguish­
1 P r a v d a , November 24, 1970. „ • , rr n' * f ing' features of these Countries Include the obvious in­
^ D ire c tive of the 8th Congress of the Socialist U n it y P ^ t y of Ue -
m a n y on the F iv e - Y e a r N a t i o n a l Economic of the completeness of the material and technological base that-is
G D R , 1971-1975, Zeifr im Bild Publishers, Dresden, p. 11. inadequate for a socialist system- and, simultaneously, the
^ P r a v d a , November 5, 1970. complete conversion of the means of production into public
5 im '^ C o i^ rS ^ % ^ th eV o m m ^ P a r t y of Czechoslovakia, Moscow,
1971, p. 220 (in Russian). K'Ko'mmuntst, -N o. 7', 1968,-pp; ll-12-,(in Russian).,
5 -0 1 2 9 0
ownership.-On the one hand, they still have to exert tre­ Speaking of the opportunities before Cuba', typical for the
mendous effort further to industrialise their economy, and above-mentioned states, Fidel Castro has said that, “as a rule,
on the other, the features of society for building socialism we are very clearly awarej of our needs, we almost always
are already more or less clearly discernible. know what we want and only in a very few cases—and with
What are the features? In the words of L. I. Brezhnev, they very few people—do we realise that our country has insuf­
include “the power of the working people with the vanguard ficient resources to satisfy all these permanent needs.
role exercised by' the working class and the leadership of “Various factors here play a part of which many are
social development provided by the Marxist-Leidnist party, objective. But the subjective factors are ever present: our
public ownership of the means of production and, on its low level of technological development, insufficient busi-
basis, the planned development of the national economy on nesslike attitudes, feeble organisation of production, a mul-
the highest technological level for the benefit of the whole tiplicity of errors, attitudes of negligence and carelessness,
people; the implementation of the principle ‘from each accord­ and mainly, of course, the lack of necessary know-how. To
ing to his ability, to each according to his work’; the educa­ this we must add the special circumstances in which our
tion of the whole people in the spirit of the ideology of scien­ country has to contend with the many problems confront­
tific communism, in a spirit of friendship with the peoples ing it.
of the fraternal socialist countries and the working people We find the best method of dealing with our problems is
of the whole world; and lastly, a foreign policy founded as follows:. we should 'stress our own subjective mistakes
on the principles of proletarian, socialist internationa­ and lay less emphasis on the objective difficulties con­
lism” .^ fronting us.”^
The development of these features is not an automatic The example of the Mongolian People’s Republic pro­
process. It begins at the moment of socialist revolution (or vides a clear illustration of the problems facing such states on
at the socialist stage of popular-democratic revolution) the way to socialism with relatively favourable internal and
and the establishment of popular power (the dictatorship external conditions. The 15th Congress of the Mongolian
of the working class in one form or another) and at times is People s Revolutionary Party in June 1966 took stock of
invariably intensive and uneven. Apart from the objective the historical transition from feudalism to socialist society
circumstances complicating this process, much depends on which signified the triumph of the general policy of the
the class consistency, the principled nature, the rational Party for developing the country towards socialism bypassing
and flexible attitude in the policy o f a ruling Marxist- capitalism”- (the report of Y. Tsedenbal).^ The Congress
Leninist party, on its loyalty to the principles of proletarian adopted a new, fourth PaTty Programme which “clearly
internationalism. Experience shows that the violation of defined the general Party policy for the period of com pletin g
these requirements can lehd to a temporary halt in social­ socialist construction” .^ During this period (up to the end of
ist progress in some spheres of social life, to its disorganisa­ the 1970s), the Party Programme says, “the Mongolian
tion and even retrogression. The very existence o f some fea­ People s Republic will take a considerable step forward
tures of victorious socialism in a country can be then ques­ tow ards th e level of th e a d van cid socialist states in the volume
tioned. An example of this is the trend in the Chinese of per capita production of national income and in the most
People’s Republic since the end of the 1950s. If such a trend important forms of industrial and agricultural production.
is not stopped in time, it could'become a great danger for
the tvhole of the new system.
1 P ra v d a , December 14, 1970.

M o s c i^ ;^ 9 6 r p T 4 (? u " 4 s £ r '" "

^ L. I. Brezhnev, F o llo w in g L e n in 's Course, pp. 291-92. 3 Ibid., p. 6.
in the per capita provision of consumption funds and in so cia list society and is partially tackling them;^ on the other
other vital indices of the workers’ living standards”,^ hand, it has still not completed the socialisation of the
At the 16th Party Congress in June 1971, Tsedenhal said means of production (mainly in’agriculture), which means
that from the early 1960s the Mongdlian People’s'Republic, that it has not yet emerged 'beyond the tra n sitio n a l p erio d
having created the basis of socialism, had entered a new from capitalism to socialism.®
phase in its development—the stage of com pleting- th e for­ The forces of socialism pre-pail in the balanpe of political
m a tio n of the m a te r ia l a n d technological base o f socialism . forces in the country. At the same time, the all-round social­
Resolution of this task would take some time and a great deal ist development of Poland takes place amidst class struggle.
of effort. “The completion of .the building of socialism in our Such are the characteristics of the domestic political
country presupposes it passing through a whole historical situation. ' ' ' ■
period of development, a number of stages of economic-growth. It is an important fact that the Polish countryside is
The initial stage along this path, as our Party Programme largely dominated by middle peasants both economically
shows, is to tackle the task’ of turning the- Mongoliaii and socially. What jiolicy is being pursued by the govern­
People’s Republic in the npar future into an industrial- ment in relation to this category of working people? Olszow­
agrarian state which has a rational structure of miningland ski explains: While preserving individual ownership of
processing industry, the correfct and expedient ch-ordination mnd, -which a radical land reform gave to the peasants, our
of the main-branches of the socialist economy.”^ Party is socia lisin g agriculture by means of in direct meth­
The building of socialism in Poland' also has its own char­ ods. The state buys from the peasants 80 per cent of their
acteristics. During a quarter of a century of pojpular power it marketable produce and through a system of contracts
has abolished ecdnomic backwardness' and has become an exerts a powerful influence on the structure of field crops
in d u stria l sta te where more than half the national income and livestock raising. Through a system of direct financing
comes from- industry.® The prominent Polish politician, and crediting of agriculture it controls over 85 per cent of
Stefan Olszowski, wrote that “our- economy, which until all agricultural investments. Besides, 90 per cent of all the
comparatively recently w as'at the agrariftn, pre-industrial tractors are the socialist property of the state farms, ma­
stage of development, has-already passed through the first chine and tractor station’s and agricultural circles.'’® Even
phase of industrialisation and' is on th e 'w ay to becom ing before the economic socialisation of the’means of production
a h ig h ly developed econom y,”** • (co-operation), the Polish individual farmer was mastering
The rate of Polish economic development in the last socialist methods of farming through preliminary adaptation
twenty-five years has been hight industrial output by com­ to adyanced farm technology, to latest achievements of
parison with the pre-war. figure'has growfi-fourteen times; agro-engineering and zoology, and through its involvement
the number of industrial' -n^orkers and employees has in­ in the collective organisation oflabour.
creased 4.5 times, - ' . ' The social and economic system of Yugoslavia really bears
Poland is- conspicuous in that, on the one hand, by its a tra n sitio n a l character. By the definition of the 9th Congress
economic, technological and cultural,potential the co’untry of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia’ in Ma'rch 1969,
is, as the 6th PUWP Congress in Deceniber.1971 made clear, it had attained the level of m oderately developed states. The
already in a position to tackle' the' ptoblems of advanced Congress recognised the necessity (along with expanding
indusl’ry and services) “of steadily developing agricultural
1 15th Congress of the M ongolian P eople’s R evolutionary P a rty,
3. 178. . -’ ^ See E. Gierek, The Tasks of the P a rty in the F urther Socialist
2 Pravda, June 8, 1971. - ' - - D evelopm ent o f the P P R , Mosco-w, 1971, p. 89 (in Russian).
8 5th Congress of the P olish U nited W orkers' P art'y,.-p ..i5 . . ®.Ibid,, p. 26. ' . •
* N ew Tim es, No. 29, 1969, p. 5. .. I ' 8 N ew Tim es, No. 29, 1969, p. 5,

production and the socialist socio-economic relatidns in agri­ “■We are for democratic centralism. A nd’it must be clearly
cultu re a n d in the co u n trysid e... S ocia lised farm s must play understood how vastly difiefent democratic centralism is
an important part in raising agricultural production and from bureaucratic centralism on the one hand, aiid ffom
developing socialist relations in the countryside. The' pres­ anarchism on the other. Th6 opponents of centralism contin­
ent period and future prospects defnand that social agencies ually put forward autonomy and federation as a means of
based on modern orgariisation of production, science, struggle against the uncertainties of centralism. As a matter
techniques and technology, should make a fresh decisive of'fact, democratic centralism in no w"ay excludes autonomy,
step forward in the direction o'f so cialisin g production, on the contrary, it presupposes the necessity of it.”^
developing integration and consolidating social and econo­ The universal laws of the transition from capitalism to
mic relations based on self-administration”.^ For the moment communism find their practical expression 'in the cen tralist
Yugoslavia still has to facef the fact that “self-administra­ principle of organisation' o f socialist society’. Rational
tion” as a principle of organisatioh is unjustifiably counter- management from' one centre is the principal guarantee of
posed to the guiding role of the Party, to the economic- popular control over the most essential social relations
organisational and cultural-educational functions of the and of their further purposeful improvement.
working people’s state'. Hence the need to pay more attention Meanwhile, a rational approach presupposes that the
to the basic priiiciple of the organisation of socialist society general laws of building socialism and communism operate
and to typical forms of realising this principle. differently in different places, while their optimal manifesta­
How is capitalist society, the most developed exploit­ tion in the activity of nations, groups and individuals can
ative society, organised? differ very greatly from their a'ction over an entire society
An anarchic decentralisation was typical of the premonop­ and even more so aS a world system. The cognised necessity
oly period; it fully corresponded to’the re’quirefnents of free can only be realised through democracy’ i.e ., the proffering of
competition and spontaneous market fotces. Monopoly capi­ extensive independence to groups and individuals, precisely
tal, however, fought competition and increasingly introduced because the general laws are inapplicable outside their spe­
a bureaucratic centralism . The omnipotence of monopoly cific and individual expression.
cartels is reinforced and thdy exterid their monopoly to Too much centralism runs the risk of blunting the ini­
political and ideological spherfes. Although anarchic decen­ tiative of rank-and-file workers and' of subjectivism. The
tralisation and bureaucratic centralism are mutually exclu­ Polish economist Jozef ’Pajestk'a has written that “experience
sive, this does not prevent them from coexisting within shows that excessive predominance of the'central viewpoint
the bounds of one and the same state, for the essence of and the unconditional suho'rdinatibn to this viewpoint of aH
both is the same—the a rb itra ry ru le (in a “democratic” or partial'solutions (through administrative methods) giVe rise
bureaucratic, even in a military-fascist, form) of a class of to negative features. In particular, it tends to overwheliif the
c a p ita lists, and an organisation of wage slavery corresponding real social trends, stifle initiative instead' of giving it frfee
to the needs of capital. ' reign,’and inapedes the'growth of the sense of responsibility.
Neither principle is acceptable for socialist society. Only “To ensure unrestricted initiative ih planning a berldin
dem ocratic centralism can be its fnethod of organisation. ‘autonomy’ is needed ^for the various socio-economic
The level of individual freedom depends on the specific trends.”* ’
correlation of democracy and centralism in a particulaC It is possible to go to the other eiitreme—of anarchy, Avheh
period of socialist and communist construction. Lenin said: democracy is not bolstered by h reliable scientifically

1 S o c ia list Theory a n d P r a c ti c e , January-March 1969, p. 61 (in V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 207.
Russian). 2 W o r ld M a r x is t R e view , No. I, 1966,,p. 22.

grounded organisational structure, when work is weak in get^ omy.'^ “Creative activity at the grass- roots is the basic
ting the working people used to governing public 'affairs. factor of the new public life....- Socialism cannot-be decreed
This distortion ends in disorientation and it can cause from above. Its spirit rejects the mechanical bureaucratic
a partial loss of control over social relations and make some approach; living,' creative socialism is the product of the
social processes ungovernable. For these reasons, to strike masses the nisei ves.”^ • • . • , • ■
and retain a prof>er balance between democracy and central­ rmplementatidn of the principle of'democratic centralism
ism corresponding to the existing social level of production presupposes fusion of initiative and research with the
is one of the main problems in improving the whole social strictest discipline', mddel organisation based on undeviating
system of socialism. If is, in fact, the principal issue of |)o- observance of the laws and staiidards of socialist community.
litical leadership in the new society.' Demo'cra'cy'without discipline, “boundless collegiality” with­
“Centralism, understood in a truly democratic sense, out an accountability of individual -workers inevitably
presupposes the "possibility," created for the first time in engenders disorder And chaos'. Lenin demanded that “at'any
history, of a full and unhampered development not**only of rate, and 'under all 'circumstances without exception,-colle­
specific local features, b'uf also of local inventiveness, local giate management must be accompanied by the precisest defi­
initiative, of diverse wdys, methods and means of progress nition of the personal responsibility of every individual jfor
•to the common g o a l . I t is socialism which guarantees a mo­ a precisely defined job. To refer to collegiate methods as an
re effective org'anisatioPal framework of activity'for millio'ns excuse fot irresponsibility is' a most dangerous evil”.®
of working pfeople. 'A t the same time, discipline th a t-is always coercive;
Democratic centralism is incompatible both with banality under bureaucratic pressure, withoufindividual or collective
in tackling issues with a disdainful attitude to the will of initiative, dis'cipliiie that does not prevent subjectivism and
the-majority, and with counterposing the interests of local the “hazards of- dentralism”, can result in red tape. Only
agencies and workers’ groups to overall popular interest. a cdnstant fight ag'ainst both extremes can result in success
According tP Leniii, “communism-requires and presupposes in 'creating' “a new social bond; a- new labour discipline,
the greatest possible centralisation of large-scale production 'h new'organisation of labour, which will combine the .last
throughout the country.... To deprive the all-Russia centrd of word in science and capitalist technology with the- mass asso­
the right of direct control over all the enterprises of the ciation 'of class-donscious workers creating large-scale-social­
given industry throughout the country ... would be regional ist •industry”. ' - . . . .
anarcho-syndicalism, and not cominunism'” ;-^ But this is not 'The'history of the'Soviet Union and the People’s Democ­
“bureaucratic centralism”', levelling all an'd everything 'and racies'testifies that the form of democratic centralism , by dint
reducing to naught pfivate'ahd individual differences.'“Local of its-immense-influence on various social institutions, in­
distinctions, specific economic formations, forms of'e'veryday evitably becomes a determinant o f' the type of- socialist
life, the decree of preparedness of the population, attempts to society.' ' '
carry out a particular plan—all these are bound to be reflect­ This form may be compa'ratively-m'ore cen tra list'{w e shall
ed in the specific featiires'of the'path to socialism of a parti­ designate it GD) or more-dem ocratic (DC), while a single com-
cular labour commune of thfe state. The greater such diver­ 'mon rule operates; the less'guaranteed is the automatic na­
sity—provided, of course, that it does not turn into eccentric­ ture of socialist development which finds itself in direct
ity —the more surely and rapidly shall'we eilsu're'the achieve- dependence on the degree of development of machine produc-
nxent. of both] democratic Centralism *and a socialist econ-
■' 1 Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 208,
- 2 Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 288.
^ V . I. Lenin, Collected W orks, 'Vol. 27, p. 208, ' '3 Ibid., Vol.,29, p. 437. -■ ' ' '' '• ' ■
» Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 96, * Ibid., p. 423, . .
tion, the more justified are methods of administrative influ­ today’s fervent fighters “against the lyord” also “demand that
ence and interference from the centre. In other words, in the authoritative political state should be abolished at one
a socialist state, where artisan methods of production are stroke, even before the social conditions that gavd birth *to
relatively widespread, and the authority of industrial it have been destroyed”.* '
discipline is comparatively limited, since industry itself Without going loo ddbply-into the question, let us note
has not yet formed, a higher degree of organisation will often that accounting, together ivith'the forms of prodpction which
depend on the authority of political power. The latter are developed in the country and the forms of democratic
incurs a special respon sibility for political authority if it is centralism within it, provides a sufficiently full idea of the
wrongly used, it leads to subjectivism if it is not confined to sociarl structure of a particular socialist state.
the rigid bounds of large-scale industrial discipline* and The question may arise of whether to include the level of
the demands of science. culture. This should not be included because it is already
If we now return to the formula for the ' transitional given once specific productive forces exist. Tools of individ­
period in the USSR which included 'five sets of symbols: ual use applied on a naass scale, by themselves attest'to the
G—C—C, I —C—C, C—C—I, I —C—I, I —I —I, we, natural­ cultural makeup of the mass worker. Universal literacy
ly, arrive at the question of what organisation corresponded does not work” when manual labour predominates, while at
to it: a relatively more centralised or a relatively more demo­ a higher level of technology it is capable of becoming an
cratic? The presence then of a large number of tools of hctive force in the' all-round progress of society. The domi­
individual use and the predominance of manual labour in nance of machine productio'n, naturally, implies a high scien­
the economy favoured Ct). tific and technological potential of society and a cultural and
During the building of socialism there have been moments technological level of labour jfoyrer. A certain minimum of
when, -despite the demands of the relatively backward econ­ culture acts; on the 'one hand, as a prerequisite for the scien­
omy, a decentralised experiment was tried for' some time, tific potential of society-^ on the other, as its consequence,
thereby foregoing many advantages of a centralist organisa­ and on the third, 'as h'cofidition'for its successful operation.
tion that corresponded more to the specific conditions of There is, therefore, no nSed to single out culture which does
the historical period. not transform'social rslati'bns by itshlf, without its material
S u b jectivism found its peculiar expression in the diffi­ embodiment in the means of production and without reli­
culties which the economy and the population had to expedi­ ance on them. '
ence: although it is usually associated with excessive adminis­ ' The essential features of ff socialist systeih and its evolu­
trative rule, i t was here conspicuous fo r insufficient adm inis­ tion are ofte'n illustrated: by the example of the Soviet
tration , and it was accompanied by semi-anarchist appeals to Union, both for historical reasons arid especially for the fact
fight against the coercion of the state. that it' bpe'ned up the m ost tested and' extensive typ e of social
Like the anti-authoritarian school which was criticised by and economic structure of socialistd..
Engels, the present-day “anti-etatists” are “blind to all PjSpeaking a t the‘24th'CPSU-Congress, L. I. Brezhnev said:
facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately “In bur'country,--it'.fdcalled; socialism triumphed
fight the word”. Despite the lessons of history some of back in the la tte r Half .of'th& thirties..This was followed by
more than three decades of thri Soviet people’s heroic labour
* Engels wrote: “Authority and autonomy are relative things whose and struggle. Our efeonoiii'y-of that time and our present-
spheres vary with the various phases of the development of soci­
ety.... The social organisation of the future would restrict authority day economy are based on the same type of relations of
solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render production, hn the same ecdiiomic. laws, the laws of social-
it inevitable.” (K. Marx and F. Engels, S elected W orks, Vol. 2, Mos­
cow, pp. 378-79),
* K. Marx and F. Engels, S elected W orks, Vol. 2/M oscow, p. 378.
76 R . KO SO LA PO V

ism. However, there are important new features that .distin­

guish the modern economy from the economy of the late in tep-ation al processes in the composition of Soviet society.
thirties.”* Let us'examine from'these points of view the While in 1928 (in the middle of the transitional period),
construction in the USSR of a deyploped socialist society; this group comprised 18 per cent of society, by 1936 (at the
which means essentially exa m in in g a high degree of real time of the completion of the buUding of the socialist foun­
socialisation of labour. Its main features were defined in the dation), it was just less than 50 per cent, and today, in the
Central Committee Report to the Congress. early 1970s, it is over 80 per cent. The collective' farm peas­
Above all it includes a completely new range of economy, ants are increasingly being involved in the use of public
economic strength that is “based on a versatile industry and property and in increasing it, alongside the working class
large-scale socialist agriculture, advanced science and ^ d the intellectuals, through production and .non-produc­
skilled cadres of workers, specialists and managers.”? tion spheres. In a speech to mark the fiftieth anniversary of
Further, it includes a considerable increase in our possi­ the Soviet Union, L. I. Brezhnev said that “with the working
b ilitie s and a growth in thO requirements which society
class retaining its leading role... the social homogeneity of
makes on the economy. These new requirements include the socialist society has increasingly grown. The essential
need to guarantee a stock for future economic growth, tech­ distinctions between labour by hand and by brain and be­
nologically to- re-equip production, generously finance sci­ tween the working and living conditions in town and coun­
ence and education, while putting ever greater effort and tryside are being rapidly erased.”*The levels of education and
finance into improving p o p u la r w elfare. culture of the two classes of working people and of social
Demands are increasingly being made on planning, manage­ groups are levelling out, the basis for their common inter­
ment and' efficient economic methods, especially when we ests is being extended, philosophical premises and common
bear in mind the rapid advance of the scientific and technolog­ features of social psychology are being formed, which,
ical revolution and the active inyolvement of the Soviet
naturally, brings us closer to the Marxist-Leninist ideal of
a classless society.
Union in the integration of the world socialist economy.
Therefore, from the economic p o in t of view , maturp sociaL . From the p o litic a l p o in t of v iew ,' mature socialism has
ism relies on an actually and not fonhally socialised, highly a popular and universal’^ocialist statehood and democracy
industrialised,, truly modern, production complex ' which which becomes possible due to the adoption by all groups of
possesses an up-to-date scientific experimental basis; it is working people of the ideological and social outlook of the
marked by an ability to apply the achievements of world working class, its' internationalist interests and communist
science and technology, a transitio’n to predominantly inten­ ideas. The Marxist-Leninist party of the working class,
sive methods of production, and clo'se attention to questions without foregoing its political qualities, becomes the herald
concerning ah increase in workers’ living standards. of the concentrated interest and will of the entire people,
F rom the social p o in t of vieaP, mature socialism is marked
-tvhich corresponds precisely to the evolution of society to
a socialist classless strhcture.
by a mounting convergence of the “working class, the cbllective
farm peasants and the'people’s intelligentsia on the basis' • It is patently obvious that this brief enumeration of- the
of greater community,. above! all, of the basic class determi­ properties'of mature' i§ociaIism (like any other system) is by
nant—relationship to the, means of production, on the basis no means exhaustive; that was not our object. At the. same
of the development of thd directly social socialist labour. time, it indicates that the features of socialism foreseen by
The growth of the part of the population which is directly Marx are increasingly in evidence in Soviet society*. Many
associated with public ownership testifies to the increasing people,ask whether mature socialism is destined ultimately
to comcide in essentials with that Marxist forecast or wheth-
* 24th Congress of the C P S U , p. 47,
» Ibid. p. 48. , . ^ 7’Ae F iftiH h A nniversary of the U nion of Soviet
S o cialist R ep u b lics, Moscow, 1972, p. 83.

er progress will take a different route. Different answers by Marxists-Leninists as a classless social ' system w ith
are provided to that question. a single p u b lic ownership of the m eans of production?- One is
1 recall in-this connection a discussion-held by Moscow inclined to ask: in the historical framework of which phase
University economists in the late 1950s. The discussion does society acquire these features? This question has theo­
concerned the nature of the'daw of value-in the socialist retical and political meaning.
economy, but more general problems of socialist theory were If we look at the present situation we may well come to
also' touched upon. the conclusion that “two forms of social property lie at the
They were particularly interested, for example, in the basis of socialism as distinct from communism”.^ This, appar­
proposal to tackle the problem of the need for -commodity ently, specific approach, however, is extremely abstract be­
production initially “for a socialist system in which all the cause it actually purports that between the first and second
means of production are public, estate property,* i.e., with phases of communism there is an unbridgeable gap.
no collective farm- form of production”.^ If socialism is possible only on the basis of two forms of
■In an attempt to prove the* correctness of this abstraction, property, while communism is impossible without-a single
a participant in the discussion maintained that this type of public ownership, how then do we imagine the transition
socialism was practically possible and theoretically feasi­ from the first stage of society to -the second? In this event,
ble, for example, in Britain and in the Soviet Union, wh'ere it we have either to recognise the need for the two forms of
follows from.the phenomenal technological progress and the property to come together and merge, and for the differences
growth in the industrial basis 'of agricultural production between classes to be obliterated already at the stage of
which makes it possible and necessary to raise collective farm socialism or we have to admit that these problems can only
property to the level- of public property even before the be resolved under communism.
building of complete communism. This prospect is not one, The first assumption is incompatible with this because it
of course, for the near future. If such a possibility arises, implies recognition in the development of socialism of a stage
it will occur in the relatively ^remote future.^- w ith com plete socialisation of the m eans of production and
That, naturally, produced a long arguments Some spoke of w ith ou t classes; the second is incompatible because it implies
the inadmissibility of viewing •public property in isolation that two forms of property and a class division are possible
from co-operative property and counterposing them, although under communism.
it is known that historically the former appears before the At least two methodological errors are made.
latter, and that they both play a diSerent part. Lenin, after The first consists in the fact that even some aspects of
all, had referred to public .enterprises, -not co-operative socialism, that are described in the ideal model propounded
undertakings as “enterprises of n consistently socialist by Marx, Engels and Lenin, are considered unfeasible.
type”-.® Others pointed out that “to -build a society with only The second is that the Marxist-Leninist notion of the
one state form of property would-mean the transition of so­ differences between the .higher and lower phases of the com­
ciety from socialism to communism”,^ which, obviously, munist formation is distorted.
erased the difference between the lower and higher phases of Let us begin by saying that In the light of the practical
the new formation. and theoretical experience already accumulated the question
It is worth drawing attention-to this, discussion if .only of whether the scientific forecast of-socialism can be imple­
because.communism, as disttnqt*from socialism,-is understood. mented can and must be viewed, differently than it was 15-
— I .1 I I . . I 20 years ago. One may judge this by looking at the example
^ The L a w of V alue a n d I t s R o le U n der S ocialism , pp.T8-19. of the Soviet Union and other socialist states which haye set
2 Ibid., p. 19.
® V. I. Lenin, Collected Worh^^ Vol. 33, p. 473. ^ See The R o a d to C om m u nism , p. 509.
* The L a w of V alue an d I t s R o le / U n der S o c ia lism , p. 35. 2 The L a w of V alue an d I t s R o le U n der S o c ia lism , p. 32.
80 81

themselves the task of constructing msiture socialism, and their role in everyday life may cause the need to, resort
at the example of advanced capitalist states which, in an more extensively to a group method of socialist association of
economic and cultural respect, are most prepared for so­ the population in this sphere too. Bpt in a definite sphere of
cialist clianges. production, to which we refer (agriculture), certain basic
The people’s increasing wielding of public ownership trends are discernible. i
of the means of production under socialism expresses the If we look at the advanced capitalist states and try to
general treiid of social development. forecast their development after a socialist revolution, we
The unprecedented growth in state investments in agri­ must, at least for many of them, allow the emergence of
cultural production in tha Eighth and Ninth Five-Year, plans a somewhat different public property and social structure
would indicate that “increasingly broader use of the country s than in the USSR and other socialist states. Where the peas­
general economic potential” becomes a necessary condition ants comprise a very small proportion of the population,
for the development of agriculture and that “agricultural and the class of small commodity producers is represented by
growth depends not only on the collective farmers and state- the artisans, workers-in services and trade, the appearance of
farm'workers, but also, in many respects, on the efforts of co-operative socialist ownership for a more or less lengthy
the workers in industry, science and technology”. In a word, period is most probable in the non-productive sphere. As
it is a “big, truly countrywide, national cause”.^ The 24th A. M. Kovalyov suggests, “in some states public ownership
GPSU Congress described specialisation of farming and the may appear, not only in industry but in agriculture too
introduction of industrial methods in meat, dairy and other even under socialism”.’^ ’
production as processes “that shape the future of our agricul­ On the one hand, since public socialisation will here
ture in the long run”.®The Congress also'warned against the immediately bear a more extensive character than in states
danger of making mistakes and going ahead too hastily in which began building socialism from the level of a moderate­
ly or -weakly developed capitalism or even from the pre­
In his Report to the Congress, L. I. Brezhnev said: “The capitalist stages one may speak of greater proximity to the
rapid growth of agriculture leads increasingly to the spread Marxist forecast. On the other hand, since a fairly large
of inter-collective-farm and state-collective-farm production number of workers in the services will be engaged in the
associations and the establishment of agro-industrial com­ co-operative form of production, and in a number of countries
plexes. These are able to make more effective use' of equip­ they exceed the number of people engaged directly in
ment', investments and manpower,- and' make broadPr use of production, there wilLbe'the problem similar to that which
industrial methods. The Party will support these forms of confronts the socialist countries with a large co-operative
organising production in the countryside.”®These measures sector. In one way or -another, the empirical material which
tend to improve efficiency in this vital sector of the economy is referred to by those who doubt the feasibility of* the
and lead to an inevitable growth in the level of socialist so­ Marxist model of socialism, wilLremain for some time, but
cialisation in its completeness,, to an enhancement of the the process of socialisation- will, nevertheless', win through.
homogeneity of public and''collective farm ownership of the If we assume, therefore, 'the possibility of the socialist
means of production. Inthijs respect progress is, undoubtedly, stage having the features indicated by Marx, we may describe
being made in the direction that Marx ptescribed. the periodisation of the first phase of communidm 'in the
’ The co-operative ■form lof socialist economy has far from following way: l
exhausted its usefulness. The'rapid growth of services and of I. First there is a transitionah'period from capitalism to
socialism which economically signifies a diffusion in society
^ 2 4 th Congress of the C P S U , p. 61.
2 Ibid. ^ The L a w s a n d S ta g e s of D evelo p m en t of the C om m iin ist F orm ation ,
Moscow University Publishers, l'9Vl,> p. 26. i> ‘
® Ibid.,, p.. 62. - ' ‘ '
6 -0 1 2 9 0
80 81
themselves the task of constructing mature socialism, and their role in everyday life may cause the need to. resort
at the example of advanced capitalist states which, in an more extensively to a group method of socialist association of
economic and cultural respect, are most prepared for so­ the population in this sphere too. But in a definite sphere 6f
cialist changes. production, to which we refer' (agriculture), certain basic
The people’s increasing wielding of public ownership trends are discernible.
of the means of production under socialism expresses the If we look at the advanced capitalist states and try to
general trend of social development. forecast their development after a socialist revolution, we
The unprecedented growth in state investments in agri­ must, at least for many of them, allow the emergence of
cultural production in tha Eighth and Ninth Five-Year, plans a somewhat different public property and social structure
would indicate that “increasingly broader use of the country’s than in the USSR and other socialist states. Where the peas­
general economic potential” becomes a necessary condition ants comprise a very small proportion of the population,
for the development of agriculture and that “agricultural and the class of small commodity producers is represented by
growth depends not only oh the collective farmers and state- the artisans, workers**in services and trade, the appearance of
farm workers, hut also, in many respects, on the efforts of co-operative socialist ownership for a more or less lengthy
the workers in industry, science and technology”. In a word; period is most probable in the non-productive sphere. As
it is a “big, truly countrywide, national cause”.’- The 24th A. M. Kovalyov suggests, “in some states public ownership
GPSU Congress described specialisation of farming and the may appear, not only in industry but in agriculture too
introduction of industrial methods in meat, dairy and other even under socialism”.’^
production as processes “that shape the future of our agricul­ On the one hand, since public socialisation will here
ture in the long run”.®The.Congress also warned against the immediately bear a more extensive character than in states
danger of maTrihg mistakes and going ahead too hastily in which began building socialism from the level of a modera'te-
this sphere. ly or weakly developed capitalism or even from the pre­
In his Report to the Congress, L. I. Brezhnev said: “The capitalist stage, one may speak of greater proximity to the
rapid growth of agriculture leads increasingly to the spread Marxist forecast. On the other hand, since a fairly large
of inter-collective-farm and state-collective-farm production number of workers in the services will be engaged in the
associations and the establishment of agro-industrial com­ co-operative form of production, and in a number of countries
plexes. These are able to make more effective use of equip­ they exceed the number of people engaged directly in
ment', investments and manpower, and make broader use of production, there will, be-the problem similar to that which
industrial methods. 'The Party will support these forms of confronts th© socialist countries with a large co-operatiVe
organising production in the countryside.”®These .measures sector. In one way or another, the empirical material which
tend to improve efficiency in this vital sector of the economy IS referred to by those who doubt the feasibility of the
and lead to an inevitable ’grow th in the level of socialist sd- Marxist model of socialism, will-remain for some time, but
cia lisation in its completeness, to an enhancement of the the process of socialisation will, nevertheless, win through.
homogeneity of public and 'collective farm ownership of the If we assume, therefore, the possibility of the socialist
means of production. Inthis respect progress is, undoubtedly, stage having the features indicated by Marx, we may describe
being made in the direction that Marx ptescribed. the periodisation of the first phase of communism in the
’The co-operative -form of socialist economy has far from following way:
exhausted its usefulness. The rapid growth of services and of I. First there is a tra n sitio n a l p erio d from capitalism to
socialism which economically signifies a diffusion in society
^ 2 4 th Congress of the C P S U , p. 61.
2 Ibid. 1 The Laws and Stages of Development of the Communist Formation,
3 Ibid., p.. 62. Moscow University Publishers, 19Vl, p. '26. ' . • ‘
6 -0 1 2 9 0
82 83

of socialist forms of economic management and a corre­ It expresses the essence of socialism most fully, comprehen-
sponding social structure, and p o litic a lly —& dictatorship of mvely and purely; and completely reveals its possibilities...,
the proletariat. The compulsory formal socialisation becomes Un the basis of the utmost development of the,'productive
real as an adequate material and technolgical base (if so­ forces, the relations of production ty p ic a l for socialist-society
ciety did not have such) is formed. The resolution of this become fu lly m ature. State and co-operative property ih
task may exceed the framework of the transitional period which complex quantitative and qualitative changes take
if, it takes longer to construct the material and technological place, draw closer together and the process of th eir gradual fu ­
base of socialism than it .does to nationalise and co-operate sion into a sin gle sta te property increases.... D ifferences between
production. social classes and groups fade aw ay and by its social structure
2. The transitional period is followed by the in itia l stage socialist society approaches the threshold of social homoffe-
of socialist development' presupposing in all countries the neity.”i , ®
consolidation of the hew social and economic forms, the This is because the resolution of the enumerated tasks
raising of the productive forces to the necessary level and the judging by the rate of transformation, requires less time than
resolution of other problems which guarantee actual u n i­ that needed to overcome the vestiges of the old division of
versal socialisation. Socialism proves its superiority over labour into mental and manual, creative and reproductive
capitalism in the given country by securing a level of labour (mechanical), organisational and executive. This is precise­
productivity that is higher than in the pre-revolutionary ly what Marx, Engels and Lenin regarded as a vital delinea­
period. The non-antagonistic class and social structure takes tion between the first and second phases of communism.
shape. Society now consists of friendly groups and strata «-D October Revolution, Lenin wrote:
of working people who are socialist by their nature. Politically, the distinction between the first# or lower, and
--3. M a tu re socialism continues in breadth and depth the the higher phase of communism will in time, probably be
process of socialisation, ridding itself everywhere of formal tremendous. But it would be ridiculous to recognise this
elements and presupposing at its culminating stage the distir^tion now, under capitalism, and only .individual
creation of a communist structure of property and a corre­ anarchists, perhaps, could invest it with primary impor­
sponding social structure. It falls into two stages: tance.... Today, at the stage of mature socialism the revea­
(a) the stage where the two forms of socialist property come ling of an immense political difference between the first and
close together and merge under, the influence of the material second phases of communism is a condition for a really serious
and technological basis of communism which is being built. study of the problems of communist construction. - Only
This stage coincides with the. intensive obliteration of dogmatic and shortsighted people can object to* that. '
class differences (which, nonetheless, are still conside­ Lenin was right to talk of political distinctions. In the
rable); transition to the second phase of communism, the very base
(b) the stage at which the public form of socialist owner­ and source of politics^the* class structure. of. soci6ty-^un-
ship becomes really all-embracing and society becomes class­ dergoes a tremendous change. The functions which eaHier
less,'“i.e., when there is na distinction between the mem­ were political are taken over by the system of administra­
bers of,society as regards their relation to the social means tion which continues -to, have a state character but whfch
of .production” though it h&s not yet become'homogeneous. expresses public as well -as class interests. This*'system
The Bulgarian Communist Party Programme,, adopted in still- requires-permanent specialists, but at'.the 'same tiine
IQY.b^.iSays; “>Mature sociqlisb society is the highest and last acquires features of mass> self-administration. »'•'
^tpg^iUf ^Qcialism-as the fy n i phase.of -the com m unist form ation.
pp B u lg a r ia n C om m u n ist Yearly,Sofia, 1^74',.
.,,.1 5.1', I u \ ”. T-
' 1 V. I. Lenin, C ollected.jW orh s, Vol, 25, -p. 462. /
V'. 'I. heTiial Cotlected VorAs,.-Vol.■25, p. =470. -Mil t
The aualitative difference between socialisin commu- the power of those agents which are set in motion in the
Rism lierinaTnly in the sphere of- labour and distributive course of working time and which themselves in turn (their
relations On the one hand, co’mmumsin is impossible wi tremendous effectiveness) are not in any accord with the
direct working time which is demanded for their production;
ru\“ b u n ln c e of material and they depend more on the overall level and on the progress of
technology or on the use of that science in production”.^
The myth of the similar organisation of socialism and com­
munism is also shattered if we look into the problem of
social equality.
the majotily, and the Socialism, as we know, is an incomplete communist society
“which is com pelled to abolish at first only injustice of the
means of production seized by individuals, and which is un­
? ,r m T n S b o th centrol over the ’r f l o s i w - able at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in
meosuie of eoneomption-the major the distribution of consumer goods ‘according to the amount
iQt state—and the time schedules for the transition to
communist distribution according'.to need, which will mean of labour performed’ (and not according to needs)”.^
ttH T m ldeU en ol the eooialist phase and the begrnmng of Lenin continues: “And so, in the first phase of communist
society (usually called socialism) ‘bourgeois right’ is n ot
* O n e 1 o m e t£ e ? ^ ^ “ “ “ 0 0 that Marx and E n g U
abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion
th S ro T o o m m n m s m as a system which was more or to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in
identically organised in both phases of its development. respect of the means of production.”®Naturally, this level
of economic development does not remain constant. By
TTowever they never regarded them as identical. consolidating socialism and forming communist social rela­
f lu h e o rS is a tio n of production which permits co-opera­
tive forms alongside state economic forms, and organisation tions, we inevitably arrive at a situation where it continual­
based S ’ on public ownership of the means of production: ly expands. The qualitative leap which is prepared by the
b f e c S S c S a n i s a t i o n relying oe d istrib u ti^ accord preceding development also brings about the removal of the
in e to work and thereby presupposing the need tor control
above-mentioned legal regulators in relation to the objects
of consum ption as well. This is only another expression of
iv e r the measure of labour and the measure of consumption,
r / o » a S t ™ l i o h would grow to a distribution accord- the transition to communism which, due to the change indi­
S to S and where control over the measure of labour cated, must be organised essentially in a different w ay than
and the measure of consumption is no longer necessary, socialism.
(cl state organisation undbr socialism and a non state self- Whatever boundary separating socialism and communism
a d m i S r i T S g a n i s a t i o n (if we remove the threat of re- we take we always and everywhere have to deal with human
s S “apullism® from without) as will exist under commu- properties, with the qualities of the people which, as« precisely
mass qu alities, act as an objective factor of our development.
^^The transition from the first organisation to the second is At the ^ t h CPSU Congress, L. I. Brezhnev said; “A great
m S a " S i i c « t e d both on an enormous » » ,n * e project—the building of communism—cannot be advanced
without the harmonious development of man himself. Com­
intellectiil and creative content of munism is inconceivable without a high level of culture,
uroductive personnel and on the achievement ^
the development of large-scale industry of a situation w^here ' 1 K. Marx, F. Engels, Works, Vol. 46, Part II, p. 213 (in Russian).
creation of aotual wealth wM 2n ®V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 466.
working time and on the amount of expended labour than o 3 Ibid., p. 467.

education; sense! o f civic duty and kiner maturity of people state of the socialist socialised economy and connected with
•just as it is incoiiceivafelo without the appropriate material the latter in two respect's: either due to the need for addi­
tional sources of distribution arid supply to the population,
and technical tbasis.”^ ' . , i nla.. or for the sake of satisfying the need for amateur market
This base itself can play-its: historic role only in the body
of communist' productive-forces', the main one of ■'yhich iS gardening, Tivesfpck breeding or fishing. Only in the fifst
hu m an beihgs. The extent to which people are orientated case dqfes it have ri social and economic' importance and i|' is
towards communist’ progress* decides how the material, pre mentioned only because it still fulfils* this itnpqrtant role.
requisites for* communism will be harmonised It will take Recording to figures, available for the mid-1960s, income
many years to mould a person who has a scientific, Marxis from personal subsidiary plots am,ounted to about 17 per cent
Leninist philosophy and habits of P f of the tbtal real income of the whole of the Soviet populaiion.
who has a high general and professional culture, a need t r In*View of the fact that in recent years attempts have bee’h
creative endeavour and an ability sensibly to use the blessings made to counterpose state socialisation of 'the ineans of
of socialism and communism. How the various production to its co-operative variants and eved to prove
of builders of the new society will resolve this P^hlem will their alleged advantages, it is worth recalling the opinion
depend Oii many circumstances, but one requirement of the of the founders of scientific communism, who regarded large-
epoch they will all have: a person is less and less able to scale machine industry under socialism only as socialised on
regard hiidself as a passive victim of circumstances, his devel­ the scale of the whole of society. Lenin was quite explicit:
opment can only be rationally understood in the light “The aim of socialism is to turn all fhe means of production
revolu tion ary experience — the coincidence of changing into the property of the whole p'ebple, and that does not at
circumstances and changing human activities. all mean that the ships become the property of the ship
workers or the banks the property of the bank clerks. If peo­
* * * ple take such paltry things seriously, then we must do away
with nationalisation, because the whole 'thing is prepos­
■ 'The USSR is the second industrial power in the world. The terous.”^
existence of a strong machine basis in all ^^ofo^ic As far as socialist co-operation is concerned, it is the most
■and up-to-date scientific potential, plus half a century s convenient path of transition of a small worker-owner to the
experience of development on the basis of public new social'and economic system, because it combines private
make it possible to affirm thdt in the USSR the form and -public interests. Meanwhile, it serves as a convenient
form in which entire branches of production become ^so-
^"^M^th^slme time, the fact that up to 40 per cent of wor­ cialistically -mature and prepare for the highest level of social­
kers in industry and even more ‘instruction and ag^^ isation technologically- and culturally.
ture are still efigaged- in manual labour testifies to the pres Our formulae should express the incompletion of the process
•e'nce ih the public and the co-operative and collective farm of unifying socialist Socialisation according to the t^pe of
sectors of the economy of the formula i L C. . ’ • . , public ownership, due maihly to the non-uniform'technologi­
Finally, one cannot'ignore the substantial.-sector of soci cal equipment-of industry and agriculture^ Of the three C ’s
labour tepresented by personal subsidmry plots of state the third, if it refers to the co-operative form, will be desig­
farmworkers and of collective farmers, which . nated as Co. We then have the following picture.'for *the
Of course, this is not an independent "L USSR: first, state industry will be represented as C — C — C
but, rather, a form of economic endeavour dependent on the and I —C ^ C , or otherwise: :

* V. I. Lenin,' Collected, W orks, Vol. 42, ‘p. 63;* J

1 2ith Congress of the CPSU, p. 100.
; > c-c economy and with the above-mentioned conditions.
Soviet C D goes from its centralised democratic version
towards a centralism which relies on the utmost utilisation
The first form here, naturally, predominates and supersedes of local initiative, is imbued with a scientific content and
the second; this process is slowey in the state farms where the is devoid of the extremes “of bureaucratic centralism” (as
forms are similar but the percentage of manual labour is Lenin once put it). The transition from C D to D C now under
higher. The collective farm production will have a dual way is inevitable in mature socialist societies and is typical
formula C — C — Co and ^ —C — Co, while both the state and for their normal development.
collective farm forma will have to be supplemented by No matter whether the individual socialist states are far
^ ^ f the personal .plots of the workers and members from or near to their final goal, no matter what the difficul­
of the artels. ties will they meet on their way, they all have to deal with
Thus we have: the same imperative law which operates in its own unique
form: a gradual and u n d evia tin g m ovem ent takes place towards
1) C a certain scientifically based type of '^completed socialism'"
^ C -C (Lenin), which we have conventionally designated as the three
C's in com bination w ith D C . This is confirmed not only theo­
2). I
retically or by reference to various political documents, but
^ ^ C - C - ( l - I - l ) (for state farms) also by an analysis of the rich statistical material—the lat­
ter, however, goes beyond the brief of this book.
Socialism, according to Lenin, is not a system which
3) fv... will suddenly appear out of nowhere. An understanding of
(for collective farmsj this axiom shows an essential difference between the pro­
ponents of scientific socialism and those of utopian social­
ism. If anyone expects the new society to appear in a com­
In accordance* with the concepts .of Marx, Engels and plete form from fully prepared prerequisites without suffer­
Lenin, C —C —C is the,final form .(the scheme or structural ing any non-coincidence with this historic task, they are
type) of mature socialism. Three? conditions are necessary displaying amazing political naivete (if not something even
today for its universal dissemination in the Soviet Union: worse). At best, they may be, as Lenin called them “men in
(a) the exclusion of / as a Socially significant factor, that a muffler”, who forget that “there will always -be such
is the completion of the mechanisation of labour; a ‘discrepancy’, that it always exists in the development
(b) the drawing together of Co and that is, that the of nature as well as in the development of society, that only
co-operative, ownership should rise, on the basis of fulfill­ by a series of attem pts—each of which, taken by itself,
ing the first condition, to the* level of public ownership and will he one-sided and will suffer from certain inconsisten­
should actually be identical with it; cies—will complete socialism be created by the revolution­
(c) the disappearence of (in the above-indicated ary co-operation ofithe proletarians of a ll countries.”^
sense) as a result of which the meeds being it will An analysis of the process of forming this “integral social­
be* covered successfully through the production of the public ism” is a task no less daunting than the creation of C a p ita l,
economy and, services. Im p e ria lism , the H ig h est S ta g e of C a p ita lism and similar
According to the above mentioned premises, the form of works.
democratic centralism in Soviet society develops in concert
with the formation of an.all-embracing, highly industrialised 1 V. I. Lonin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 345-46.

MORE ABOUT SOCIALISM AND International relations, aye social-''relations* in thevfield

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS of international and interstate,: intercourse.- They operate
there/as.a continuation and, modificati'on of internal social
relations and, like, the latter,, may be'divided socially into
three types: (a) international relations of supremacy and
subordination, (b) international relations of comradely co­
operation and mutual assistance, (c) transitory internatio.-
nal relations. All forms of international relations fall into
these categories. The first ■two . possess a qualitatively
-determined social characteristic and are stable, the third,-as
is apparent from' its name,- testifies to the demise of one
formation and the emergence of another on a world scale.
It is now time to clear up'the mystery of why a hook on The first form was 'the only existing form before the Great
socialism should begin with a reference to' the role of inter­ October Socialist Revolution, the second appeared with the
national relations. In Chapter I we mentioned that inter­ formation of the socialist- system, and the third arose
national relations of a new type, as a vehicle for the most during the struggle between, socialism and capitalism—the
advanced forms of social organisation, are becoming an un­ two- o,pposed social and economic systems.
precedented accelerator of social progress. One might go A .<International relations op domination and subordination
even further: in certain circumstances, they are the point are a form of social relations typical of- the pre-history of
of departure and the primary, even determining factor, in human society, not yet outmoded as long as capitalism
a turn towards socialist development for entire states, even prevails in a large part of the world.
though there may not yet'by the necessary internal objec­ When we talk of internal social relations of presocialist
tive prerequisites in the countries, but -only a revolution­ societies, we usually refer to relations of co-operation and
ary anti-imperialist enthusiasm which does not always take mutual assistance -in primitive, communes and, we strive to
the form of vigorous anti-capitalism. show the qualitatively higher character of co-operation and
Traditional international relations . did not play and mutual .assistance-under socialism. This question does not
could not play such a role, which can only be performed by arise when we analyse -international relations—and here
the international relations-produced by the October Revolu­ lies their uniqueness i y comparison with internal relations.
tion and consolidated through- the formation ,and develop­ International relations-- of co-operation and mutual assis­
ment of the world socialist system. tance simply could not'exist before the appearahce of the
world socialist system. Even the primitive communes that
. ' * * * had no internal antagonism.s.were often in a state'of* antago­
nistic struggle among themselves. With the appearance of
The overwhelming part of international relations, both class antagonisms the antagonism of nations began to-.-be
material and ideological, is realised (only passing through more marked. Afted the ’formation of the alhembracing
people’s minds) in the policy of the ruling classes and parties system of capitalism, this antagonism' was apparent, in the
of national states. That is why international relations nor­ imperialist dependence ori adhandful of, “advanced” nations
mally have a political character. In the sphere of. external -of the overwhelming rhajority of peoples who were backward
relations, as nowhere else, the primacy of politics over eco­ in their, social and economic development. -There arose
nomics and the initiating role of state in arranging.economic a diametrically opposed-“world town” and “world village”,
and other .relations, are patently obvious. which still exist today.- - 'i

Two reasons exist for this phenomenon. First, there is the pull of exploiting states to relations of domination and
a tendency in every exploiting state to extend the exploita­ subordination in international politics (which is directly
tion hy which it subjects classes of working people within determined by their essence) remained. In affirming the
the country and which it extens to other peoples. The need for scientifically analysing this essence in order to
history of slave-owning and feudal society is replete with determine the strategic direction of revolutionary struggle,
such attemps and temporary successes by the most dominant Lenin thought it tactically important to study those systems
powers of the time. Why were these attempts at exploitation of political relations of capitalist states which depended on
of other peoples only temporary? Because they normally a specific correlation of power and were formed during their
did not have a firm basis of economic and, above all, for­ competition and clash on a world-wide scale. The first of
eign trade relations. Since a world-wide division of labour such systems directly expresses, so to say, the pure type of
did not exist and the many local world markets which period­ international relations of domination and subordination.
ically appeared and disappeared turned out to be unstable, This is “the relation of the oppressed nation to the oppress­
not one of the pre-capitalist social systems took the form of ing”.^ The establishment of such a relationship is the ulti­
a world system. The world empires therefore, began to mate (that may or may not be implemented) objective of
disintegrate almost as soon as they were founded. the foreign policy of exploiting classes in any country. The
This brings us to the second reason. Capitalism is the first fact that not every exploiting state achieves that aim is
social and economic formation whose main laws apply to a sign not of it being peace-loving, but of weakness, the
all the social, both internal and international, relations, presence of stronger and more dangerous competitors, or
inasmuch as all of mankind changes from the organisation the strong popular resistance. This system found its classical
of its social life within the bounds of local societies and expression in colonialism which nowadays has mostly disap­
markets to its organisation on a world-wide scale in the form peared. The abolition of the remnants of colonialism and the
of world systems. battle against neo-colonialism today represent a gradual
The relations that were specific for the mutual relations of exclusion of relations of direct domination and subordination
ruling and oppressed classes within societies, capitalism at its from international relations and are bound to undermine
highest and last stage made obligatory also for international capitalist social relations throughout the world.
contacts. Hundreds of millions of people in the colonies, the The second type of. system of political relations of capital­
peoples of whole states were forced to become like the pro­ ist states is “the relation between two oppressing nations
letariat of the metropolitan countries and then found them­ on account of the loot, its division, etc.”^ This tends also
selves in an even worse situation. The anti-imperialist to be a relationship of domination and subordination which,
striving for national liberation found its social affinity for one reason or another, cannot yet be implemented and
with the anti-capitalist struggle of the working class. which ruling classes of hostile states usually effect through
A united front of the socialist'aijd national-liberation move­ wars. These systems,of relations were, in fact, realised in
ment was formed in the mainstream of world socialist the First and (for the -imperialist powers) Second World
revolution. wars which began through attempts to redivide the world
In the history of the internatinal relations of world capi­ hy groups of states representing the interests of monopolies
talism, there have been instances of a balance of power competing with one another. Speaking about this system of
existing; for example, when the big imperialist powers did relations, Lenin said: “The struggle for colonies, for markets
not tyrannise one another or.when a large imperialist pred­ etc. (Rome and Carthage; Britain and Germany 1914-17).
ator (for various adverse reasons) could not exploit a small
neighbouring state or even was, for a time, interested in ^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35 p. 264.
arranging equal and officially friendly relations. However, 2 Ibid.

As a general rule,' a war 'of that* kind is robbery un both sides^ ideas depends solely on the overthrow-of the entire capitalist
and the attithde of detn'ocracy. (and scJcialism) to it comes system.”^ At the same time,* one must bear in mind that
under the rule: ‘Two thieves- ara fighting, may they both over the greater part of the'world -and, also important, in
perish’.”^ • • . the most technologically and economically advanced states,
Finally the third type of these systems is “the relation of this overthrow took decades.' A long period is, therefore,
a national state which does not oppress others to one which necessary for state-organised socialism to exist side by side
oppresses, to a particularly' reactionary state” Here we with capitalism; a system of-'dynamic equal relations is
are dealing with a very changeable situation: “A system necessary between nations, relations which are capable of
of nations with equal rights: This question is much more at least partially paralysing the aggressive and exploiting
complex\\\r^ strivings of imperialism and helping to form conditions of
In order to determine one’s position in this third case, one coexistence that are favourable to the new system.
should understand the whole complex of relationships be­ B. International relations of comradely co-operation and
tween different countries. Lenin said: “Think over thislf mutual assistance of free peoples and peoples who are liberat­
Don’t forget this!! We live not only in separate states, but ing themselves. They arise after the formation of the first
also in a certain system of states;’ it is permissible for the non-exploiting state—the dictatorship of the proletariat
anarchists to ignore this; we are notanarchists.”^ He continued: in Soviet Russia which transferred the principle of proletar­
“No, no, we are not at all indifferent to the Staatenbau, ian internationalism to the sphere of foreign policy in
to the system of states, to-their mutual relations''^ The latter, relation to fraternal states and to the working people of all
however, cannot be unchangeable since the balance of power countries. Their most important condition is to recognise
is continually changing in the world. and to put into practice the right of nations to self-determi­
The transfer of centres of' the world revolutionary move­ nation up to and including secession and the formation of
ment and the centres of world reaction every time lends a new a separate state.
form to the “system of equal nations” . There is no place here Lenin, explaining the socialist national and international
for dogmatism in evaluation, or forgetting the Marxist policy in the early years of Soviet power, said: “We are
principle of the concreteness, of truth. Socialist states bear told that Russia will disintegrate and split up into separate
this in mind in their foreign policy in regard to independeg,t republics but we have no reason to fear this. We have
states (both imperialist and non-iniperialist) of the non­ nothing to fear, whatever the number of independent
socialist world, endeavouring- to implement a particular republics. The important thing for us is not where the state
scientifically grounded,- individually tailored approach. The border runs, but whether or not the working people of all
Rapallo Treaty of 1922 between Germany and the Russian nations remain allied in their struggle against the bour­
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic serves as an example geoisie, irrespective of nationality.”^ The alliance of working
of how favourable results can ‘cdme from- a foreign policy people of different nationalities above all “is not based on
based on correct conceptions of this system of relations in treaties, -but on the solidarity of the exploited against *the
the contemporary world.:.* , * . ' exploiters”.®' “It is not the Great Power status of' Russia
In formulating the fundamentals .of socialist foreign poli­ that we are defending—of thdt nothing is left but-Russia
cy in 1917, Lenin pointed out: “The full realisation of our proper—nor is it national interfests, for we assert that the
interests of sobialism, of world socialism are higher than

^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 255.

2 Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 344.
3 Ibid. .. . . l i d . , '

national interests, higher than the interests of the state.”^ social relations of socialism to external affairs run the risk of
International relations ofi co-operation and mutual assis­ encroaching upon the sovereignty of individual socialist
tance are social relations of states that arose as a weapon of states (after all, international relations cannot be reduced
the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle during the to interregional relations), which is liable to produce
world socialist revolution. /They constitute a wide class of serious complications in their co-operation. What is the
international relations of a new type that differ from one substance of this distinction?
another by the nature of the states participating in them The basic economic and other laws of socialism operate
and their degree of proximity to socialist social relations. differently in international economic relations between so­
The first form of such tel^tions, distinguished by its cialist states than inside each of them. Due to the obvious het­
clearly expressed socialist character, prevailed between erogeneity of the economic, social and cultural potential
the independent Soviet republics; then, five years after the in different countries, it is too early to say that the world
October Revolution, they united into the socialist federation socialist economic system as a whole, like the economy of
—the Soviet Union. The voluntary democratic consoli­ each socialist state, already operates to secure the all­
dation, first of four Soviet Socialist Republics—the Russian round development of each individual. What may be a law
Federation, Byelorussia, the Transcaucasian Federation and for individual national economies at times is only indirectly
the Ukraine—today includes fifteen socialist states and manifest in the relations of sovereign states.
presupposes a centralised administration of the major Moreover, the relative independence of international
branches of the economy and culture and in military, diplo­ relations within the system is attributable to the fact that
matic and foreign trade spheres. Its basis is the division of each socialist state plans its economy along the lines of
labour, the single set of productive forces which developed profit-and-loss accounting and is, therefore, bound to consid­
in the years of Soviet power and the system of organic eco­ er also the commercial profit from international economic
nomic planning ties without which the economy of no repub­ relations. Another factor it has to consider is that its part­
lic could operate. The interrepublican relations increasingly ners in world trade are capitalist as well as socialist coun­
lose the features of interstate relations and acquire those of tries.
interregional relations within the framework of a single It may be that in some circumstances a socialist state may
state. They are the prototype of the international relations prefer a capitalist partner out of purely commercial con­
to which socialist states will come when they attach their sideration; this is understandable if one takes into consid­
national economy to a single world socialist (communist) eration that the assortment and quality of commodities
co-operative. The relations of the Soviet republics which vary on the world socialist market, that price levels are
were previously international relations have gradually become different being determined by the differences in productivi­
internal relations. ty levels and that the resources of individual states may be
The second, and main, form of international relations of limited. This forcibly demonstrates the action of the laws
co-operation and mutual assistance constitutes mutual rela­ of commodity production in the complex set of international
tions of states within the framework of the world socialist economic relations. Here one sees also the ability of capi­
system. By contrast with the first form these relations talism, having lost its opportunity directly to influence the-
possess a much greater relative independence and cannot internal social relations of the socialist states, for the time­
fully be identified with internal relations that prevail in being to influence relations between them.
each of the socialist states. Ignorance of this distinction The socialist states must be guided in their external econom­
and a mechanical projecting of the features of the internal ic relations by the principle of concerted action and priority
of the fundamental interests of socialism over the interests of
1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 378. direct profit. That does not mean that in every case they
V 2 7—01290

must or they will turn down commercially advantageous relations of the socialist states, on the contrary, are rela­
deals with capitalist powers. After all, sometimes pacts with tions of peoples represented by worker-peasant governments,.
the class enemy, to which he is brought under pressure international relations in the true sense of the word. When the-
irrespective of his will by the prevailing—and, therefore, socialist states begin to build classless societies, when they
compelling—system of international economic relations, enhance the social uniformity of the population and they
can speed up the building of socialism. We refer here to turn the proletarian dictatorship into socialist states of the
cases where contacts between socialist and capitalist states entire people, they increase the degree of the popular nature-
are not at variance with the interests of the community of international relations of the new type and they encourage
as a whole. the socialist nations to draw together in an ever-increas­
Finally, while the internal socialist social relations of ing multiplicity of ways. When they overcome class differ­
each country are controlled and regulated mainly by the ences, no matter what the social barriers and the old divi­
concentration of ownership of the principal means of pro­ sion of labour within the socialist states, there is no doubt
duction in the hands of the socialist state and by a planned that they will exert a great influence on their mutual rela­
development of all aspects of social life, control over inter­ tions.
national relations and their regulation does not fall within The popular nature of the international relations of the-
the confines of any special international agency, and does fraternal socialist states testifies to the extent to which the-
not have an economic basis similar to state or public owner­ nature of socialist co-operation and mutual assistance is=
ship within each country. There is not yet any international alien to the relations of domination and subordination
socialist ownership as a predominant international economic which are inherent in relations between an oppressed and
xelajtion. Nor is there common planning and management by an oppressor nation, the relations between two oppressor
nil (or at least several) national economies from a single nations-and the relations of a nation which is not oppressing-
centre. The socialist states can only manage all the forms of other nations with an oppressor nation. The socialist na­
their international relations in common, on the basis of tions which have put an end to the system of capitalist ex­
■equal co-operation as they co-ordinate their positions and ploitation and are building social life on the principle of
overcome contradictions, through manifesting their many- public ownership of the means of production, incorporate-
sided national interests and by their “integration” into into their mutual relations only what exists in their inters
n single international whole—the socialist interest of peo­ nal relations.
ples who have thrown off the yoke of capital. Hence, the This fact is ignored by anti-Communist ideologists whe
special importance of sovereign relations between states maliciously ascribe to the mutual contacts between socialist
and the need to recognise that in content the international states the features of competitive antagonism which mark
socialist process of transforming social life inevitably takes the international relations of capitalist states. They, there­
a nationally unique form. Hence it is only by comparing by, fully divorce international from internal relations, tak­
and sensibly combining the experience of many socialist na­ ing the unscientific view that international relations‘can be-
tions, which will last right up to the transition to complete diametrically opposed to internal relations. Such an approach
nommunism, that we can obtain an idea of integral socialism. tends to be propagandist and is unrelated to reality.
Their deeply democratic<content is a principal feature of The third group of relations of co-operation and mutual
the international relations of socialist states. While the assistance occurs among the socialist states (of the proletar*
interstate relations of sodieties that are antagonistic in ian dictatorship or a state* of the entire people) and states
any class sense are essentially relations of exploiting classes that have embarked upon a path of non-capitalist develop­
of various nations, minority classes whose interests inevi­ ment (revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletary
tably differ from those of the common people, the mutual iat and peasantry, people’s democracy, national democra-

cy). An alliance is implemented through these relations anti-capitalist forces which have not yet acquired a consis­
between the peoples of the socialist states and the social tent socialist character. They may retain their qualities
forces representing the trend to socialist development in only if the young national states which maintain these
developing states. Due to the weakness in the latter states of relations have a consistent foreign policy orientated towards
the developed industrial proletariat, which alone is capable the world socialist system. Otherwise, it is possible that
of leading the fight for socialism, and the temporary impossi­ they may even turn into inimical relations or into another
bility of establishing its dictatorship, only close internatio­ form of international relations of domination and subordi­
nal relations of the countries embarking upon non-capitalist nation.
development with the socialist states provide a guarantee C. T ran sition al in tern ation al relation s. The new factor
of transition to socialism. If these relations are violated introduced into international politics after the October
there is a danger of these peoples returning to the orbit of Revolution was that “the Bolsheviks are establishing com­
imperialist dependence and neo-colonialism. On the other pletely different international relations which make it pos­
hand, their maintenance and strengthening guarantee securi­ sible for all oppressed peoples to rid themselves of the
ty from imperialist intrigues and the hegemony of the imperialist yoke”.^ This applies to peoples striving to break
working class in the form of its main attainm ent—the world free of capitalist slavery and to those which want to extricate
socialist system—where classes and social groups which are themselves from imperialist dependence without yet abolish­
already fighting against capitalism have still not matured ing the bourgeois system. Lenin wrote: “Our policy is
nnough to build socialism on their own internal resources grouping around the Soviet Republic those capitalist coun­
and experience. tries which are being strangled by imperialism.”^
International relations of this type (suffice it here to Socialist states establish with countries in the world capi­
cite the. example of the Mongolian People’s Republic) can talist system only relations in which there is no domination
be decisive in determining the social structure of maruy or subordination from either side, and strictly observe the
developing states. It is true that these international rela­ principle of equal rights and the equality of big and small
tions still lag behind the mutual relations of socialist states states. As long as capitalism still exists, they cannot turn
in their degree of completion and “socialism”. This is, how­ all international relations into a sphere of co-operation and
ever, a temporary phenomenon. The establishment of a new mutual assistance; however, the restriction of the possibility
society in these countries ultimately produces a situation of one state exploiting another means a great deal. It
where their international relations will acquire all these testifies to the fact that internationally, too, a process has
traits of socialist international relations. During a. visit to begun of extending socialist social relations and ousting
Egypt, the Soviet Premier A. N. Kosygin, noted that they capitalist relations.
had now “exceeded the bounds of simple, peaceful coexistence International relations have a tra n sitio n a l character if,
and were relations of a new type permeated with the spirit on the one hand, they involve peoples of socialist states
cf mutual trust and based on wide-scale co-operation in all which have already dispensed with relations of domination
spheres” and subordination and, on the other, if they involve exploit­
The fou rth category of internationl relations of co-opera­ ing classes the relations of which have not yet turned into
tion and mutual assistance are the mutual relations between relations of co-operation and mutual assistance. These*may
countries that have chosen the non-capitalist path. They be divided into several types.
differ from the third group in that socialist states are not
directly present. These are relations of anti-imperialist and
I V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 477.
^ Pravda, May 12, 1966. ^ Ibid., PP- 477-78.

F ir s tly , there are the relations between socialist and The socialist state is internationalist in its international
bourgeois anti-imperialist states, like those between the policy. This is the objective of a state that is not yet socia­
USSR and India. It is interesting that socialist interna­ list and no longer bourgeois, which is going through the
tionalism and the progressive nationalism of liberating sta tes transition^ from a private enterprise system to socialism.
meet in these relations. Despite all the differences between A contradiction arises which involves nationalism, a charac­
them, both the one and the other essentially find common teristic feature of the policy of bourgeois (non-imperialist)
ground as long as the anti-colonialist legacy continues. It states. Co-operation and mutual assistance of the interna­
was just such a coincidence that Lenin referred to when tionalist and nationalist forces continue until they oppose
he appealed to Communists to base themselves “on the bour­ the common class enemy—monopoly capitalism.
geois nationalism which is awakening, and must awaken, T h ird ly , the transitional groups must include relations
among those peoples, and which has its historical justifi­ between socialist and imperialist states. This is a sector of
cation”.^ The historical justification for the nationalism of international relations in which there is no longer any
young states, which only yesterday were colonies, is a mea­ domination or subordination by one state in respect of anoth­
sure of the acceptance of elements of co-operation and mutual er, yet there cannot be comradely co-operation and mutual
assistance in their relations with the socialist countries. assistance.
Secondly, the international relations of countries that From the early days of its existence every state of proletar­
have embarked upon non-capitalist development and of young ian dictatorship has to arrange its relations with the capital­
anti-imperialist states developing on a capitalist basis be­ ist world on a completely new and unprecedented social
long to transitional relations. The latter sometimes have basis. The former antagonism between the bourgeoisie and
more in common with the former than with socialist states. the proletariat based on domination and subordination is
Much is due to the common destinies and the tasks of anti- now, for the first time, replaced by a class antagonism with­
-colonial struggle, their similar economic and social struc­ out domination and subordination, insofar as the proletar­
tures and their nationalist ideology. iat, being the ruling class, stands opposed to the bour­
At the same time, these relations are unstable: the two geoisie from a position of equality.
above-mentioned forms of state evolve internally in opposite Whether it likes it or not, the bourgeoisie cannot deal
directions. As the states that have chosen the non-capitalist with the victorious working class of a socialist state as it
variant of social progress develop into socialist states, would with its own proletariat, that is, it cannot exploit them.
their ties with bourgeois anti-imperialist states increasingly In turn, the ruling proletariat, whose exploiting elements
resemble the relations of the socialist states. Naturally, in disappeared in its own country, cannot deal with the for­
the international relations of the states consistently moving eign bourgeoisie as it' wpuld with a bourgeoisie to which
along a non-capitalist path, socialist internationalism it sold its labour power. This is a remarkable success for
increasingly and directly comes into play. Nationalism socialism in international relations, although some time
fades away and thrives only in bourgeois states. has to pass before it can establish direct relations of comr­
All these turns and changes, naturally, have many differ­ adely co-operation and mutual assistance with the peoples
ences and interim stages; a new content may appear in of the capitalist states. This is impossible without an alte­
international relations which is unexpectedly in the old ration within the latter" of the nature of political
form and, conversely cases occur where the old content is power.
attired in new garb. The essence, however, remains the As the world socialist system develops, the state-orga­
same. nised proletariat, although it cannot abolish relations of
domination and subordination inside capitalist states,
^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 162. nonetheless, vigorously excludes exploitation from interna-
The conditions for attaining this goal are not simple. These
tional relations. Once it has obtained economic and politi­ countries do not have the elementary objective prerequisites
cal independence, it can gain equal and mutually P r ^ a b le , for socialism, namely large-scale machine production and
businesslike co-operation with bourgeois states. In relations a proletariat—the prime mover of socialist revolution—is
between capitalism and socialism, therefore, a situation experiencing a period of class emergence. Nonetheless,
arises which has been expressed m the Leninist socialist projects cannot simply be labelled here utopia’n:
peaceful coexistence as a special condition of the class thanks to the ramified and intensive international relations
struggle transposed to interstate contacts. tVinssp. in the present-day world, they have the chance to compensate
Fourthly, relations between imperialist for their lack of essential conditions for rapid progress if
that are on their way to socialism, bypassing ^a?italism, they pursue a consistent foreign policy, a policy in external
are also transitional. They are similar to the third type^ trade, a scientific and technological, ideological and cultur­
Imperialism here is also unable to impose its dommatio al policy orientated towards the world socialist sys-
upon them. At the same time, the countries building a new
life on a non-capitalist basis are themselves unable entirely tem.
W^e may recall the exchange of opinion between Marx and
to determine the climate of these relations. Even if they rely Engels and the Russian Narodniks in the 1870s and 1880s.
on the support of the world socialist system, they ere una­ The latter believed that the Russian village commune which
ble, until the demise of capitalism in a large part the had retained the features of primitive collectivism and had
world, to reconstruct international relations even according not yet fallen into decay (according to our formula: I — C C)
to the type of those created within such countries. represented a unique opportunity as the future cell of socia­
Such is the sum total of present-day international relat­ lism. Marx and Engels replied to the Narodniks that by
ions, a complete understanding of which essential itself the commune was doomed to failure when a rapid
understand the scientific conception of socialism, a vi development of commodity-money and private-enterprise
condition for a successful foreign policy and a prerequisite relations occurred. It could only facilitate the transition to
for its scientific organisation. forms of socialist organisation if the Russian revolution
would follow socialist revolution in the West and would be
* * * actively supported by it. Even before the spread of Marxism
to Russia, Nikolai Ghernyshevsky, one of the best minds
We return to the issue of international relations because among Russian revolutionary democrats, came close to
even a brief description of the structural types of emergent this view. *
socialism would be incomplete without P, In his famous tract, To a Critique of Philosophical Con­
socialist” societies which have proclaimed non-capitalist victions A g a in s t Commune P ro perty (1858), he wrote that
development from pre-capitalist and even from pre-antago- “we have no right to regard communal land ownership* as
nistic social and economic systems. _ j a special immanent feature of our nationality; we should
Many ex-colonies in Asia and Africa have found them­ look at it as the common human appertenance of a certain
selves in a contradictory situation. Their internal social period in the life of each people. We should also not be
conditions had lagged for centuries behind the possibiliW proud of the maintenance of this vestige of primitive antiq­
of global relations and the requirements for world contact, uity, just as no one should boast of any existing antique-
the penetration-thanks to modern communications ot all form because the maintenance of antiquity testifies merely
manner of influences-finds virgin and receptive soil the to the sloth of historical development. The maintenarice of
best minds of the peoples, which only recently were stirred the commune in land relations which has disappeared else­
to historical creativity, understandably are choosing so­ where only goes to show that we have lived far less than other
cialism. 8 -0 1 2 9 0

peoples. So we 'have nothing to hoast about before other and who, because of this circumstance, did not require the
peoples in this respect”.^ hundreds of years spent by Great Britain in creating a system
In what way did “the father of Russian socialism” (as of free trade and enlivening industrial activity. This is
Plekhanov called Chernyshevsky) hope to imbue this form borne out by the saying: “History, like a grandmother, likes
“of relations which are close to patriarchal life” with new its little grandchildren”.’^
life and a socialist (or communist) content? Chernyshevsky’s conclusions are:
He makes it clear in the same tract that he sees the reso­ “1. When a certain social phenomenon in a certain nation
lution of this task not within the commune itself but in has reached a high stage of development, Its journey to
certain other factors. According to the dialectical law of that stage in another backward nation may take less time
negation of the negation, the private form of ownership, than it took in the advanced nation.... ,p j i
which in European states more advanced than nineteenth- “2. This acceleration occurs through the drawing togeth­
century Russia (before the Reform of Serfdom in 1861) was er of the backward and advanced nations....
squeezing out the old commune, had, in turn, to be re­ “3. This acceleration consists in the fact that with the
placed by common ownership of the means of production— backward nation the development of a certain social phenom­
which was similar to that antiquated form.^ ■ enon, thanks to the impact of an advanced nation, passes
Did that mean that it was necessary to wait for the uni­ directly from a lower stage to a higher, bypassing the middle
versal establishment of private property? Chernyshevsky stages....
answered in the affirmative; this path was obligatory and “4. With such an accelerated course of development, the
reliable, but in order to implement it a long journey had to middle stages left out by a formerly backwardf'nation,
be made which many countries had already left behind. utilising the experience and the knowledge of the advanced
In that case, should a people which finds itself at a relativ­ nation, attain only a theoretical form as logical aspects
ely low stage of social and economic development introduce which are not implemented....
all the social institutions which a more advanced civilisa­ “5. If these middle stages are also actually implemented,
tion had created and which it had then rejected? Should it they may be only of insignificant size in relation to the
not take advantage of the opportunity directly to begin by importance of practical life.”^
introducing its best attainments? Thirty-five years later, Engels was to write respectfully of
Chernyshevsky writes tha't “Hegel was right when he said the^ great thinker”. Because of the censorship barrier sepa­
that average logical aspects more often do not obtain an rating Russia from Western Europe, Chernyshevsky had
objective form of life, remaining merely logical aspects. not read any of Marx’s works; however, Engels declared “if
Suffice it to say that a certain average factor materialised we do find a weak spot in his writings here and there, and
somewhere and at some time, the process of development some narrowness of horizon, the amazing thing is that there
avoids the need to be realised in all other places and times’’.^ is not much more of it.”s
As an example from social history, Chernyshevsky refers to Engels writes further that “all the tribal community forms
the .New Zealanders “to whom the British played nanny”. arising before the emergeqce of commodity production and
private exchange, have only tjiis in common with the futhre
^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Selected Philosophical Works, Moscow, socialist society, that certain things, the means of produc­
1938, pp. 168-69 (in Russian)/ >> tion, are held as communal property and are in common use
2 Ibid., p. 168. / . . , ^ . by certain groups. But this common feature alone does not
^ Here Chernyshevsky’s views ■coincide with those of Engels m
Chapter X f ll of Anti-Duhrii^g. See F. Engels,. A nti-Diihring, Mos­ 2 , Selected Philosophical Works, p. 193
cow, 1969, pp. 155-70. Ibid., pp. 194-95. ,
' 4 N. G. Chernyshevsky, op. cit., p. 193. 3 K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 400.

yet enable the lower social form to grow into a future social­ advanced foreign experience which, the fate of a revolution­
ist society, that final product of capitalist society which it ary having formed differently, invariably led to proletari­
itself begets.... However, it is not only possible but inescap­ an scientific socialism, to Marxism and to the First Interna­
able that once the proletariat wins out and the means of tional—as had happened in the last years of Alexander
production pass into common ownership among the West Herzen. It would be wrong to seek in his works signs of
European nations, the countries which have just managed to a Narodnik reactionary-utopian idealisation of the Russian
make a start on capitalist production, and where tribal commune: although Ghernyshevsky could not take a proletar­
institutions or relics of them are still intact, will be able ian and internationalist position, he was, at any rate, an
to use these relics’ of communal ownership and the corre­ enemy of national exclusiveness. In his view the commune
sponding popular customs as a powerful means of considera­ could only play a progressive part in connection with what
bly shortening their advance to socialist society and largely he loosely defined as progressive changes in countries that
sparing themselves the sufferings and the struggles through were more advanced than Russia.
which we in Western Europe have to make our way. But an Why should one not pay homage to the clarity of vision
inevitable condition of this is the example and active sup­ of a Russian socialist who was very close in his outlook to
port of the hitherto capitalist West. And this applies not present-day revolutionary democrats who are leading some
-only to Russia but to all countries at the pre-capitalist stage nations to socialism from pre-capitalist stages of develop­
■of development”.^ ment?
Here specifically and convincingly is propounded what It was patently obvious by the end of the nineteenth centu­
■Ghernyshevsky had formulated in a philosophically abstract ry that the possibility of which Marx, Engels and Ghernyshe­
form largely on an intuitive level. One can only be amazed at vsky had written would not be realised in Russia. The inten­
the similarity of the trend in thought. Plekhanov was, there­ sive development of capitalism brought Russia increasingly
fore, not entirely just when, referring to Ghernyshevsky’s closer to the West in her conditions for a future socialist
treatment of the question of the state of the commune, he revolution; the transfer to her of the centre of the world
called it “purely algebraic” and thought its shortcoming was revolutionary movemept, moreover, made the socialist
that the overall result of his idea “was equally applicable revolution in Russia a prologue for socialist revolution in
to all countries and peoples which had retained communal other countries.
land ownership....”^ Meanwhile, because the possibility had not been realised
Ghernyshevsky’s analysis for Russia was, naturally, inad­ in Russia, that did not mean that it had generally ceased to
equate, especially in that he regarded the proletarisation exist. On the contrary, thanks to the October and other
of the working population (which was intensively occurring socialist revolutions, it gained credence and became a real
at that time in the West) as a negative development; he did probability for a whole number of countries which had been
not realise that this was what created the social force which held back by imperialism for decades in their own capi­
alone could spread the principle of communal ownership talist development.
throughout society—which attracted him so much. The idea put forward by Marx and Engels that the demo­
Ghernyshevsky was a utopiail'socialist of a peasant persua­ cratic and proletarian revolutions would “mutually supple­
sion, yet he stood head and shoulders above all other uto­ ment” one another^ received further development in the
pian socialists in Russia. He was not afraid of turning to Leninist theory of non-capitalist development.
Such couutries have the following characteristic economic
1 K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 403. structures:
® G. V. Plekhanov, Socialism and Political Straggle. Our Diffe­
rences, Moscow, 1939, pp. 100, 101 (in Russian). Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 19, S. 296.

I —I —/ —a petty-commodity system permeating agricul­ Now we can understand why any violation or break in the
ture and embracing artisan production; above-mentioned relations is fraught with the danger of
I —C —C —a patriarchal-collectivist structure (commune), disrupting the entire socialist programme of a revolutionary
and nowadays predominating, for example, in the African regime; we appreciate why, with the aid of international
countryside; relations of a new type integrated with developing progres­
I — C — I — a. private capitalist structure mainly at the sive internal structures, a new form of society takes shape
pre-machine and manufacturing stage. that is not yet socialist but which no loiiger qualifies as
The implementation of wide-ranging nationalisation of a capitalist or private enterprise society. It is moving in
the means of production which used to belong to foreign and the direction of the world socialist system and has every
domestic capitalists, and the co-operation of peasants in prospect of joining it in the future, yet it cannot be cate­
such countries as Algeria, Egypt, Burma and Syria provides gorically ascribed to the socialist system today.
a comparatively small sector C —C —C. One should also We now have the following formnlae:
remember that in most of these countries the industrial I >
worker stratum is still very small. All that is so far insuf­ ^:C -C -{IR ),
ficient to guarantee stable socialist development. Therefore, /
countries that take the non-capitalist path are not complet­ C
ely guaranteed against the restoration of private-capitalist I ^ C — Co,
trends and counter-revolutionary putsches. I-C -I,
Furthermore, the insufficiency of C — C — C as a guarantee 7 -7 -7 ,
of socialist development may for the time being be compen- I — C — C —which is a sign not only of the weakness of
saled by international relations ( IR) with the world social­ productive forces (where manual labour prevails everywhere),
ist community. The socialist “ferment” in these societies but also a mosaic form of the social and economic system of
niay be designated as C — C — C — { IR) . countries that are taking the non-capitalist path, and the
The transition of colonies and semi-colonies to the dicta­ need for immense effort to attain the objective of building
torship of the proletariat, according to the Programme of the socialism.^
Communist International, “will be possible only through Here also lies the justification for the need for centralised
a series of preparatory stages, as the outcome of a whole government and administration and the exceptional role of
period of transformation of bourgeois-democratic revolution politics until the socialist economy has been formed. This
into socialist revolution, while in the majority of cases, is one aspect of dialectical unity, the other being the need
successful socialist construction will be possible only if to activate conscious popular participation in implementing
direct support is obtained from the countries in which the progressive programmes.
proletarian dictatorship is established”. In still more back­ The experience of anti-imperialist revolutions whicli have
ward countries (as in some parts of Africa), a national acquired an anti-capitalist meaning has shown that the
uprising and its victory may “open the way for their direct most honest motivations of personally convinced and some­
development towards socialism and their avoiding the times heroic fighters for socialism can lead them to defeat
stage of capitalism, provided real, powerful assistance is 1 “...An enormous step forward must be taken in developing the
rendered to them by the countries in which the proletarian productive forces; it is necessary to overcome the resistance (fre­
dictatorship is established”.^ quently passive, which is particularly stubborn and particularly
difficult to overcome) of the numerous survivals of smalLscale pro­
duction; it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of habit and
^ The Programme of the Communist International, Modern Books conservatism which are connected with these survivals.” (V. f. Lenin,"
Ltd., London, 1929, pp. 40, 41. Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 421.)

and senseless sacrifice if they rely on a policy drawn up by The “socialist model” concept has not had a happy time.
a small group or Blanquist conspiratorial methods. They It has been demagogically bandied about by revisionists sO'
are doomed to failure if they do not conduct persistent and as to denigrate socialist construction in fraternal countries.
systematic work in turning the ideas and aspirations of Attempts to prove the multiplicity of “socialisms”, under the
what is usually a small vanguard of revolutionaries into pretext of “model-making”, have objectively undermined the
the ideas and aspirations of the people as a whole. positions of scientific socialism and are bound to be con­
Where revolutionary democrats who are sincerely interest­ demned by Communists.
ed in the socialist future of their peoples do not take care to A certain contradiction has arisen: eith er to have the only
see that the common people understand and give them their scientific model of socialism, as postulated in the works of
support, imperialism very often takes its revenge. For them, Marx, Engels and Lenin, and in the documents of the inter­
as for all other social forces which seriously proclaim social­ national communist movement, or to have a multiplicity of
ist aims, the Leninist rule must not be forgotten: “Capital­ “models” arbitrarily constructed by opportunists. If we are
ism cannot be vanquished without takin g over the hanks, dealing with the present state of the problem, we have to say
without repealing p riv a te ownership of the means of produc­ that this duality has a reasonably firm basis. In evaluating
tion. These revolutionary measures, however, cannot be im­ and condemning revisionist attacks on the theory of socialist
plemented without organising the entire people for democratic society, however, it is important not to restrict the area of
administration of the means of production captured from the research.
bourgeoisie, without enlisting the entire mass of the working There is only one scientific model of socialism if we take
people, the proletarians, semi-proletarians and small peas­ it as a completed integral social system which has fully devel­
ants, for the democratic organisation of their ranks, their oped its possibilities and already stands at the threshold
forces, their participation in state affairs.”^ of communism. This for the time being is our goal.
We have already mentioned the common features of social­ On the other hand, a chain of societies exists representing
ist states and their principal characteristics. The model of stages in realising the given model. They may be expressed
socialism for all socialist states is an ideal type of state as various structural types or models, but they are not
which is industrially and culturally highly developed, has socialism as such in its finished form, but a socialism develop­
common ownership of the means of production and a social­ ing from the lower forms of its social organisation to higher
ly uniform population. This is the socialist state in a full- forms, being constructed in more or less accordance with the
scale version which Lenin identified with the beginning of demands of objective laws. An inability or, rather, an
the higher phase of communism. The problems which face nnwillingness to make a clear distinction between them both
countries in the world socialist system should be distinguished is a characteristic feature of the revisionist view of Roger
from the problems confronting the young developing Garaudy (author of P o u r un modele frangais du socialism e,
states for which the socialist prospects are not rigidly fixed. Gallimard, 1968); his book claims to be something new in
In recent years a lively discussion has graced the pages of Marxism, but a critical analysis shows that Garaudy strips
newspapers on forms of transition to the new system, on the Marxism of action.
types and models of socialism. Unfortunately, the discus­ As the Soviet writer H. Momjan has rightly said a “criti­
sants have often failed to fulfil the major condition of de­ cal attitude to the conception of many socialist models by no'
bate—they have not agreed on premises and principles. Some means refutes the correctness of applying a scientific model to
people interpret socialism as a national and specific histori­ a stndy of social phenomena. .Furthermore, not every use of
cal form; others, take the form of socialism to mean the the term ‘socialist model’ is associated with a perversion of
initial stage in the search for a prototype of socialist societies. Marxist-Leninist theory. Very often it means a statement of
V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 25. various forms of socialist construction or some of its specific

features in these countries. In that case, one may refer only how to choose out of all the truths obtained by mankind pri­
to the extent to which it is expedient to arm oneself with marily those that possess a definite meaning in social life.
terminology which, through the efforts of revisionists, has With the correct approach, the choice from the outset will,
taken an anti-Marxist tack and may engender contusion. probably, fall on the need for progress, and that today
Marxist theory has elaborated clear-cut and precise concepts has a single direction, namely the transition to socialism with
and categories for designating the dialectics of all that is which, incidentally, the realm of freedom commences.
general, specific and unique in socialist development. But A genuine friend of freedom, by contrast to a whole mass
it is not a dispute over words. The greatest objection is to of those who like to sell it piecemeal, selects the socialist
the deeply erroneous attempts by some theoreticians to alternative of social development, thereby demonstrating
construct models of socialist society which are basically at both the really free meaning of his choice and a complete
odds with a genuinely scientific interpretation of socia- understanding of the need for such a choice, and his inter­
est in the social liberation of mankind and a responsible
Emasculation of the conceptions of a really scientific attitude to the condition of mankind. Such a choice may
model of socialism is used by its enemies for politically seem extremely harsh and unacceptabe to a person who would
disorientating the working people. An acute, uncompromis­ like to be “free” to apply his mind not only to scientific
ing and systematic battle is needed against this. However, benefit, but also to delusion, to make one step forw'ards and
it does not follow that one should refuse to extract and study two steps backwards, to defend reason and at the same time
the various structural types of emergent socialism. A lack of to encourage unreason....
such research hampers the resolution of tasks in scientifically What does such a “freedom”, that may be attractive to
foT^casting the developm ent of socialist society and the adop­ a particular individual, have in common with social free­
tion and implementation of sound solutions on a national and dom? Does not society have to pay dearly for the whim of
international scale. someone irresponsibly to proclaim his principle of “free
It is vitally necessary as well as desirable that the numner expression” and demanding from society that it did not ask
of such investigations should grow, that their influence on him in what that “freedom” is expressed? Can a person real­
the management of socialist and communist construction ly believe himself free if he even completely voluntarily
should increase, that they should influence the course of the intends to move back towards spiritual and social slavery?
construction itself. They have a truly historic role in con­ Before the October Revolution, the optimum plan for
sciously selecting the most suitable forms and methods of free activity was determined by how close a person came to
transition from the pre-history of human society to its accepting the interests of the working class which stood in
genuine history. the foreground of the present epoch, whether he accepted
The reader having come thus'far may object that he has them as his own, whether he shared the political doctrine of
obtained only a rough outline. But there are different kinds scientific socialism and whether he was ready for selfless
of outlines. A scientific outline enables us to elaborate organised struggle in order to put it into practice. This was
a mature world outlook. It is true that this may not happen the social and political “system of co-ordinates” in which
quickly but there are no grounds for despair. Knowledge the fighter for freedom had to view his environment; these
should not degenerate into a cachectic erudition with were the “forms of contemplation” of the world. This im­
which one might excel without applying it to something. plied the class proletarian approach to social life.
The reader may recall that at the beginning of the book, What has changed today? First of all, the fact that by the
the author stated his aim of helping him to learn consciously many, years of effort of tens of millions of working people,
the scientifically substantiated socialist ideal has'been em­
^ Kommunist, No. 2, 1970, p. 62. bodied in a real live socialist society. The interests of the

working class have been transformed, in a revolutionary the laws of its activity and improvement, and if they are
way, into social relations and institutions corresponding in' not able convincingly to explain its superiority over any
it which have their own laws of operation and development. q)rivate enterprise system.
I t has become possible to ju d g e hum an designs and deeds by the Young people can only understand socialism as a system
measure of socialist social relation s and in stitu tion s. Their prin­ of the most reasonable and humane social relations by means
ciples and standards have ultimately become fundamental of education and through their’ own practical experience,
and determining. Meanwhile, the content of the class ap­ above all by participating in public work.
proach has also altered. One of the ploys of present-day imperialist propaganda
The class proletarian ideology and psychology are usually is to impose upon us the so-called “dispute of equal”: that is
being formed without direct contact with the class enemy in to say that the forces of good and evil clash in capitalist
a society today where the foundations for the realm of free­ society and that such a rivalry exists under socialism too,
dom are being laid and where social and national antago­ that the world has always been divided into good and bad
nisms are disappearing. New generations of Soviet people people. The new generation of builders of communism oppose
have not experienced exploitation and-have not encountered this masked preaching of an apolitical attitude, an attempt
landowners, capitalists, bankers and wealthy peasants. to gloss over the diametrically opposed nature of the two
Even about fascism young people know mainly through social systems, by their mature ability to evaluate social
films and books. Because the main front of class struggle has phenomena applying socialist, Marxist-Leninist criteria
moved beyond the bounds of socialist society, some people through the p rism of socialism as an em bodim ent of the interests
may think that a lull in the battle has occurred and do not o f the w orking class and a ll w orking p eo p le. This is a party
keenly feel the tension of class battles. The bourgeoisie and class approach which should be sensibly used by every
greatly counts on socialist workers forgetting the specific Soviet person. This is a world outlook through the p rism of
notion of these battles; nothing causes the bourgeoisie the values of freedom th a t is being confirmed in practice.
greater pleasure than for us to lower our guard. The bourgeoisie frequently include today in their arsenal
We all know how the bourgeoisie encourages an unhealthy of anti-socialist weapons a criticism of practical socialism
tendency to defame the heroes of the revolutionary past and from the point of view of ... socialist ideal. They live parasit-
the truly heroic present, to denigrate Soviet people, their ically on the fact that in one degree or another there is
labour and struggle, and to reappraise whole periods in always a non-coincidence, a gap which exists between the
our history and the role in them of outstanding individuals. ideal, the forecast, the aim or the plan and their empirical
Whatever their motivation, we *are faced with a move to implementation.
undermine the spiritual and class-political continuity of The idea of socialism is extremely popular in the world
generations and to prepare the way for alien influences. today. Our enemies cling to this idea because they do not
An obvious example of this was the action of the Right- want to lose their grip on the people. Lenin wrote in 1915:
wing, anti-socialist forces in Czechoslovakia which tried to “ ‘Socialism’ in general, as an aim, as the opposite of capi­
discredit the Communist Party, its heroes and prominent talism (or imperialism), is accepted now not only by the
figures, to impose on young people nationalist politicians Kautsky crowd and social-chauvinists, but by many
as their spiritual mentors and to lead them into an impasse bourgeois social politicians. However, it is no longer a matter
of opposition to the socialist system. of contrasting two social systems, but of formulating the
The political and philosophical socialisation of young concrete aim of the concrete ‘revolutionary mass struggle’
people is not satisfactory if they do not acquire the funda­ against a concrete evil.”^
mentals of a scientific criticism of capitalism, if they are
quite uncertain about the structure of socialist society and ^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, pp. 153-54.

To sum up, the,.forces of socialism and progress regard opment of socialism, encouraged by the powerful apparatus of
capitalism and its imperialist policy as the major evil in mass media, has resulted in an erosion of class and internation­
the world today, while the forces of reaction regard as evil alist awareness among substantial sections of the popula­
the growing pains of socialism or temporary deficiencies tion. Certain groups have succumbed to radio and television
in its social organisation, trying surreptitiously to apply hypnosis and have lost a clear understanding both of social
this description to the whole system. In other words, our necessity and of their own actual interests. Millions of
class enem ies counterpose their, own norm ative, dem agogically people are convinced from this negative experience that
ex a ctin g and, u ltim a te ly restorative, approach to a revolution­ without mastering a scientific understanding of socialism they
a ry a ttitu d e to contem porary events. That is why they enjoy cannot appreciate the p o litic a l outlook of an em an cipated free
arguing over various subjective socialist models which viol­ person-, this obviously im plies a socially conscious, ra tio n a l a n d
ate the integral scientific notion of the new society. responsible direction of their activity.
The experience of the CzechQslovak events of 1968 shows Geographical discoveries
particularly convincingly w h a t a responsible or irresponsible D o not take shape as gradually
a ttitu d e to preaching a true conception of socialism m eans for A s historical events.
the cause of freedom. In the magazine L iterd rn i listy, Jiri
Slama “unfolded pluralistic socialism”; he proposed replacing Oh, those m yths, the reefs and foam ing waters\
the socialist economy hy a mixed economy which would A m erica
include wide-ranging entrepreneurial initiative from private Hs such
owners. He openly counterposed this point of view to what W as understood m uch later
he called the Monist Marxist-Leninist idea of the socialist Than Colum bus dreamed.
economy “as a single large factory”; he favoured competition W hen he by chance d id come upon
between different political forces for power.^ That shore and cried: “ 'T is In d ia l”
For their part, the authors of the document “On the Eve
of Decision-Making” (referring to the new Czechoslovak The face of the Great French
model of socialism), published in July 1968, were against B ourgeois R evolu tion became clear ,
what they call an “industrialisation model”, ih e veh y artificial­ I n retrospect, after
ly se p a ra tin g and counterposing socialisation and industrialisa­ D ecades of heated, incoherent
tion. These people seem to have forgotten that mature so­ D ispu tes, conducted by swords on battlefields.
cialism cannot be built otherwise than through industrial
development which is associated with wide-scale application A n d only we
of up-to-date technology. Flirting with Western critics of D o see things clearly now.
socialism, they maintained that it would be wrong to try W e w ill not tolerate blank spaces
to add a democratic and humanistic gilding to “the industri­ U pon the m ap of history
alisation model” from outside without changing its basis. Whose m otley m ean in g is distin ct and clear to us.^
It is not hard to guess to what this change in the basis would
lead in view of the “microcult” around the economist Ota It is to be hoped that after reading this book young
Sik who had proclaimed a slightly modernised “co-operative students of Marxism will say the last verse with greater
socialism” a la Diihring. conviction.
Misunderstanding about the essence and paths of devel-
^ Literdrni listy, 1968, No. 17. L. Martynov, People's Names, Moscow, 1969, p. 150,


Progress Publishers would be glad to

have your opinion of this book, its transla­
tion and design and any suggestions you may
have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubov­
sky Boulevard, Moscow, U SSR .

XyAOJKeCTBeHHuit pe^aKTop B . MaAUKoe

TexHHHecKHit penaKTop B . JEypaejiesa
IIonnnoaHO k nenaTH 5 /IV -1 9 7 4 r. topMaT 84x 1081/ 32-
Bvm. ji. U / s n e q . ji. 6 ,3 y q .-a a n . Ji. 6 .4 9 .
H sh . M 17046. 3aK83 01290
ReHa 71 K.
HsuaTejibOTBO «nporpecc» rooynapcTBeHHoro KOMHTOTa
OOBBTa M h h h c tpo b CCCP no nejiaM HBHaTejibCTB, nojinrpa^H H
MooKBa r - 2 1 , 3y6oBCKHil OyjibBap, 21
OpRena TpynoBOro K p acn o ro snaMeHn
MocKOBCKaa THnorpaiJiHH M 7 «IICKpa peBoraonHHD
CoK)3nojiHrpa$npOMa n p n rocyRapCTBennoM
KOMHTeTG CoBexa M h h h c tpo b CGGP no RCJiaM
HsRaxejibCTB, nojiHrpa(j)HH h k h h >k hoh TOproBJiH
MoCKBa K -1, TpexnpyRHHH n ep ., 9