"The Meeting Of Two Revisionist Minds"
TABLE CONTENTS FOR ALLIANCE 25:
INTRODUCTION
I. LENIN & STALIN'S TWO STAGE STRATEGY FOR COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
a) The Potential Progressive Role For Bourgeois Democracy
b) The Two Stages of the Revolution
c) Leading Role of Working Class
d) Role Of The Soviet State In The Absence of a Native Industrial Proletariat
2. STALIN REFINES THE COLONIAL THESES TO DEFINE MORE FULLY THE TYPES OF COLONIAL COUNTRIES
SUMMARY OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST VIEW
3. KHRUSHCHEV DISTORTS THE MARXIST-LENINIST LINE ON REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL AND SEMI-COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
a)The Nature of the Newly Formed States -Neo~colonies and The Band ung Conference
b) The General State of the World - Towards Eternal Peace or to imperialist war?
c) Changing the Line, Khrushchev Against Soviet Marxist-Leninist Orientalists - the 20 th Party Congress
c) The Khruschevites Test The Communist Strength Of The Communist Parties of the World - The Struggle of the Party Labour of Albania Against Khrushchev
4. CAPPING THE EDIFICE OF KHRUSCHEVITE REVISIONISM IN THE LINE OF REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
5. THE RESULTS OF THE KHRUSCHEVITE LINE IN INDIA
CONCLUSlONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
This issue of Alliance, examines Three Questions of a general significance, all upon the Khruschevite revisionist distortion of the revolutionary process in colonial type countries.
These Three Questions Are:
1. Was the line of Lenin and Stalin in the revolutionary process in colonial and semi-colonial countries followed, after Stalins death?
2. To what extent was the sabotage and revisionism of Khrushchev resisted by the Communist Parties of the world, following the traitorous 20 th Party Congress of the CPSU?
3. What is the route for revolution, in countries where a national bourgeoisie has already taken power, but has not completed its democratic revolutionary agenda?.
We start from the point the view that until Stalins death, the USSR was a socialist country. During Stalins life, the USSR fostered correct Marxist-Leninist attitudes to, and in, the parties of the world. This changed with the death of Stalin. That nodal point of change, was accompanied by the degeneration of socialism into capitalism. As capitalism was restored, relations with the communist parties of the world, and with the governments of countries allied to the USSR, were no longer socialist in nature. How could they be, if the home country was not any longer socialist?
In this post-Stalin period, the correct line of the two stage struggle in developing and colonial type countries, as first developed by Lenin and carried out by Stalin, was subverted. In fact it was mis-used, in order to justify the support of reactionary bourgeois regimes. In answering question (3), we are forcibly reminded of Stalins lectures to The Sverdlov University. In these talks, later known as The Foundations of Leninism, Stalin asked :
Stalin J.V, Foundations of Leninism; (April 1924) In Problems of Leninism; Moscow; 1954; p. 73.The question is as follows: Are the liberation potentialities latent in the revolutionary liberation movement of the oppressed countries already exhausted or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis for utilizing these potentialities for the proletarian revolution for transforming the dependent and colonial countries from a reserve of the imperialist bourgeoises into a reserve of the revolutionary proletarians, into an ally of the latter?
At that time Stalin answered :
Stalin J.V. Foundations of Leninism; (April 1924) In Problems of Leninism; Moscow; 1954; p. 73.Leninism replies to the question in the affirmative.
Of course Marxist-Leninists are not dogmatists, and know that things change. We will argue that Stalins answer is still in general correct today. But the full answer, is not simply a formula. The full answer depends upon the specifics of the country under discussion. Indeed Stalin said much the same :
Stalin J.V. ANotes on Contemporary Themes; (July 1927); In Works; Volume 9; Moscow; 1954; p.337.The nationally peculiar and nationally specific features in each separate country must unfailingly be taken into account by the Comintern when drawing up guiding directives for the working class movement of the country concerned.
Recently Comrade W.B.Bland read a paper to the Marxist-Leninist Seminar in London, in July 1993, entitled : The Revolutionary Process in Colonial Type Countries, on behalf of the Communist League (CL) (UK). We are indebted to the CL and Comrade Bland for this paper, which remains critical to our understanding of how to organise the revolutionary movement in the colonial countries. But while this paper detailed accurately the revisionism of Maoism, and its various variants (Kim Il Sung-ism; Leduan-ism etc), it did not deal with the issue of Khruschevite distortions of this theme. This was appropriate at that time. In general, Marxist-Leninists have tended to direct their theoretical fire at those who are closest to us. In general this has meant the trend of Maoism, that brand of revisionism that hailed Stalin as a Marxist-Leninist albeit grudgingly (See Joint Statement Alliance, Communist League, & Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey): 'Upon Unity & Ideology- An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens"; London; March 1996) in order to deceive the highest levels of potential Marxists.
But, since the disintegration of the revisionist former USSR state following Gorbachev, many formerly deceived, but honest pro-USSR comrades, are trying to find their bearings. These comrades exist in every country including the former USSR. Moreover, the number of countries that departed from Marxism-Leninism, having been led astray by Khruschevite mis-direction, far out weigh those that followed mistakenly the Maoist path. It is the situation of such countries, and such honest comrades, that prompts this paper. Partly as a consequence of this, and having we hope, dealt with at least part of this background, we will in the next issue of Alliance, deal with the problems of one particular country
NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLES
1. LENIN & STALINS TWO STAGE STRATEGY FOR COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
The line of Marxists-Leninists, on revolution in colonial type countries, was first codified by Lenin in debates at the Second Communist International (CI) Congress.. Lenin had to argue against an initial opposition, but then finally won over the dissidents. Lenins line was adopted. The basic questions faced by the CI, had been:
i) To what extent was struggle for democratic rights and democratic revolution, significant for the proletarian revolution in colonial type countries? Linked to this, what attitude to take to the most progressive representatives of the bourgeoises in those countries?
ii) Finally how did this relate to the socialist revolution?
a) The Potential Progressive Role For Bourgeois Democracy.
Mabendra Nath Roy (M.N.Roy) had pointed out the vacillating nature of the colonial bourgeoisie, Roy had said and emphasised only the negative aspects, and the inevitable later counter -revolutionary turn of the bourgeoisie :
M.N.Roy, "Memoirs", Bombay, 1964; p.382."Afraid of revolution, the nationalist bourgeoisie would compromise with imperialism in return for some economic and political concessions to their class. The working class should be prepared to take over at that crisis the leadership of the struggle of national liberation and transform it into a revolutionary mass movement."
But in contrast to Roy, Lenin thought that in the first stage of the revolution, the bourgeois democrats had a potentially useful role to play, early on in the struggle, from the view-point of the proletarian movement:
V.I.Lenin : Preliminary Draft of Theses on National and Colonial Questions, 2nd Cong. CI in "Selected Works", Volume10, London, 1946; p. 236-7."All the Communist parties must assist the bourgeois democratic liberation movement in these (ie colonial type countries-ed).. The Communist International (CI) must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries."
Nonetheless, taking Roys view into account, Lenin made one significant change, to his own original Draft Theses. This would clarify, that the working class in a colonial type country, should support a bourgeois-led movement only if it was genuinely revolutionary. To achieve this clarification, the term "bourgeois democratic", was replaced by the term "nationalist-revolutionary". Lenin openly acknowledged the original controversy to the question:
The differences between a more resolute section (In Lenins phrase : nationalist-revolutionary) of the bourgeoisie and a less resolute section have an economic basis. The first, the more resolute bourgeois section, is composed of those who have an economic interest in obtaining freedom from foreign imperialism. They are called national bourgeoisie. They are indigenous capitalists who wish to displace imperialism and its' middle men, so that they can keep all the colony's profits for itself. Being usually very weak, they have to enlist the aid of the masses ie. working classes and peasantry. Emerging from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire, the weak and nascent national bourgeoisie of the Middle East, initially struggled in the main against British and French; then in the main against USA imperialism."I would like to particularly emphasise the question of the bourgeois democratic movements in backward countries. It was this question that gave rise to some disagreement. We argued about whether it would be correct, in principle and in theory, to declare that the CI and the CP's should support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of this discussion we unanimously decided to speak of the nationalist-revolutionary movements instead of the 'bourgeois-democratic' movement. There is not the slightest doubt that every nationalist movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement.. But it was agreed that if we speak about the bourgeois-democratic movement all distinction between reformist and revolutionary movements will be obliterated; whereas in recent times this distinction has been fully and clearly revealed in the backward and colonial countries, of the imperialist bourgeois is trying with all its might to implant the reformist movement also among the oppressed nations.. In the Commission this was proved irrefutably, and we came to the conclusion that the only correct thing to do was to take this distinction into consideration and nearly everywhere to substitute the term "nationalist-revolutionary" for the term Abourgeois-democratic". The meaning of this change is that we communists should, and will, support bourgeois liberation movements only when these movement do not hinder us in training and organising the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit.. The above mentioned distinction has now been drawn in all the theses, and I think that, thanks to this, our point of view has been formulated much more precisely." Lenin. Report Of Commission on the National and Colonial Questions, Ibid, p 241.
The second , less resolute bourgeois section, are those who derive their profit from a link to foreign imperialism, and are closely related to the feudal landowning aristocratic class. They are called comprador bourgeoisie. When imperialism settled into its' colonies it used local indigenous rulers and leading individuals as their surrogates. This tactic became especially important when the revolutionary movements in the colonies appeared to be successful in fighting off the imperialists. These indigenous agents were usually buyers and traders whose livelihood depended upon the Imperialists. Often landed feudal gentry were also allied to imperialism. One definition of the comprador bourgeoisie is as follows:
Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Oxford 1988.""In China, a native servant employed as head of the native staff, and as agent, by European houses."
Once the proletariat succeeds in Training the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit, then they will win the leadership of the national-democratic revolution. But when the working class is seen to win the leadership of the national-democratic movements, the national bourgeoisie will desert the national democratic revolution, and go over to the imperialist counter-revolution. The national bourgeoisie will prefer even a subordinate exploiting position under imperialism, to the possibility that the working class will use its leading position, to transform the national-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. This Marxist-Leninist position was put in the "Theses on the Eastern Question", adopted by the 4th Congress of the CI in November 1922.
Theses on the Eastern Question, 4th Congress CI, J.Degras (ed)" The Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents", Volume 1; London; 1971; p.388."At first the indigenous (national-ed) bourgeois and intelligentsia are the champions of the colonial revolutionary movements, but as the proletarian and semi-proletarian peasant masses are drawn in, the bourgeois and bourgeois-agrarian elements begin to turn away from the movement in proportion as the social interests of the lower classes of people come to the forefront."
By 1925, Stalin could emphasise that the differentiation between revolutionary parts and compromising parts of the bourgeoisie had already occurred in some countries. For instance:
JVStalin: ATasks of University of People's of East, (May 18th, 1925); Volume 7 Works; Moscow; 1954. pp. 135-146."In countries like Egypt and China, where the national bourgeoisie has already split up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party."
Whether or not the differentiation had taken place, Stalin pointed out would change the goals of the proletariat in those countries At the stage that the national bourgeoisie is beginning to waver, it will then become imperative to expose the national bourgeoisie. The desire of the national bourgeoisie to resist the socialist revolution, inevitably leads to a struggle. At that juncture the question of breaking the Chinese Wall (In Lenins prescient phraseology to Kautsy) between the democratic revolution towards the socialist revolution, becomes paramount. To flinch at this point, perhaps to save the alliance with the national bourgeoisie, is to desert the revolution. Stalin emphasised the need at this point to expose the national bourgeoisie:
J.V.Stalin: ATasks of University of People's of East, Ibid; Works Volume 7; pp. 135-146The tasks of this bloc (ie-bloc of two forces - the Communist Party and the party of the revolutionary petty bourgeois -Ed) are to expose the half-heartedness and inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie and to wage a determined struggle against imperialism.A
b) The Two Stages of the Revolution
It is well known that the successful Bolshevik revolution itself, was a two stage revolution. This no doubt informed Lenins thought on the international significance of the Bolshevik stages. And in words to be later cited by Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism, Lenin pointed out to The Renegade Kautsky, that the Bolshevik Revolution had been a bourgeois revolution when it marched with the whole peasantry. Lenin emphasised that it became transformed later :
Lenin V.I. The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part, cited by J.V.Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism(April 1924); Ibid; p. 105.Yes our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole.. Beginning with April 1917, however, long before the October Revolution, that is long before we assumed power, we publicly declared and explained to the people: the revolution cannot now stop at this stage.. Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the he whole of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (And to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic). Then with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute Liberalism in its place. (NB. Emphasis in original).
Thus the stages of the revolution, depend upon TWO things:
1. The tasks to perform;
And
2. The forces necessary to undertake alliances with - in order to fulfill those tasks.
This staging was applied, by Lenin, to the strategy for the revolution in colonial countries. This is seen in his repeated insistence that the proletariat cannot ignore in the colonial type countries the democratic struggles of the poor against feudal survivals. In his address to the Baku First Congress of the Peoples of the East, Lenin said :
Most of the Eastern peoples are in a worse situation that the most backward country in Europe-Russia. But in our struggle against feudal survivals and capitalism, we succeeded in uniting the peasants and workers of Russia; and it was because the peasants and workers united against capitalism and feudalism that our victory was so easy.. the majority of the Eastern peoples are typical representatives of the working people-not workers how have passed through the schools of capitalist factories, but typical representatives of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval oppression.. You must be able to apply that theory and practice (of communism-Editor) to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in which the task is to wage a struggle against medieval survivals and not against capitalism.. You will have to base yourselves on the bourgeois nationalism.. At the same time you must find your way to the working and exploited masses of every country. You must tell them in a language that they understand that their only hope of emancipation lies in the victory of the international revolution, and that the international proletariat is the only ally of the all the hundreds of millions of the working and exploited peoples of the East.
V.I.Lenin: AAddress To the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organisations of the Peoples Of the East; Collected Works Vol 30; Moscow; 1966; p. 160-162
Stalin followed Lenins line, for the revolutionary struggles in colonial and semi-colonial countries - to pass from the first through to the second stage of the revolution. The stages of the revolution flowed from the CI Theses. Because Stalin survived Lenin, and steered the USSR through into the establishment of socialism, Stalin could practically assist the implementation of this line, in other countries. Thus Stalin analysed the situation for China for example as follows :
J.V.Stalin; On the International Situation and the Defence of the USS; Joint Plenum of CC and the CPSU Control Commission; (August 1 1927); Works; Volume 10; Moscow; 1954; p.16-17What are the stages in the Chinese Revolution? In my opinion there should be three:
The first stage is the revolution of an all-national united front, the Canton period, when the revolution was striking chiefly at foreign imperialism, and the national bourgeoisie supported the revolutionary movement;
The second stage is the bourgeois democratic revolution, after the national troops reached the Yangtze River, when the national bourgeoisie deserted the revolution and the agrarian movement grew into a mighty revolution of tens of millions of the peasantry. The Chinese revolution is now at the second stage of its development;
The third stage is the Soviet revolution which has not yet come, but will come.
Stalins First Stage And The Second Stage Together Constitute What Is Termed The Bourgeois Democratic Revolution. Stalin emphasised that the Amain axis in the Bourgeois democratic revolution was the agrarian one:
Stalin; Speech August 1927: "International Situation & Defence USSR"; Volume 10; Moscow 1954; p.346.The characteristic feature .. Of the Turkish revolution (The Kemalists).. is that it got stuck at the first step, at the first stage of its development, at the stage of the bourgeois liberation movement, without even attempting to pass to the second stage of its development, the stage of the agrarian revolution.
Trotskyism rejects the viewpoint of Lenin and Stalin that the national capitalist class can play a revolutionary role in relation to the national-democratic state of the revolutionary process. As Trotsky argued against Stalin :
AThe national bourgeoisie has been essentially an instrument of the compradors and imperialism. Trotsky L: The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin; In Problems of the Chinese Revolution; Ann Arbor (USA); 1967; p. 21.
Elsewhere we have described Stalins rebuttals, and how the correct implementation of the revolutionary line in China was destroyed by Mao and the revisionist of the Communist Party of China. (Joint Statement by Alliance, Communist League (UK) and Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) : Upon Unity and Ideology -An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens.; London; March 1996.)
Nonetheless, Stalin obviously had to further develop the basic line of Lenin, as there had been new developments following Lenins death. This development can be seen in Stalins later speeches.
c) Leading Role of Working Class
Partly following Roys Draft Supplementary Theses, Lenin agreed that if the revolutionary process in a colonial type country were under the leadership of the working class, such a country could avoid a period of capitalist development. As Lenin pointed out this related to the question of whether the capitalist stage of development could possibly be overcome if the working class could lead the democratic revolutionary struggle. Lenin agreed with Roy, that in such a case, it was not inevitable that the country would inevitably go through capitalism :
"A rather lively debate on this question took place in the Commission, not only in connection with the theses which I signed but still more in connection with Cmde Roy's Theses which Cmde Roy will defend here and which with certain amendments were adopted unanimously.
The question was presented in the following way :
'Can we recognise as correct the assertion that the capitalist stage of development of national economy is inevitable of those backward countries which are now liberating themselves?.. We reply to this question in the negative. If the revolutionary victorious proletariat carries on a systematic propaganda amongst them, and of the Soviet governments render them all the assistance they possibly can, it will be wrong to assume that the capitalist stage is inevitable of the backward nationalities. The CI must lay down and give the theoretical grounds of the proposition that, with the aid of the proletariat of the most advanced countries the backward countries may pass to the Soviet system and, after passing through a definite stage of development, to Communism, without passing through the capitalist stage of development." Lenin, Report of the Commission, Ibid, p.243.
In fact, Roy recognised that in some colonial-type countries - such as India and China - a significant native working class existed, objectively capable of gaining the leadership of the national-democratic revolution there :Hence Marxist-Leninists, see that if the working class gains leadership of the national-democratic revolution; this revolution can be transformed relatively uninterruptedly, into a socialist revolution. Incidentally Mao disagrees with this key point. (Joint Statement by Alliance, Communist League (UK) and Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) : Upon Unity and Ideology -An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens.; London; March 1996)
M.N.Roy. Speech 2nd Congress CI, Cited G.Adhikari, "Documents CP India"; Delhi; 1971; p.191-2."A new movement among the exploited masses has started in India, which has spread rapidly and found expression in gigantic strike movements. this mass movement is not controlled by the revolutionary nationalists, but is developing independently in spite of the fact that the nationalists are endeavouring to make use of it of their own purposes. This movement of the masses is of a revolutionary character."
This was why Lenin approved Roy's modified supplementary theses. Stalin points out that it was the distinction between countries with and countries without a proletariat, that was the hinge :
Stalin J.V. : "Questions of the Chinese Revolution", AWorks; Vol 9; Moscow 1954; p.236-238."Both in his speeches and his theses (at the 2nd Congress of CI-ed) Lenin has in mind the countries where :
'There can be no question of purely proletarian movement,' where,
'There is practically no industrial proletariat.'
Why were the Supplementary Theses needed? In order to single out from the backward colonial countries which have no industrial proletariat such countries as China and India, of which it cannot be said that they have 'practically no industrial proletariat'. Read the "Supplementary Theses", and you will realise that they refer chiefly to China and India...
How could it happen that Roy's special Theses were needed to "Supplement" Lenin's theses? The fact is that Lenin's Theses were written and published long before the Second Congress opened.. prior to the discussion in the Special Commission of the Second Congress. And since the Second Congress revealed the necessity of singling out from the backward countries such countries as China and India the necessity of 'Supplementary Theses' arose."
d) Role Of The Soviet State In The Absence of a Native Industrial Proletariat
As outlined above, in general the leading role even in the first phase of the revolution (ie the national democratic revolution) should where possible be exercised by the working class. But what should be the strategy of Marxists-Leninists if there was no, or a very small, or only a weak working class in the colony or semi-colony?
In this case, the leadership was to be exercised by comrade working classes of the world. In particular those of socialist sates, if there were any. In fact, the responsibility of the socialist state and its proletariat, was outlined clearly in the Theses adopted under Lenins direction, at the Second Congress of the Comintern.Without a significant working class in the colonial country, leadership devolved to the Soviet state, and the working class of the developed capitalist countries.
In fact under this circumstance it may be possible to successfully go through the first national democratic revolution thought to the second phase the socialist stage without traversing capitalism :
"If the revolutionary victorious proletariat carries on systematic propaganda among them, and if the Soviet governments render them all the assistance they possibly can.. the backward countries may pass to the Soviet system, and after passing through a definite stage of development to Communism without passing though the capitalist stage of development."
Lenin. Report on the Commission. Ibid, p.243.
2. STALIN REFINES THE COLONIAL THESES TO DEFINE MORE FULLY THE TYPES OF COLONIAL COUNTRIES
Even by 1925, Stalin had taken the Leninist theory and critically applied it to the international situation. Stalin, in addressing the University of The People's of the East, had distinguished by 1925, three different categories of colonial and dependent countries. Stalin distinguished between these countries, upon the basis of the degree of proletarianisation, and consistent with this, there were differences in the maturity and the differentiation of the bourgeoisie. In this method Stalin took the injunctions of the Theses Second Congress and brought them up to date for the 1925 period. Moreover, his analysis took the Theses, and applied them, in an almost country-by -country manner, to take into account the critical factor. This critical factor was the relative strength of the working class :
J.V.Stalin : Speech to Communist University of Toilers of the East, 1925; Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East.; Works Vol 7; Moscow; 1954; p. 149"Formerly the colonial East was pictured as a homogenous whole. Today that picture no longer corresponds to the truth. We have now, at least three categories of colonial and dependent countries. Firstly countries like Morocco who have little or not proletariat, and are industrially quite undeveloped. Secondly countries like China and Egypt which are under-developed industries and have a relatively small proletariat. Thirdly countries like India, which are capitalistically more or less developed and have a more or less numerous national proletariat. Clearly all these countries cannot possibly be put on a par with one another."
This classification had very serious strategic and tactical implications for the proletarian parties in the countries concerned. For example, in the third type of countries, like India, the bourgeoisie was already split into two factions, a revolutionary and a wavering faction. This meant that the bourgeoisie were already very wary of the democratic revolution, that was inflaming the socialist masses:
Stalin, "Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East"; Ibid. p.150"The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life in countries like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary part and a compromising part, but primarily that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with imperialism, Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned with more about its money bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country."
The specific tasks of the proletariat in the different countries would vary then, according to the differences they confronted, in the bourgeois that opposed them. In countries like India, the proletariat had the potential to surge to the leadership of the national democratic struggle:
J.V.Stalin "Tasks of the University of Peoples of the East"; Ibid; Volume 7; p.150-151."The victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless this bloc is smashed, but in order to smash this bloc (ie The bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country. -Ed), fire must be concentrated on the compromising national bourgeoisie, its treachery exposed, the toiling masses freed from its influence, and the conditions necessary for the hegemony of the proletariat systematically prepared. In other words, in colonies like India it is a matter of preparing the proletariat for the role of leader of the liberation movement, step by step dislodging the bourgeoisie and its mouthpieces from this honourable post. The task is to create an anti-imperialist bloc and to ensure the hegemony of the proletariat in this bloc. This bloc can assume although it need not always necessarily do so, the form of a single Workers and Peasants Party, formally bound by a single platform. In such centuries the independence of the Communist Party must be, the chief slogan of the advanced communist elements, for the hegemony of the proletariat can be prepared and brought about by the Communist party. But the communist party can and must enter into an open bloc with the revolutionary part of the bourgeoisie in order, after isolating the compromising national bourgeoisie, to lead the vast masses of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie in the struggle against imperialism."
Stalin was a leading proponent of the Workers and Peasants Parties. But the Communist International implemented a disastrous Ultra-Left Turn, repudiating the role of these mixed parties. . As part of this Ultra-Leftism, "non-pure" Communist organisations, such as the Workers and Peasants Parties were to be destroyed. This ultra-sectarian approach destroyed the developing revolution in India. (This was documented in Alliance Number 5; October 1995:The Role of the bourgeoisie in colonial type countries. What is the Class character of the Indian State?). This rout was led by the hidden revisionist OTTO KUUSINEN, whose later twists on this question are pivotal to understanding the Khruschevite distortions.
But what about the other end of the spectrum?
What about those countries where Stalin saw little or no proletariat? He had mentioned Morocco, though he could have discussed many others of course. Here Stalin adhered to the Colonial Theses, where it was argued that the socialist country and its proletariat would have to exercise leadership. He had already pointed out in the same lectures :
Stalin; Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East; Ibid; p. 148.Lasting victory cannot be achieved in the colonial and dependent counties without a real link between the liberation movement in these countries and the proletarian movement in the advanced countries of the world.
Nonetheless, the immediate tasks in countries like Morocco, were to weld the united national Front against imperialism:
Stalin;Tasks of University of Peoples of East; Ibid; p. 149.In countries like Morocco, where the national bourgeoisie has, as yet, no grounds for splitting up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, the tasks of the communist elements is to take all measures to create a united national front against imperialism. In such countries, the communist elements can be grouped into a single party only the course of the struggle against imperialism, particularly after a victorious revolutionary struggle against imperialism.
Stalin ended this talk by pointing out there were two deviations. Which must be combated if real revolutionary cadres are to be trained. The first deviation was to dissolve the movement into the bourgeois movement:
Stalin;Tasks of University of Peoples of East; Ibid; p. 153-154.The first deviation lies in an under-estimation of the revolutionary potentialities of the liberation movement and in an over-estimation of the idea of a united, all-embracing national front in the colonies and dependent countries, irrespective of the sate and degree of development of those countries. That is a deviation to the Right, and its is fraught with the danger of the revolutionary movement becoming debased and of the voices of the communist elements becoming drowned in the general chorus of the bourgeois nationalists. It is direct duty of the University of the Peoples of the East to wage a determined struggle against that deviation.
This First deviation would later form the foundation of several related revisionisms : Firstly Dimitrov revisionism; then of Maoist revisionism; then of Tito-ite revisionism; and finally of Khruschevite revisionism.
This deviation is the foundation of Trotskyism when applied to the developing countries.The second deviation lies an over-estimation of the revolutionary potentialities of the liberation movements and in an under-estimation of the liberation movement and in an under-estimation of the role of an alliance between the working class and the revolutionary bourgeoisie against imperialism. It seems to me, that the Communists in Java who not long ago mistakenly put forward the slogan of Soviet power for their country, are suffering from this deviation. That is a deviation to the Left, and it is fraught with the danger of the Communist Party becoming divorced from the masses and converted into a sect. A determined struggle against that deviation is an essential condition for the training of real revolutionary cadres of the colonies and dependent countries of the East. Stalin; Tasks of University of Peoples of East; Ibid; p. 154.
Abundant warnings against this deviation had already been sounded. Nowadays some honest non-Trotskyite comrades, in disgust at the results of the First deviation applied by revisionists, adhere to this mistaken position.
SUMMARY OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST VIEW :
It is useful before examining the changes undertaken by revisionism during the Khrushchev era, to attempt a simple summary of the above guidelines offered by Lenin and Stalin:
1. There is in the early phase of a revolutionary liberation struggle, some potential benefit to the proletarian movement, to allying with the revolutionary bourgeoisie.
2. But this benefit will vary in its importance, by the degree of the already existing proletarianization of the country; and the degree to which its counterpart the bourgeoisie has become antagonistic to the revolution and the degree to which it may have formed links to imperialism.
3. Once the revolutionary bourgeoisie have shown their vacillation, it is critical to open fire on them ideologically, and not to continue to attempt to form revolutionary alliances with them. At this stage the working class must continue to lead in alliance with the peasantry.
4. The exact moment to pass from the first phase of the revolution (ie the national democratic revolution) through to the second phase (ie the socialist stage), depends upon two factors :
The first is an objective one and the second one a subjective one:
First - whether there are any tasks of the first phase left to compete,
and second - the revolutionary temper of the workers and peasants.
5. The tasks of the first stage are in essence:
Lenin V.I. The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part, cited by J.V.Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism(April 1924); Ibid; p. 105.Against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (And to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic);
Hereafter Lenin "Renegade Kautsky";
6. Other than the revolutionary bourgeoisie, the allies at that first stage are:
The whole of the peasants.
7. The tasks of the second stage are in essence to clearly turn towards socialism :
against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one.
Lenin "Renegade Kautsky";
8. The allies for the second stage are :
The poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited.
Lenin "Renegade Kautsky";
9. To attempt to artificially separate the first and the second stage is Liberalism ore worse, conscious revisionism or distortion:
To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute Liberalism in its place.
Lenin V.I. AThe Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part, cited by J.V.Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism(April 1924); Ibid; p. 105.
10. The responsibility of a socialist state, to embryonic liberation movements where there were no large numbers of proletarians was to render assistance, such that the leadership was exercised by the workers of the developed world in particular the socialist countries. In such countries the possibility with such assistance, was to bypass the capitalist stage of development.
We will see that the Khrushchev forces, in particular led in this matter by Kuusinen and Mikoyan, completely distorted this revolutionary line.
3. KHRUSHCHEV DISTORTS THE MARXIST-LENINIST LINE ON REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL AND SEMI-COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
a) The Nature of the Newly Formed States - Neo-Colonies - And the Bandung Conference
Following the 20th party Congress of the CPSU, in February 1956, Khrushchev began overtly changing the line in the colonial type countries. We cannot here, further discuss the distortions that had entered the relations of the USSR with the Peoples Democracies. We understand the difficulty experienced by the erst-while supporters of the USSR after Stalins death, at the term Social-imperialist. But in truth, this is how this relation must be characterised. We will provide further documentation to support this, at a later stage.
But, here we will only aim to un-ravel how the insurgent national liberation struggles were defused and led into blind alleys, by the USSR. Following the death of Stalin, in the main, initially Stalins injunctions were still carried out, in the countries of the Arab Middle East. Despite the presence of hidden revisionists, many of the Soviet pundits, in fact, still stubbornly insisted upon the Marxist-Leninist line. This can be seen in such statements as that by V.B.Lutsiky of Moscow University who wrote:
AWhile Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen were formally independent states, in fact they were dependent on the Americans, and British.. Arab communists were fighting to unite the people of these countries into one anti-imperialist front under the leadership of the working class; they were said to be supported by the peasants, the Aurban middle strata, the middle bourgeoises, and even by that part of the big national bourgeoisie which did not collaborate with the foreign monopolies.
V. Lutskiy Voprosy Ekonomiki No 5; 1952; pp 69-85;
Cited by Aryeh Yodfat AArab Politics in the Soviet Mirror; New York; 1973; p. 3.
So as Yodfat notes, the change in line following Stalins death was:
Slow and marked from time to time by a retreat to old concepts and policies.
Aryeh Yodfat AArab Politics in the Soviet Mirror; Ibid; p.4.
Nonetheless, as Marxist-Leninist policies were being gradually purged in the party, the Soviet revisionists adopted the classic capitalist positions. Being capitalists, they needed some new markets. As the economy of the Soviet Union was turned to a profit basis, they were confronted with an excess capacity, as gauged by the need to make profit. Markets were needed to make profits. Revisionists now looked internationally for such markets. These were found initially in the former Peoples Democracies. But the new states that had fought for independence formed another potential arena. The parties that came to power in some semi-colonial countries, were led by the national bourgeoisie. Now, having achieved it, they wished to hold onto power and certainly not enter the communist route. These would form Khrushchevs new markets.
Despite their new states, the national bourgeoisie of those countries, still faced intense pressure from traditional imperialists.
In addition they had great difficulty in simply raising the necessary capital to transform their country into modern industrial states.
They were forced therefore to resort to a socialist rhetoric with an elaborate facade of ASocialism.
The new bourgeoisie hoped to overcome the difficulty of capital accumulation, by using the entire reserves of the whole state. Using this reserve, they tried to industrialize their countries by the path of Nationalization. This was the rationale of such paths variously called as AUjaama Socialism in Tanzania, or of ANehru Socialism in India. We in Alliance, have previously documented the class basis of ANehru Socialism, as a class coalition between compradors and national bourgeoisie, assisted by feudal landowners. (Alliance Number 5).
The case of the state of Tanzania, as being dominated by a national bourgeoisie who were forced into a spurious socialism, was fully documented by the Communist League in October 1979. (Communist League: ANyereres AAfrican Socialism- A Cloak for neo-colonialism; In Compass; London; October 1979.)
Both States, that had supposedly entered some sort of mystical Third Path. Marxist-Leninists predicted that these attempts were doomed to failure, since there is no Third Path, there is only:
Either Socialism or Capitalism.
Why would the "Third Path" fail?
Because the traditional imperialists were unchanged, and were determined to retain their markets, and would put pressure on these countries. So apart from their own internal markets, the new national bourgeoises could not sell goods anywhere, because the imperialists closed potential markets doors to the new national states. Nor could they capitalize as has already been pointed out, because of the problems of capital accumulation. Finally, nor could they obtain technological equipment.
Only the socialist path could enable them to do all this, without enslaving themselves once more.
But in 1955, these hard facts were not yet evident to the still hopeful national bourgeoisie. Before they realized these facts, and before they made their later inevitable and squalid accommodations with imperialism, they frantically searched for a mythical Third Path. This Third Path would supposedly steer away from the Scylla of revolution and between the Charybdis of imperialism. Out of this desire, was born the notion of Neutralism.
The strategy of 'neutralism', meant playing off one set of imperialists, against another set. The others were hopefully viewed as being other potential allies on the world stage. The national bourgeoisie of these counties, therefore attempted to find security behind the Khrushchev USSR - in order to avoid revolution, and also, to evade the clutches of traditional imperialists. The strategy was to play one sponsor off against another sponsor.
But instead of the Socialist help they might have received from a Marxist-Leninist state, they simply ended up in the clutches of a neo-imperialism masquerading as a socialist fraternal aid. Whether the new states led by these national bourgeoisie remained in the clutches of the traditional Western imperialists, or fell into the cluthces of new revisionist social-imperialist USSR, they were no longer colonies. They had become neo-coliones or semi-colonies.
The concrete form this Third Path strategy would take was the Bandung Conference. Here the desire for an alternative route to industrializing their nations was articulated. Bandung took final shape, after initial meetings between Indias Jawharlal Nehru and Chinas Chou En Lai, over the vexed territorial issue of Tibet. It was Nehrus meetings with Chou En Lai, the Premier of China, on the latters visit to India, that sparked Nehrus interest. The ensuing Sino-Indian Agreement of April 29, 1954 upon Tibet, announced a program called : Pancha Shilla (Five Principles). These were:
AMutual respect for each others territorial integrity and sovereignty , nonaggression, non- interference in each others internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence. Dallin D.J. "Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin; Philadelphia 1961; p. 297.
Naturally Khrushchev had some reservations about the obvious Chinese involvement, but to maintain the influence of the USSR and to curb that of the Chinese, the government of the USSR was supportive of Bandung. Some 340 delegates from 29 countries attended the Bandung Conference. But the Soviet revisionists did not attend, the only two outwardly ACommunist Parties that were in attendance, were China and North Vietnam. It is notable that both of these states were under the full or the partial control of their own national bourgeoises. (See Joint Statement Alliance, Communist league, MLCP; & see Bland July 1993 : The Revolutionary Process in Colonial Type Countries; & see CL On Mao 1970).
The themes of the conference revolved around anti-imperialism. At the conference, some more Western orientated delegates charged the USSR with a colonial relationship towards the former Peoples Democracies, using the phrase New Colonialism. (Dallin; Ibid; p. 300-301.)
However, in general a pro-USSR line was taken at the Conference. Of itself the Bandung Conference was not necessarily an incorrect step.
At the 3rd Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania this was specifically noted by the Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha:
AThe Albanian people hailed the historic Bandung Conference and are whole heartedly at one with all the peoples of Asia and Africa still in bondage, who are fighting to wipe out the odious yoke of colonialism once and for all. The Albanian people and their government have declared their adherence to the well known Five Principles of peaceful coexistence among states of different social systems, which have been proclaimed by the governments of the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of India.
Hoxha, Enver: AReport to the 3rd Congress of the PLA; Vol 2; Selected Works; Tirana 1975; p.498.
Was this assessment of the PLA correct?
We think it is. We remind Marxist-Leninists of the need to exploit even the smallest differences between capitalists. As Lenin pointed out the working class must take advantage of even the smallest differences. Furthermore, the PLA, definitely still asserted the movement to war of the imperialists :
AWithin the last 5 years state expenditure for military equipment in the United States has increased four-fold, in Britain also four-fold, and in France three-fold.. It is understandable that with the major contradictions existing within the capitalist system, with the present trend of preparing for a new war.. The crisis of capitalism is becoming deeper and deeper.
Hoxha AReport to the 3rd Congress of the PLA; Ibid; p. 490.
This approach of the PLA was quite different from the perspective of the Khruschevite revisionists, as we show below. Instead of the possibility of using the Bandung Conference to move towards revolution, Bandung held a different significance for Khruschevite revisionism. It marked the recognition by the new Soviet revisionists, that these countries were searching for alternative sponsors to the traditional imperialists.
The Soviet revisionists took the various hints requesting "help" that the national bourgeoisises were offering. Very soon, they initiated collaborations with industrialists in these countries.
The first was with Birla, an industrialist in India. (Dallin Ibid; p. 303.) The USSR financed Birlas steel mills. In fact, the transformation of these former colonies of the West, into the neo-colonies of the newly dominant and rampant Soviet imperialists was only just beginning.
Meanwhile inside the former soviet state of the USSR, the struggle continued.
b) The general State of the World - Towards eternal Peace or to imperialist war?
It appears that some honestly stubborn, and correct Oriental specialists, such as I.Tishin (See November 1954 in Kommunist - Cited Yodfat bid, p. 4) and L.N.Vatolina (In 1955 - See Sovetskoye Vostokovedeniye - cited by Yodfat Ibid; p. 5) were still able to resist successfully revisionism, sufficiently at least, to uphold for a short time the Marxist-Leninist views.
However matters would soon change, following the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU. The ideological ground was laid to enable the revisionists, to force a change in line from the remaining die-hards, now that Stalin was safely dead. In common with many of the revisionist lines taken by Khrushchev, this line had also been fought against already, during Stalins life.
Where did the attitude of the PLA (quoted above), regarding the war preparations of the imperialists spring from? It will be recalled that Stalin had before his death, unequivocally characterised the world, as being divided into only Two Camps : the Socialist and the Capitalist Camps. Stalin had pointed out that, the then domination in the latter camp of the USA was only temporary. The struggle for markets, and the inter-capitalist rivalry would ensure the continuation of wars. This is contained in his final work: "Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR". This last intervention of Stalin was delivered as a rebuke to the revisionists, who were led by Khrushchev, at the 19th Party Congress. The work also served to halt revionism in its tracks.
Comrade Bland and the Communist League (ACL UK) have described how the revisionist manouevres to sideline Stalin during his life time, were foiled by his counter-attack contained in this work. The primary thrust of Stalins AEconomic Problems, was to refute the rampant, but incorrect revisionist doctrines, that were then sweeping into the party with vigor. The most important of these was of course, the proposals to re-introduce private profit, albeit masked as Aincentive payments. This move was led by Voznosenksy and Khrushchev. All these machinations are analyzed in detail in Comrade Blands "Restoration of Capitalism In the USSR" (See on the Alliance site).
Further details on these proposed revisionist moves are also contained in the report on the revisionist Eugene Varga. (See reprint in Alliance Number 17, October 1995; also on the web).
However, there was another and linked thrust that Stalin made in Economic Problems. Stalin wished to correct the naive assertions of the new, supposed Peace-fullness of the world:
Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. They hold that the contradictions between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp are more acute than the contradictions among the capitalist countries; that the USA has brought th other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them going o war among themselves.. These comrades are mistaken.. It would be mistaken to think that things can continue to go well (For the USA-Editor) for all eternity, that the countries will tolerate the domination and oppression of the United States endlessly, that they will not endeavor to tear loose from American bondage... Consequently the struggle of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.. But it follows from this that the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains in force. A
Stalin JV. Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR; Moscow; 1952; p. 37-41
It is said that Lenins thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another world war. That is not true. The object of the present day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace.. It is possible that in a definite conjuncture of circumstances the fight for peace will develop here and there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement. It will be movement for the overthrow of capitalism.A
Stalin JV; Ibid, p. 37-41 .
c) Changing The Line: Khruschev Against Soviet Marxist-Leninist Orientalists - The 20th Party Congress.
But following the death of Stalin, Khruschevite revisionism was able to jettison this viewpoint. The re-alignments of forces evidenced by the Bandung Conference (See above), facilitated the Khruschevite saccharine view of world relations. At the 20th Party Congress, various addresses were now made, that advocated a closer support with the developing countries. And the bourgeois nationalist leaders like Nehru and Nasser were prominently raised as examples. To facilitate this revisionist move, the world's divisions were re-classified.
Now a newly designated Zone of Peace, was offered as a theoretical veneer for supporting bourgeois nationalist regimes :
ASupport was expressed for the national bourgeoisie and leaders of nationalist movements such as Jawaharlal Nehru in India, U NU in Burma and Nasser in Egypt. Changes were also made in the accepted Atwo camps formula which divided the world into a socialist and a capitalist camp. The Zone of peace was added, covering a socialist and the uncommitted states.. Apeace continued to be used as a description synonymous with.. Soviet foreign policy.
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
If none of the Orientalists, had sufficiently heard the din of approaching revisionism, a wake-up call was issued. This came from Mikoyan A.A. From the CPSU presidium he issued a command to the lagging Marxist-Leninist Orientalists, for a Arevival of Soviet oriental studies :
AWhile the East has recently awakened, this Institute (of Eastern Studies in the USSR Academy of Sciences - Ed) is still asleep.
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
Of course, this so-called ARevival of Soviet oriental studies, in reality meant the destruction of Marxist-Leninist principles. This revisionist call was supported fully by Otto V Kuusinen, also a Presidium member. Kuusinen sanctified Gandhi and catigated previous "sectarain mistkes" by Soviet Orientalists. However - he calmly ignored his own role in the Ultra-Left sectarianism of the Sixth Comintern Conference (the one that had torpedoed the Workers and Peasants Parties of India) the revisionist Kuusinen sanctimoniously called for a :
AReappraisal of the role of the national bourgeoisie.. And recognition of its importance.. He referred to the visits paid by First Secretary of the CPSU Nikita Khrushchev and Premier N.A.Bulganin to India, when they acknowledged the Aprominent role of Gandhi in Indian history and so took the initiative in correcting the sectarians mistakes made earlier in the .. Soviet Orientalists and.. The Communist International.
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
Increasingly from this point on, the Soviet Oriental experts, were pushed into adopting a revisionist line. An editorial in Sovetskoye Vostokovedeniye (1956, no. 1) now listed alleged mistakes in the previously Soviet line. The article suggested these mistakes all revolved around the exaggeration of feudal remnants which had led Soviet Orientalists to underestimate developments in India, Burma, Indonesia, Egypt, and other Eastern countries; and to underestimate the role of the national bourgeoisie. (Yodfat; Ibid; p. 7)
This had all led apparently, to an under-estimation of Gandhi. In fact, the role of Gandhi was especially sanitized in this new revisionist version. One of the leading ideological revisionists in this period, was the Soviet Indologist A.M.Dyakov (A.M.Dyakov & I.M.Resyner, Sovremennyy Vostok; No 5; 1956; pp 21-23; Cited Yodfat Ibid; p. 12.)
Dyakov had previously adopted in the main, correct Marxist-Leninist positions on India. But he now capitulated to revisionism. The new versions of the role of Gandhi were contrary to Stalins written positions on Gandhi. Stalin had viewed Gandhi as follows :
"As regards India, Indo-China, Indonesia, Africa etc; the growth of the revolutionary movement in those countries, which at times assumes the form of national war for liberation, leaves no room for doubt. Messieurs the bourgeois count on flooding those countries with blood and on relying on police bayonets, calling people like Gandhi to their assistance. There can be do doubt that police bayonets make a poor prop. Tsarism in its day also tried to rely on police bayonets, but everybody knows that kind of prop they turned out to be. As regards assistants of the Gandhi type, tsars had a whole herd of them in the shape of liberal compromisers of every kind, but nothing came of this except discomfiture.
Stalin J.V. Political Report of CC to the 16th Congress CPSU(B); (June1930); Works; Vol 12; 1955; p.259.
Obviously, any analysis of Gandhi, that sanitizes his constant kow-towing to British imperialism, cannot
be free of a pro-imperialist stance. (See Alliance Number 5).
Within a year, even the very definition of the national bourgeoisie was being re-drawn away from a purely economic basis. It was much broadened. The definition was extended to now include :
Firstly, any one who stated that the USSR under Khrushchev was a good thing; and,
Secondly; it included those who even if they were remote from the workers, or even if they compromised with imperialists, might be deemed to have an objective value:
Professor Ye M. Zhukov argued that Soviet support for the national bourgeoisie should not only be given to those whose policies were in harmony with Soviet views; certain other parties and groups deserved support despite their limited aims; their remoteness from the working class, or their tendency to distinguish not only the Asubjective direction of their activities, but the objective results. In Egypt Nasser, for example, might Asubjectively preach anti-communism, persecute communists, tend to compromise with the West, etc; but Aobjectively his foreign policy furthered Soviet aims and therefore deserved support.A
Cited Yodfat Ibid; p. 12.
Obviously, this objective value was a very variable and flexible feast, and was served only to those whom the Russian revisionists wished to favour. But, the revisionists were still a little sensitive to the potential charges of anti-Marxism-Leninism. Even now, only a steady and continual - but slow - modifications to the definitions of the national and the comprador bourgeoisie were made throughout this time. It is true that verbally matters were made clear. But in print, the changes were made slower.
The main platform where these changes were formally announced, was the meeting of Eighty-One Communist Parties in Moscow of 1960. This amounted to a test run, to see how far revisionism could go without being challenged. In fact, it did seem that revisionism could go pretty far without challenge. There were only two significant sections of the world communist movement that stood up and challenged the Russian revisionists.
This was firstly the Peoples Republic Socialist Albania (PRSA), and then the PRSA and Peoples Republic of China. We have dealt with the responses of the Communist Party China (CPC) to the CPSU(B) before. We argued that the delay in the challenge to the Khruschevites was a further evidence of Maoist opportunism. (See Alliance, Communist League, Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) Joint Statement; AUpon Unity and Ideology-An Open letter to Ludo Martens; London 1996.)
We will now briefly digress to point out the position that the Party Labour Albania (PLA) took, was the first significant and open dissent, that was faced by the Khruschevite revisionists.
It is perfectly true that the Albanians did not at first challenge the 20 the Party Congress openly. In the Selected Works of Enver Hoxha, it is stated that this was for two main reasons.
Firstly they felt that further assistance to capitalism would be rendered by open squabbles; and,
Secondly, that it was still unclear as to whether or not Khrushchev was not making an honest mistake as opposed to a traitorous betrayal:
AAt that time our Party could not come out openly against the theses of the 20 th party Congress, because this would have served only the enemies of communism who had launched a furious attack on Marxism-Leninism and the socialist camp, and also became the Party of Labour of Albania was not yet fully convinced that Khrushchev and his group had betrayed Marxism-Leninism, and still hoped that the Soviet leadership would realize its mistakes and correct them.
Hoxha E: Report to the 3rd Congress of the PLA;Selected Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 484.
However, in private correspondence, the PLA had criticized the revisionist theses of the 20 th party Congress:
AAt the same time through party channels, the Central Committee of our party had informed the CC of the CPSU of all its reservation and objections regarding the theses of the 20 th Congress and the revisionist activity of the Soviet Leadership.
Hoxha E: Report to the 3rd Congress of the PLA; Selected Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 484.
It is moreover a fact, that the Report at the 3 rd Congress of the PLA, had correctly taken the line of Stalin, on the inevitability under imperialism of a new world war:
AIt is understandable that with the major contradictions existing within the capitalist system with the present trend of preparing for a new war, with the endless creation of aggressive alliances and war pacts,.. The crisis of capitalism is becoming deeper and deeper.. Already the USA is losing its monopoly.. The Americans wanting to sow the wind are reaping the whirlwind..
Hoxha E: Report to the 3rd Congress of the PLA;Selected Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 490-91.
The view of the PLA on the national liberation struggle was not changed, because their conception of the revolutionary road to socialism had not changed. All this had inevitably led to further friction between the determined revisionist path, and the path of the PLA. Pressure on Albania emanating from Khrushchev was exerted. Aptly, this reached a crescendo with Khrushchev urging Hoxha to embrace Tito. Tito had long been an un-acceptable trend for the Marxist-Leninist following the Cominform exposure. (See Analysis by Communist league, in Alliance Number 7; June 1994).
In fact Tito was the stalking horse of Western imperialism within the camp, being developed under Stalin., for socialism. Even as early as November 13th 1956, in internal meetings of the PLA Political Bureau great agitation was being voiced about the changes in the former Peoples Democracies being engineered between the CPSU and Tito:
AI want to say right at the start that the moments we are living through are very serious and critical... I told the Soviet Ambassador (Krylov-ed) that Janos Kadars government had been formed in close collaboration between the Central Committee off the CPSU and Tito and he accepted this saying: ASo it turns out to be..
Then Krylov asked me what we thought of Imre Nagys going to Rumania and whether we agreed or not. I answered in this way:
Awe have stated and state again that Imre Nagy is a traitor who has opened the door to fascism. Tito has stated: AImre Nagy is with us, while we Albanians say that Imre Nagy and Co. Are anti-Soviet. How is it possible that a traitor who has killed Soviet soldiers who has called on the imperialists to come to the aid of the counter-revolution, should now be sent to Rumania to a friendly country?..." The recent article written by us giving a clear statement of our views on all matters of principle in connection with the Polish and Hungarian events was published in full in Pravda without any alternation (Pravda November 8, 1956).. We have the right to take a further step in exposing the activities of Tito and his clique.. We have told the Soviet comrades where we differ from them and they now the position and attitude we maintain... Titoism must be exposed. The stand the Soviet comrades have maintained on this issue following the 20th Congress has been such that the danger of Titoism is minimized not properly evaluated.
Hoxha E. AIn No Way Will We Make Concessions On Principles; Vol 2; Ibid; p.617-630.
Still, the PLA made clear, in the same article, that to have an open breach from the CPSU, without further specific evidence of a conscious revisionism, as opposed to a series of honest mistakes, was incorrect at that time. But at a meeting insisted upon by Hoxha in Moscow, the Khruschevites backed down to some extent. However that meeting showed, a little more clearly that only unsatisfactory answers were being given to the Albanians. But even now, the revisionists had still not fully stepped out of the shadows as yet. (Detailed in ; Hoxha E; ATo keep Our Unity Strong For it is Vital; (Jan 3, 1957); Vol 2; Ibid; pp. 631-654.)
But steadily the position did become all too clear.
By the time of his Report to the 3rd Plenum of the CC of the PLA in February 1957, Hoxha was able to give a clear appraisal of the tactic of imperialism to split the Socialist camp, and of Titos role in this. Also the pernicious slogans that were used by this campaign were exposed. These slogans were:
Firstly Acreative development of Marxism-Leninism;
secondly of AApplying Marxism in a creative way under the specific conditions of each country; and Thirdly of a struggle Aagainst Stalinism".
All these slogans were correctly and openly identified as pernicious, by Hoxha and the PLA. (Hoxha AOn International Situation & Tasks of Party; 3rd Plenum CC PLA; Vol 2; Ibid; pp 687-689).
By the time of the Report to the 10th Plenum of the CC of the PLA, on June 20th 1958, Hoxha was able to be even more explicit.
He charged that the alliance between the CPSU and the Tito-ites was dangerous and heading to a threat to socialism. (Hoxha; AOn the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views once more expressed at the 7th Congress of the League of communists of Yugoslavia... Report At the 10th Plenum, of the CC of the PLA. June 20th 1958.; Vol 2; Ibid; p. 751.)
By the June of 1960, the Khruschevites revisionists had fully show their hand by blatant manipulations at the Bucharest meeting. The meeting had been organized by Khruschev forces to deal with the dissent being offered by the CPC, which was finding its way into the comunsit press. The PLA agreed to go to this meeting, preparing to argue for a future open meeting to resolve differcnes. At Bucharest however, the PLA found a "kangaroo court"; one at which the absent CPC was being charged with severe "misconduct". The PLA took a principled stand. This was expressed as follows:
"Our Party adopted a correct stand..
First the differences in question are differences between the CPSU and the CPC;
Second the Bucharest meeting was premature and was conducted in violation of Leninist organizational rules;
third our Party will voice its opinion on these differences in the coming meeting which should be prepared according to the rules and existing practices of the communist and workers parties."
Hoxha E; "Letter of the CC of the PLA To All Party Basic Organisations, on the Proceeding of the June 1960 Bucharest meeting and the disagreements that had emerged there between the CPSU and the CPC. (Aug 9th 1960); In Vol 2; Ibid; p.789.
This stand led to an even more blatant CPSU-revisionist pressure upon the PLA. The PLA was in fact now condemned for not siding with the CPSU in open denunciation of the CPC. Naturally this would have been unprincipled to do so. Especially so, given the manner in which it was proposed by the CPSU(B), without any principled discussion and documentation. The PLA now recognized that this was no longer anything but a conscious policy of sabotage of the world communist movement. An open denunciation had to follow, which occurred at the "Meeting of 81Communist and Workers Parties in Moscow", from 10th November to 1st December 1960. Hoxha's speech exposed revisionism clearly. It pointed out that far from "Zones of Peace", the world was being directed to war.
4. CAPPING THlE EDIFICE OF KHRUSCHEVITE REVISIONISM - IN THE LINE OF REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
As discussed above, the Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers Parties, was where Khruschevism unveiled fully its open changes to the Leninist line on revolution in colonial type countries. The way was now clear for the Soviet revisionists. The growing breach between those willing to stand up, like the PLA with the CPC (even if hesitatingly - like the CPC), and the Soviet revisionists, would allow them no longer just to gingerly tread on egg shells. They came out fully and openly now. Following the meeting of the Eighty-One Parties, the revisionists were courageous enough to commit themselves more clearly in print. Written changes became much easier to spot in the texts emanating from Moscow.
The 'theoretical advance' that was offered by the Soviet revisionists, was that of the National Democracy. This introduced the term : "A state of national democracy".
Now the revisionist pace quickened, and became ever clearer. By 1961, the editor of World Marxist Review - A. Rumyantsev, would charge that Marxists were being too sectarian, if they did not adopt more frequent 'blocs' with national bourgeoisie. He cited the error of the lranian Communists, who failed to support Musadiq's struggle to nationalise the oil industry, as an instance of this sectarianism. (Cited Yodfat; Ibid; p. 13).
But, even by the time of the writing of the new 1961 CPSU Programme, at least upon paper, things had not apparently gone too far away. In the text wording, in this 1961 programme, the definitions of the national bourgeoisie still resembles those of Lenin and Stalin:
The national bourgeoisie is dual in character.. Where it is not connected with the imperialist circles (it) is objectively interested in accomplishing the basic task of an anti-imperialist and anti- feudal revolution. Its progressive role and its ability to participate in the solution of pressing national problems are, therefore not yet spent. But as the contradiction between the working people and the propertied classes grows and the class struggle inside the country becomes more acute, the national bourgeoisie shows an increasing inclination to compromise with imperialism and domestic reaction. Cited Yodfat; Ibid; p. 15.
But as the articles from 1962 would make plain, the plaudit and description of a role that was still progressive - would continue to be handed to those national bourgeoisie, where they had already achieved state power. Even where in fact, as the articles themselves admitted, the national bourgeoisie were in the process now of Aturning against the masses. This drastic revision became even clearer in the newly offered classification of the Afro-Asian developing countries in 1962.
This classification has Six Categories :
A1. Those with relatively well developed capitalist relations and classes where the national bourgeoisie were in power, as in India, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia etc;
2. Those with less well developed capitalist relations and a weaker national bourgeoisie who sometimes shared power with the feudals (Iraq, Morocco, Somalia , Sudan etc,)
3. Countries in which power was in the hands of a pro-imperialist bourgeoisie, sometimes in coalition with feudal owning classes (Turkey, Pakistan).
4. Ghana, Guinea, and Mali were a special group in which there were strong forces aiming at a non-capitalist path of development.
5. Pro-imperialist ex-colonial countries such as the former French colonies in West and Equatorial Africa.
6. Centuries where the feudal class was still strong, where there was little capitalist development and virtually no bourgeoisie. In foreign affairs they were neutralist (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan etc). A
Cited Yodfat, Ibid; p.15-16; From R.Avakov & G. Mirskiy MEiMO, No. 4, 1962; pp 76-79
Apparently the United Arab Republic was difficult to classify, and was not put into the scheme.
Things were finally becoming explicitly clear, as to how the Khruschevites wished to disrupt the revolutionary process in the colonial type countries. The plan was :
A) To extract the Soviet revisionists from any state responsibility to any principled and clearly defined group of national liberation struggles, and to keep their options totally open;
B) Added to which they wished to reserve the right to the USSR support of any designated national bourgeoisie, extending throughout the Chinese wall (identified by Lenin) between the first stage and the second stage of the revolution.
The solution they would adopted for these revisionist ends was the state of ANational Democracy. The movies usually disclaim, "any passing similarities to other persons or events"! We cannot - since : Here we note the passing similarity to Maos ANew Democratic State."
This passing similarity was not fortuitous and was definitely intended!
The Khruschevite revisionist line on ANational Democracy, was later explained in print by Boris Ponomorev head of the CPSU Department for relations with Non-Governing Communist parties; and then by A.Sobolev an editor of the World Marxist Review. This latter article, in the World Marxist Review 1963, Number 2; Vol 6; Feb p.39-48 is now examined in detail, since it provides the definitive spoor or tracks, by which to follow the subsequent RIGHT REVISIONIST DISTORTIONS of the national liberation strategy and tactics.
1. In the article Sobolev firstly classifies the various states existing. The break-down is roughly correct and was given by Sobolev as follows :
The problem is extremely complex. The countries fighting for national freedom have features that are peculiar to each as well as certain common features. There are countries that have gone a long way along the capitalist path, have their own national industry and a working class; some of these countries even have a monopoly bourgeoisie; although foreign capital and feudal survivals play an important part in their economy.
More numerous is the group of countries with a colonial, feudal economy with more or less pronounced elements of developing capitalism. Here we find a national bourgeoisie, although this still small in numbers, and a working class, but the feudal and even pre-feudal forms of exploitation weigh heavily on the people.
Further there are countries where capitalist relationships are only beginning to emerge, where the national bourgeoisie has either not taken shape or exists only in embryo, where the working class is in the formative stage and where the feudal class had gone, although survivals of tribalism are preserved in the countryside.
Then there are the countries where capitalism has not yet appreciably developed, where the economy is dominated by foreign capitalists or feudal overlords, and where the national bourgeoisie has not crystallized as a class.
Sobolev "World Marxist Review"; 1963; Number 2; Volume 6: Feb; p. 39-48.
Sobolev correctly concludes from this taxonomy that classification is only approximate, and that the common features are :
AThey are economically dependent on imperialism; their productive forces , the different forces notwithstanding, are underdeveloped; and their relations of production represent a crazy-quilt of diverse property relationships.
Sobolev Ibid; p. 40.
2. Sobolev correctly points out that many of these national bourgeoisie are spuriously using the language of socialism :
AThe historical senility of capitalism is obvious to many political leaders.. Nehru for example declares that the capitalist method has nothing to offer the underdeveloped countries. Socialism is India aim.. President Sukharno of Indonesia advocates as the ultimate aim the building of a just society - AIndonesian socialism...etc. There is no doubt that the various concepts are not identical.. Some bear the stamp of petty-bourgeois blundering; others represent illusory attempts by their national bourgeoisie to combine the incompatible-the advantages of socialism and their own narrower interests; still others clearly reveal elements of demagogy.
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
3. However Sobolev then goes on to dogmatically assert that they have a 'sound democratic core' :
ABut the fact remains that most of those concepts emerged in the course of a bitter struggle against imperialism , reflecting an agonizing search for effective ways of speedily solving urgent problems. They contain a sound democratic core, a still latent germ of the future. Indeed they resolve into a program of national-democratic revolution, and essentially anti-imperialist agrarian revolution of a new type to sweep away all the romanced of feudalism and tribal relations.
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
4. He then sketches out a possible solution to the problem, which amounts to a type of argument that 'the best efforts of the bourgeoisie must be encouraged', to bring them over to socialism:
AMarxists paraphrasing Lenin, put the question thus : If a revolutionary democrat or a member of the national bourgeoisie is willing to take one step forward, it is the duty of the Marxist to help him take two. It is likewise noteworthy, that in elaborating a program for the democratic stage of the revolution, the patriotic forces are orientating on socialism.. There is then the possibility that many revolutionary democrats will come over to the position of scientific socialism."
Sobolev Ibid; p.41-2.
5. This solution may in fact, according to Sobolev, allow a "Non-Capitalist way":
AAdoption of the position of scientific socialism by larger numbers of revolutionary democrats will make for a better understanding of the motive forces of the revolution... the most effective way to ensure the progress of the newly-emerged countries, to solve the democratic tasks, to develop the economy and the lay the social, economic and political ground work for building socialism is the no-capitalist way... The most important aspect of the non-capitalist way is socio-economic and class development leading from colonial feudal or semi-feudal economy bypassing the capitalist stage to socialism... it is the social mechanism for the transition of a number of countries from a semi-colonial semi-feudal economy with more or less pronounced capitalist relationships to a socialist economy bypassing the stage of mature industrial capitalism.
Sobolev Ibid; p.42.
6. This is in effect the state of "National democracy":
AThe political forms of social organisation ..can be extremely varied. However we believe that as things are, the most expedient and effective form, although of course not the only one, is the state of national democracy. .. The establishment of the state of national democracy is the tangible expression of the victory of the patriotic democratic forces over reaction; ie. Over the imperialists, the compradores, and the feudal overlords. It is the first stage of popular government.
Sobolev Ibid; p.43.
7. In marked contrast to Lenin and Stalin (but not in contrast to Mao) this stage can last "may years":
ALastly the duration of the non-capitalist stage will not be the same in al instances. In some instances it will be a mere episode... In others it may involve many years of gradual change in the socio-economic relations.
Sobolev Ibid; p.44.
8. This state of "National Democracy", objectively represents the interests of several classes including workers:
"A feature of national democracy and one that lends it its transitional character, is that it is not a single state of a single class, or even of two classes-workers and peasants; nor will it be a dictatorship of a single class or even of two classes. It will be a state representing the interests of the entire patriotic section of the society vis--vis the deposed reactionary classes... This struggle within the framework of the alliance is aimed at preventing any attempt to place narrow class interests above the interests of the nation... The cooperative sector .. Which is main headway in most of the new national states will be an important factor of progress.
Sobolev Ibid; p.44
9. Correctly Sobolev points out the difficulty in capital accumulation faced by these national bourgeoisie :
A It should also be borne in mind that private capital in technologically lagging countries is unable to provide the accumulations needed for the rapid establishment of a modern industry.
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
10. The entry of the 'socialist' countries is presented as having modified the behaviour of the imperialists. This is of course correct, since the national bourgeoisie were trying to play one set of predators off against one another:
AIn view of the role played by the socialist countries, the imperialists have been compelled to maneuver.
Sobolev Ibid; p.40.
11. The leadership of the democratic struggles is presented as being able to be exercised by 'any democratic class' - this is quite a revisionist and anti-Leninist thesis:
"National democracy can be established under the leadership of any democratic class- the working class, the peasantry, or the small urban bourgeoisie. In some countries the leading force may be the intelligentsia including the revolutionary army officers. In countries where the is no working class or where it in only emerging, the peasantry can play an independent revolutionary role.
Sobolev Ibid; p.46.
12. The tasks of the Democratic revolution are depicted on the whole correctly. But they encompassed the entire phase of industrialisation - something that Sobolev had himself already acknowledged, was virtually impossible for the struggling national bourgeoisise:
AThe tasks :
-first it is imperative to abolish all form of pre-capitalist relations and all exploitation by carrying out an agrarian reform and overcoming the survivals of the primitive tribal system. Of prime importance is the expropriation of the Latifundists and the big planters;
-Second all form of economic dependence on imperialism must be done away with by alienating the property of the foreign monopolies, changing the structure of industry and ensuring the balance of between the various branches reconstructing agriculture and going over to diversified farming, and turning towards the socialist countries in the sphere of world economic relations;
-Third gradual industrialization must be effected. To solve these tasks it is essential to take the offensive against the ultra-reactionary classes which offer desperate resistance and undoubtedly will continue to do so. Consequently the class struggle between the democratic and the feudal compardore alignment may be expected to grow sharper.
Sobolev Ibid; p.47.
The basic view was to support state nationalization. But as Hoxha had already pointed out in relation to Yugoslavia:
"By identifying state monopoly capitalism with socialism the Yugoslav revisionists distort the essence of the present-day capitalist sate and try to present it, not as w a weapon in the hand so the monopoly bourgeoisie, but as if it stands above the classes. They do this to negate the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the destruction of the old bourgeois state apparatus."
Enver Hoxha; AOn the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views once more expressed at the 7th Congress of the League of communist of Yugoslavia... Report At 10th Plenum, of the CC of the PLA. Jun 20 1958; Vol 2; Ibid; p. 751.
CONCLUSIONS : KHRUSCHEVISM APPLIED TO THE COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS:
1. The leaders of the national democratic revolution could be any progressive class.
2. The democratic phase could last many years.
3. I)uring this democratic phase the process of industrialization could be completed.
4. Many 'revolutionary democrats' will be won to socialism; and 'patriotic forces' were orientated to socialism.
5. They will build the non-capitalist path towards a fliture socialism, that can bypass 'mature industrial capitalism'.
6. The national democratic state was a class coalition of several progressive classes.
These were clearly revisionist tactics aimed to garner support for corrupt national bourgeoisie governments. These governments were being courted by the Khruschevite revisionist, to become the ne~colonies of the revisionist USSR, as opposed to remaining as the neo-colonies of transitional imperialist countries like the USA.