party of the USSR
By Ernest Germain
When the Sino-Soviet dispute broke into the open, it was not difficult to predict that all the theoretical and practical problems posed by forty years of dégéneration of the world Communist movement would sooner or later be brought forward and thrown into the arena by. one or the. other of the two protagonists, It is nevertheless quite remarkable how far the Chinese Communists go in their ninth articles replying to the "Open Letter" of the Central Committse of the Communist party of the Soviet Union in posing the problem of the social roots of the present crisis of world Communism,
Like the other recent ideological contributions of ‘the Chinese Communists in the dispute, the article is basically contradictory, It combines an important step forward in theory with a dangerous departure from Marxism, It condemns social inequality as the root of revisionism in the leadership of the Soviet state, employing the sharpest terms about this since the struggle launched by. Trotsky against the privileges of the bureaucracy, At the same.time the authors of the article advance the erroneous concept that the Soviet bureaucracy is a bourgeois layer and that it has embarked upon a course of restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union.
The problem of explaining the bureaucratic degeneration of the first workers state has stood as a challenge to all currents and organizations of the international labor movement, The only tendency that obstinately shut its eyes to the facts was the official Communist movement under Stalinist leadership. The shock was all the greater, then, when under pressure of rising mass discontent and unrest the Soviet bureaucracy félt forced to sacrifice the Stalin cult at the Twentieth Congress of thé, Conmunist party of the Soviet Union and initiated "de-Stalinization," ..Khrushchev and his group energetically sought to limit the entire problem of Stalints crimes and the grave degeneration of the state and the economy to forces within the social superstructure, trying to explain them away as products of ideology; i.e., products of the "cult of the personality." But among thinking militants of the Communist parties, this explanation satis-
*"Qn Khrushchev's Phoney Communism and its Historical Lessons for the World," Published by the editorial departments of Renmin Ribao and Honggi, July 13, 1964, ae
fied no one. Well-known leaders of big Communist parties like Togliatti and Gomulka publicly stated that this explanation was insufficient, to say the least. Mao Tse-tung is to be credited with having taken a step beyond Khrushchev!s infantile "explanation" as early as 1956-57 when he pointed to the social contradictions that continue to manifest themselves during the whole historical period between the overthrow of capitalism and the final completion of communist society as constituting the source, in the final analysis, of the evils that had appeared in Soviet society.
A second significant step forward has now been made by the theoreticians of the Chinese Communist party. Going beyond "social contradictions" in general, they have put their finger on something more concrete ~~ the appearance of a "privileged social stratum" in Soviet society.
The characteristics of this privileged layer are sharply described, often with considerable insight:
"The privileged stratum in contemporary Soviet society is composed of degenerate elements from among the leading cadres of Party and government organizations, enterprises and farms, as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it stands in opposition to the workers, the peasants and the overwhelming majority of the intellectuals. and cadres of the Soviet Union."
If, in this passage, the distinction between the "healthy" and the "degenerate sectors of the intelligentsia and the cadres ~ is still reduced to ideological or moral factors, the basis of this: degeneration in social and economic conditions is clearly indicated in other passages: a.
"The members of this privileged stratum have converted the function of serving the masses into the privilege of dominating them. They are abusing their powers over the means of production and of livelihood for the private benefits of their Saat Clique. .
"The members of this privileged stratum appropriate the fruits of the Soviet people's labor and pocket incomes that are dozens or even a hundred times those of the average Soviet worker and peasant. They not only secure high incomes in the form of high salaries, high awards, high royalties and a great variety of personal subsidies, but also use their privileged position to appropriate public property by graft and bribery." [Emphasis added,
Thus high incomes; i.e., great social inequality. constitutes the root of the degeneration of the Soviet state and economy, Far from being the “healthy” sector, the "overwhelming majority" of the intellectuals. and cadres": i, Cn those who benefit from these _ enormous material privileges, are part: of the "privileged social stratum" in the Soviet Union. 7
In its analysis, the ninth article of the Chinese in reply to the "Open Letter" correctly stresses that Lenin (and they could have added Marx as well) had already warned against the danger of bureaucratic degeneration of the workers state apparatus as a result of excessive social inequality, .
"Lenin laid great stress on waging persistent struggles against the influence of bourgeois and petty~bourgeois ideologies, on arousin the broad masses to take part in government work, on ceaselessly exposing and purging bureaucrats and new bourgeois elements in the | Soviet organs, and on creating conditions that would bar the existence and reproduction of the bourgeoisie. . . At the same time, he laid . great stress on adherence to the principle of the Paris Commune in wage policy, that is, all public servants were to be paid wages cor~ responding to those of e workers, and only bourgeois specialists were to be paid high salaries, From the October revolution to the period of Soviet Economic Rehabilitation, Lenin's directives were in the main observed; the leading personnel of the. Party and government organizations and enterprises, and Party members among the specialists, received salaries roughly equivalent to the wages of the workers, Emphasis added. ] Se
Again, in drawing the general lessons with regard to the . degeneration of the Soviet state, the article states: ,
"The system of high salaries for a small number of people should never be applied, The gap between the incomes of the working personnel of the Party, the government, the enterprises and the people's communes on the one hand, and the income of the mass of the people on the other hand, should be rationally and gradually narrowed and not widened. All working ‘personnel [cadres].must be prevented. from abusing their power. and: enjoying special privileges,"
It is interesting that they also add among the same lessons:
_- "Jt is always necessary for the peoplets armed forces of a socialist country to be under the leadership of the. party of the proletariat and under the supervision of the masses, and they must always maintain the glorious tradition of a peoplets army, with unity between the’ army and the people, and between the officers and men, It is nesessary to keep the system under which officers serve as common soldiers at regular intervals. itis necessary to praoctice military democrac olitical democracy and economic democracy. Moreover, militia units should be: organized: and trained all over the countrys $0 as to make everybody a soldier, The guns must forever e in the hands of the Party and the people, and must never be allowed to become the instruments of careerists." [Emphasis added,]
All these remarks mean objectively: that under the pressure of their own revolution, which is still very much alive, and under. pressure from the colonial revolution to which they are much more respon-= Sive than the essentially conservative parvenu Soviet bureaucracy;
under pressure, too, of their fight with Khrushchev, the Chinese leaders have now raised the banner of equality for the Soviet masses,
This is an event of considerable consequence, For if their campaign for the rehabilitation of Stalin and against de-Staliniza~ tion does not have the slightest chance of arousing a response among the Soviet workers and peasants, a campaign in favor of equality and against the material privileges of the Soviet bureaucracy has every chance of a favorable reception among the Soviet working class, It could trigger reactions of great scope, Suffice it to note that the-- Chinese leaders now accuse Khrushchev of suppressing workers strikes in the Soviet Union,
On the other hand, it is obviously impossible for the Chinese leaders to conduct an intensive campaign against inequality in the Soviet Union while at the same time displaying a complacent attitude toward the introduction of increasing inequalities in their own country, In this respect, the campaign against social inequality in the Soviet Union indicates that social inequalities in China are less developed than in the Soviet Union. Also, such a campaign tends to make it more difficult for the Chinese bureaucracy to increase its own privileges and easier for the Chinese masses to insist that their leaders practice what they preach about the evils of social inequalities,
The effort to rehabilitate Stalin while at the same time attacking social inequality as the root of the degeneration of the Soviet state leads the Chinese leaders to a-dazzling performance in acrobatics, It is easy to prove, if it is not universally known, that under Stalin the "party maximum" (restriction of the incomes of party members, exercising cadre functions in the state and economy, to the level.of skilled workers) was abolished in 19303; that under Stalin not only did social inequality take on monstrous proportions, it. became an official dogma, the Bolshevik tradition of struggle against inequality being officially proscribed as "petty-bourgeois egalitarism"; that under Stalin this social inequality became insti-~ tutionalized; e.g., by imposing fees for entrance to universities,
The authors of the ninth article cannot completely deny this, So they admit that "before Stalints death high salaries were already being paid to certain [1] groups and that some [!] cadres had already degenerated and become bourgeois elements." ,
a They do not offer the slightest proof for the assertion that. only "certain" cadres had degenerated under Stalin, The fact is that the whole top layer of the state,.party and economic adminis-- tration enjoyed enormous material privileges under Stalin, the top party leadership holding among other things the privilege of goin to "special shops" where they could buy (sometimes free of charge all kinds of luxury goods denied the common people. The existence of such shops was concealed from the. public, ..As for the armed . forces under Stalin, is it necessary to recall that he destroyed the
militia system instead of introducing it? That he completely divorced the officer caste from the ordinary soldiers? That the mass of the people did not have the slightest control over the "security" forces? That the political police were able to organize purges and frame~up trials and to murder or deport thousands upon thousands of honest Communists?
The authors of the ninth article also "forget" that Stalints struggle against Trotskyism, which, they say, "smashed the vain plot of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union," was in reality a struggle against those who consistently opposed the privileged elements, They "forget" that the struggle led by Trotsky against the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union was waged under the central slogan “For Greater Equality\"
The acrobatic performance of the editors of Renmin Ribao and Honggi was required for the obvious purpose of finding that although arene inequality already existed under Stalin, "before Khrushchev came to power, they [the privileged stratum] did not occupy the ruling position in Soviet society, Their activities were restricted in many ways and they were subject to attacks, But since Khrushchev took over, . . the new bourgeois elements have gradually risen to the ruling position in the Party and government and in the economic, cultural and other departments, and formed a privileged stratum in~ Soviet economy." Coe 7
The chinese leaders, however, do not have the slightest proofs to. support these: assertions. Even their thesis that social inequality has increased: under Khrushehev is open to doubt. Differenses in wages have undeniably been reduced under Khrushchev, the lower brackets being substantially increased, the higher ones slightly lowered, At. the same time, however, it: seems that the differential premium: system has been.somewhat increased under Khrushchev, Moreover the increase in “managers! rights" and in "material incentives" not. only for workers but for leading bureaucrats tends to cancel out the reduction in the’ wage differential, The accumulation of durable consumer goods, bordering on the accumulation of private fortunes (e.3., houses), has also substantially increased. A balance sheet would probably show maintenance of: the status quo in social inequality, all levels. having improved their incomes as a result of the general increase in the standard of living in Soviet society.
The truth is, of course, that under Stalin the bureaucracy as a privileged social stratum had already institutionalized most of its privileges; i.e., had become a social caste. It has remained a privileged social. caste under Khrushehev,
Under Stalin, the Chinese leaders never uttered a word about increasing social inequalities in the Soviet Union. For ten years under the rule of Stalin's heirs, they remained silent about it, Now having suddenly discovered that such inequalities exist in the Soviet Union, they at once start talking cbout the restora-
ne 20—
tion of capitalism and characterize the bureaucracy as "the principal component of the bourgeoisie in-the Soviet Union today" and charaoterize the "revisionist Khrushchev clique" as “political representatives of the Soviet bourgeoisie," This extremism corresponds to certain needs felt by the Chinese leaders,
They find it necessary to offer a theoretical explanation for what undoubtedly’ appears to tens of thousands of Chinese Communists to be a monstrous degeneration, How’can people responsible for such degeneration be considered by any stretch of the imagination to be still related even remotely to the working class?
This problem is, of course, not at all new to the Trotskyist movement which was founded on a thorough appreciation of all its ramifications, Time and time again it has confronted revolutionists who suddenly became aware of the fearful crimes committed by the Soviet bureaucracy against the interests of socialism, the Soviet proletariat and the international working-class movement. Under the shock of stumbling across the truth, Communist cadres have repeatedly lost their bearings and decided that the Soviet state and its leadership-must be bourgeois (state capitalism), But experience has proved over and over that the Soviet state and its bureaucracy have a dual nature, The bureaucracy is to be oredited not only with committing monstrous crimes but also in its own peouliar way with defending nationalized property (against capitalist opponents of nationalized property and proletarian opponents of the bureaucracy, both abroad and at home). Only the Trotskyist analysis of the contradictory character of the bureaucratic caste that developed in the first workers state has fully explained this complex formation.
In addition, like the Yugoslav leaders before them in * the late forties and early fifties, the Chinese leaders find it necessary to explain to the masses in a way easily grasped why they are involved in a bitter struggle with the Kremlin, ' The Marxist theory of the Soviet bureaucracy developed by Trotsky seems to them much too com plicated and sophisticated... They find it easier to “explain” that Khrushchev is restoring capitalism, just as Djilas and Kardelj in the early fifties “explained” that. Stalin had introduced "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union, The main difficulty with this seemingly simple theory is that it is incorrect, Its proponents wind up in contradictions that not even the most. complicated explanations can untangle.
A few years after having discovered "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav leaders suddenly found themselves wooed and won by the Soviet "state. capitalist" leadership, And the Chinese leaders, while accusing "Khrushchev and his clique" with seeking to restore capitalism, still express their desire to arrive at unanimous agreements with them!
On the theoretical level it is ludicrously inconsistent to wage a fierce struggle against the theory of the "peaceful transi-~
on Le
tion from capitalism to socialism," while at the very same time main« taining the theory of the possibility of a "peaceful transition from socialism to capitalism,"
And if Khrushchev is restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union, what becomes of the class nature of the Communist parties that con tinue to follow the Khrushchev line in many countries?
7 To add to the tangle, what about the class nature of those Communist parties -- only a few, but they represent a special pro~ blem] -- which, while paying lip service to Khrushchev, are obviously carrying on revolutionary activities in their own countries? For instance, is the Venezuelan Communist. party fighting to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela or to "re-establish" it?
It should be obvious that it is impossible to seriously adopt the theory that capitalism is being restored in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev without losing the capacity to judge correctly, and therefore to intervene correctly, ina | great many important events in the world today.
That is why it is possible to forecast that like the Yugoslav leaders before them, the Chinese leaders will eventually pull up short in developing the theory that the Soviet Union is "capitalist,"
In any case, for those who support both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic:of China, it is requisite to stress the funda~ mentally identical class nature of both the USSR and China. This is the objective basis for the Soviet-Chinese military alliance which it is in the interests of the international working class to maintain against imperialism,
Khrushchev does not help in this by slanderously comparing Mao Tse-tung with Hitler and by offering military aid to the Indian bourgeoisie against the Chinese workers state.
BEN BELLA