WELCOME TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY (COMMUNIST PARTY) WEB-SITE.

British Road To Socialism

CONTENT

ON “THE BRITISH ROAD TO SOCIALISM” OF 1952!

  1. INEVITABILITY OF WAR AND STRUGGLE FOR PEACE

1.1: 1952: “A NEW SITUATION FACES US” IN THE FIGHT FOR PEACE

1.2: ANTI-WAR LAWS OF THE USSR!

1.3: PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

1.4: THE DEFENCE OF THE USSR.

1.4.1: DEFENCE OF THE USSR AND THE BUILDING OF COMMUNISM:

  1. LIBERATION OF COLONIES AND THE DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLES OF THE EMPIRE!

2.1: INDEPENDENCE OF BRITAIN AND BRITISH PEOPLE.

2.2: “A NEW SITUATION FACES US” IN THE FIGHT FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE PEOPLES OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE:

2.3: THE EVIL EMPIRE.

2.3.1: “LET, THEN, THAT WORKING CLASS PREPARE ITSELF FOR THE TASK IN STORE FOR IT, - THE RULING OF THIS GREAT EMPIRE” - ENGELS

2.4: NATION AND NATIONAL LIBERATION.

2.4.1: NATIONAL LIBERATION AND THE DEFENCE OF THE USSR, AND THE CAMP OF PEACE, DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE!

  1. “THE BRITISH” ROAD TO SOCIALISM!

3.1: ROAD TO SOCIALISM OR HOW TO ASSUME POWER!

3.1.1: EAST EUROPEAN ROAD TO SOCIALISM.

3.1.2: HOW TO “APPROACH TO SOCIALISM”?

3.2: STAGES OF PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY

3.2.1: TWO STAGES OF PEOPLES DEMOCRACY:

3.2.2: TWO STAGES OF PEOPLES DEMOCRACY AND THE CRITICS:

3.2.3: TWO STAGES OF PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY, UNITED FRONT GOVERNMENT AND THE CRITICS:

3.2.4: TWO STAGES OF THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY AND THE THEORIES OF BUILDING SOCIALISM

3.3: ON THE ROAD TO BUILDING SOCIALISM

3.3.1: SURRENDER OF CPGB TO THE RIGHT WING LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR PARTY:

3.4: PEACEFUL TRANSFORMATION-PEACEFUL TRANSITION:

3.4.1: PEACEFUL TRANSFORMATION AND THE REVISERS OF MARXISM:

3.5. PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP, DEMOCRACY AND THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY!

3.5.1: PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND THE PEOPLE’S STATE!

3.6: THE ROLE OF DEMOCRACY IN DEFEATING THE RIGHT WING LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT-1952

AND

THE ROLE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN DEFEATING THE RIGHT WING LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT- 2012

3.7: PARLIAMANTERISM?

3.8: ENGELS ON PARLIAMENTARY CRETINISM; DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC WAY OF WINNING POWER.

3.8.1: ENGELS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY CRETINISM, WRITTEN ON 1884, CONCERNING 1848.

3.8.2: ENGELS ON DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC WAY OF WINNING POWER.

3.8.3: ENGEL'S LE FIGARO INTERVIEW, MAY 13, 1893,

3.9: “SPANISH REVOLUTION” BY M. ERCOLY, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, 1936. AND “1936: FROM FEBRUARY TO JULY. FROM THE ELECTION VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE'S FRONT TO THE FASCIST INSURRECTION, BY M. NAVARRO BALLESTEROS. (SPECIAL EDITION, 17 MAY 1938)

  1. INTERNATIONALISM AND ONE’S HISTORY (OR INTERNATIONALISM AS THE BASIS OF ALL COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES):

4.1. A FEW POINTS OF ONE’S HISTORY TO REMEMBER:

4.1.1: ONE CAN NOT TURN BOLSHEVISM, AND THE LEADERS WHO FORMULATED BOLSHEVISM INTO A MATTER OF DISCUSSION:

4.1.2: AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR THE TITOISTS WERE THE ENEMIES OF COMMUNISM AND ASSASSINS AND SPIES AT THE SERVICE OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM:

4.1.3: THE ROTTEN LIBERALISM TOWARDS THE TROTSKYITES, AND THE TIOTISTS WHO WERE THE NEW TROTSKYITES WOULD LEAD TO DEFEAT:

  1. SOME OF THE REASONS OF CPGB’S DEMISE (OR CPGB TURNS TITOIST- TROTSKYITE):

5.1: CPGB POLICY ON TITOISTS AFTER STALIN:

5.2: CPGB POLICY ON STALIN AFTER STALIN:

5.3. CPGB ON THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWENTIETH CONGRESS:

  1. CONCLUSION

ON “THE BRITISH ROAD TO SOCIALISM” OF 1952!

British Road to Socialism “is regarded by our brother Parties as an outstanding contribution to creative Marxism.” (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

“THE following message was received from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B):

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union sends fraternal greetings, and wishes success to the work of the 22nd Congress of the British Communist Party.

We wish the British Communists success in the fight for the vital interests of the working people, for the maintenance and strengthening of peace, and for the cause of Socialism.

Long live the friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union and Britain!”

(RESOLUTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

All is conditioned.

There is nothing that is not conditioned. And that is not just on this earth, but in the universe.

All without exception, including ideas and feelings, are conditioned by time and space, by when and where.

What is right here and now may be wrong here and later.

What is right here and now may be wrong there and now.

What is right here and now may be wrong there and later.

Or

What is wrong here and now may be right here and later.

What is wrong here and now may be right there and now.

What is wrong here and now may be right there and later.

If a Marxist is to come to a correct conclusion about anything, and about any idea, he has to have a correct comprehension of the time and place at which the thing exists and the idea is formulated.

This is the abc of materialism and this is the abc of dialectics.

Why do we have to start lecturing about the abc if we are to study the highest level of political thought achieved by the British communists?

For the essence of all the criticisms of the British Road to Socialism boils down to miscomprehension of the time and space of 1949-1952!

Well, actually, it is not just a matter of 1949-1952, we should put it thus: it is a matter of one’s history!

After all, the only laboratory where the class struggle could be studied and the theory of class struggle formulated and changed and developed as conditions change, is the history of the life of the world proletariat.

Let us see where the BR2S of 1952 stood in relation to the world revolution, in relation to the problems of the world and thus in relation to the problems of Britain and thus in relation to the successful conduct of the revolution of the British proletariat. Let us see if the objections of the critics of the BR2S have any bearing in realty and thus in our theory and strategy and tactics:

INEVITABILITY OF WAR AND STRUGGLE FOR PEACE

“The aim we set of the winning of political power by the working people is based on a perspective of peace, not war. The maintenance of world peace creates the most favourable conditions for the people to advance in the speediest way to the ending of capitalist class rule and the establishment of people’s power.

To live in peace; to know that it is a lasting peace—this is perhaps the greatest victory of all that Socialism has to offer. “(H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party )

Critics claim that the program denies the inevitability of war under imperialism.

This is not correct.

Program does not do this.

Program denies the inevitability of the third world war that is being prepared by the USA against the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies. Program calls upon all to act against the preparation of this particular war, and declares that this particular war is not inevitable. This particular war that is being organised by the USA, and under its leadership by firstly and mostly the UK and then by France, Italy, Spain, West Germany, Japan, and others (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, etc., etc.), can be stopped.

The simple fact that the program is talking of a particular war danger and a particular struggle against it clearly proves that the program and its writers do not deny the inevitability of war under imperialism, on the contrary they are very much aware of this tendency of imperialism and are fighting against one concrete example of its manifestation and they are doing all they can, as communists must do, to stop it being realised, to stop it becoming a real war at that juncture, at that moment in history.

To say that it is impossible to stop a particular war danger from becoming a reality, from becoming a real war is utterly and totally reactionary. In the name of sounding revolutionary and radical it is in fact spreading out and out pacifism.

Any policy that in the name of being revolutionary opposes this policy of the program, inevitably declares that this particular war being organised by the USA is unavoidable. This approach undermines the anti-war policy of the program and the practical fight that need to be organised against that particular war. And yet such an organisation of struggle for peace against this particular war danger was a duty for all the communist parties of the time, and indeed for any party that had a tiny piece of humanity left in them!

Such an approach opposes the fight for peace, thus supports war mongers and their war preparations and thus it is out and out reactionary.

This should be clear to all who loves peace and opposes war. This should be especially clear to all the critics who are declaring this particular war to be unavoidable, inevitable, that the war in question is being organised by the USA and its allies, it is a war that is being organised against the USSR, against the camp of peace and democracy organised around USSR.

One has to ask whom and what political tendencies would want such a war, and thus declare it to be unavoidable!

The answer should be clear to all those who know their history!

1.1: 1952: “A new situation faces us” in the fight for peace

“The People’s Democracies, with the fraternal aid of the Soviet Union, have continued their work of transforming their countries from some of the most backward in Europe into highly industrialised advanced States, which will soon reach and surpass the level of the West European countries.

When to these developments are added the achievements of the German Democratic Republic, the fight of the German people against rearmament, the strength of the movement for peace and against American domination in France and Italy, expressed especially in the elections of 1951, and the powerful growth in the liberation movements in the colonies, the Middle East, the Near East and North Africa, it is abundantly clear that the forces of peace are far stronger than the forces of war.

The 500 million signatories obtained to the Stockholm Appeal, and the 596 million obtained so far to the Appeal for a Five-Power Pact of Peace, are an expression of humanity’s determination to impose peace on the warmongers unparalleled in the previous history of mankind.”(H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party )

Communists have always condemned the war amongst nations. Communists have always been the defenders of peace. Their means of fighting for peace, their ability to preserve peace and stop war has changed continuously!

During the Second World War, all our parties led the war against the Nazis and Fascists in Europe and the Japanese fascists in Asia and Pacific! And it was our motherland, the Soviets that destroyed the barbarians. At the end of the war Soviets were the most respected nation on earth, communists had the respect of all nations and were known as the fighters for national independence and for democracy!

After the Second World War; when the USA was trying to organise a group of warmonger states and forces around it, it was finding the going very difficult. Soviets Union had formed a camp of peace, democracy and national independence around it. USSR and People's Democracies of East Europe were joined by 1949 by the People’s Democracies of Asia and most importantly the People’s Republic of China!

We also had our parties in bourgeois states as the biggest parties in France and Italy, and all the countries of the “West” had well respected and powerful communist parties. These, jointly with the communist parties in power were a powerful force for peace: a peace movement never seen in the history of mankind was created by the forces lined up around USSR! This also included the communist parties and national liberation forces of all the colonies and dependent countries!

The communists became powerful and thus the forces of peace have grown incredibly strong!

We could then stop the war mongers and it is thus that we were also able to pass our law in the USSR against making of war and against propagating of war, for we could apply it in practice!

After the second world war it was no longer the threat of “if you make war we will turn the war into civil war”, now we could issue a straight forward warning to the warmongers: you make war, we will defeat you and catch you and punish you for your crimes against humanity!

1.2: Anti-war laws of the USSR!

First World War, and especially the Second World War has clearly proved that modern war is inevitably total war-that the separation of civilians from the soldiers, making war only amongst the soldiers is impossible.

Lately, there has been a study of civilian and soldier casualties of different wars. The tendency that more and more civilians are killed as the war becomes more and more contemporary is clearly revealed in this study. In Second World War the ratio of civilians killed as opposed to the soldiers killed is already more than %50. In Vietnam War it is more than %70, in Iraq war it is more than % 90.

When the war is imposed on them the communists do their best to avoid harming the civilian population, none combatants, but even they cannot avoid this, it is utterly, totally imposable to avoid! If one wants to talk of unavoidable, this is it!

In the case of war makers, in the case of war mongers, they are out and out criminals and cannot be bothered with such niceties even, or rather especially, when they claim that they are taking care not to kill civilians.

You cannot nuke a city and claim you are going out of your way to avoid civilian casualties! You cannot threaten to do so and claim you are going out of your way to avoid civilian casualties. You have refused the Soviet proposals after the Second World War to destroy the nuclear weapons and all the weapons of mass destruction. You did so for you are mass murderers.

You cannot “bomb them to stone age” as you threaten and do these days, time and again and claim you are trying to avoid civilian casualties. Let us face it. As well as being a liar, you are also a mass murderer!

You cannot use Agent Orange, you cannot use depleted uranium, etc., etc., and claim that you are trying to avoid civilian casualties. You are a mass murderer!

You cannot send your soldiers with modern weaponry straight into a city of a country that you have invaded “to take out the insurgents” who are fighting against your invasion of their country and claim that you are trying to avoid civilian casualties. You are a mass murderer!

You cannot bomb houses “insurgent leaders are staying at” and weddings “organised by them” and claim that you are trying to avoid civilian casualties. You are a mass murderer!

You cannot assassinate people engaged in democratic struggle for peace and independence and a decent life in their thousands and claim that you are not waging a war. You are a mass murderer!

You cannot impose sanctions right left and centre and leave a city, indeed a country without electricity, clean water, rubbish collection, sewage clearance, food and medication and claim that you are not waging a war. You are a mass murderer!

Such examples are many and varied.

If the war makers, the war mongers have any desire not to kill the civilians all they have to do is to oppose propagating making of wars, all they have to do is to refuse to make war!

It is thus that USSR has declared propagating of war under modern conditions, and we are talking 1951 here, as a major crime against humanity!

Does this act of the USSR declare that “war under imperialism is not inevitable”?

Is this act of USSR the most revolutionary act humanity ever achieved or is it “reformist” and “reactionary” for it declares “wars under imperialism to be not inevitable”?

One should not wonder as to why it is that United Nations that is dominated by USA and UK, European Union which is dominated by Germany and France (and of course by USA and UK), Japan dominated by USA and the present day Russia, and the infamous G20 and indeed all the bourgeois and feudal states join hands in hiding this law from the peoples of the world, one should not wonder as to why they cannot declare that propagating war is a crime against humanity?

Nevertheless, the fact remains as it did since 1951, since this law became a law of the Soviet lands, that those who propagate war are criminals committing crimes against humanity!

Does this law “deny the inevitability of war under imperialism”? No it does not. It simply notes that propagating war is a crime against humanity!

Where than our critics stand in relation to this law of our motherland?

This law of the Soviet land was (and is) one of the strongest weapon in the hands of communists, in the hands of workers, in the hands of people, in the hands of humanity to fight back the warmongers and to fight for peace!

Can people become war mongers while claiming to be revolutionaries?

Of course they can. Who knows not Trotsky and co., before the Second World War, who knows not the Trotsky of Yugoslavia, Tito and co., after the Second World War?

Where than our critics stand in relation to this law of our motherland?

Can revolutionaries avoid a war with reactionaries?

Of course they can, if the reactionaries become afraid of the consequences for themselves of propagating for war and war making!

It is thus that propagating for war is a crime against humanity. And no amount of “the defence of human rights” and “the defence of democracy” by the war makers can hide this fact!

Criminals who propagate war, criminals who make war should be tried and punished in accordance with this law.

Here is some information provided by the Soviet Union of Stalin about this law of the motherland of all humanity; motherland of all lovers of peace:

“What is the significance of the Soviet Peace Defence Law?

THE Second World Peace Congress, held in Warsaw in November 1950, appealed to the United Nations and Governments of all countries to prohibit all war propaganda as criminal, whatever form it might take.

The Soviet people, educated in the spirit of high respect for other peoples and peace and friendship among the nations, ardently supported this appeal. The chairman of the Soviet Peace Committee, the poet N. S. Tikhonov, reported on this historic document to the regular session of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet, in Moscow in March (12th /mn) 1951.

Expressing the will of all the peoples of the Soviet Union, who are striving for peace, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet unanimously supported the appeal of the World Peace Congress, and passed unanimously the Peace Defence Law, which reads as follows:

“The Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, guided by the lofty principles of the Soviet policy of peace, which aims at consolidating peace and friendly relations among nations,

Recognizes that the conscience and the sense of justice of the peoples, who in the lifetime of a single generation have gone through the calamities of two world wars, cannot tolerate the impunity with which war propaganda is being conducted by aggressive circles of certain States, and associates itself with the appeal of the Second World Peace Congress which expressed the will of the whole of progressive mankind to prohibit and condemn criminal war propaganda.

The Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics resolves:

  1. That war propaganda, in whatever form conducted, undermines the cause of peace, creates the danger of a new war and is, therefore, a grave crime against humanity.

  2. That persons guilty of war propaganda shall be committed for trial as major criminals.”

The adoption of the Peace Defence Law by the supreme organ of State power in the U.S.S.R. is fresh proof that the peoples of the Soviet Union want peace and are willing to fight for it with all their strength and in every way possible.”

(THE U.S.S.R. — A Hundred Questions Answered, Published by “Soviet News” London 1952)

1.3: Peaceful co-existence

“We take our stand on the principle of the possibility of the peaceful co-existence of the capitalist and socialist systems.

The leaders of the Soviet Union have always based their policy on the possibility and necessity of peaceful co-operation between the capitalist and socialist nations. Their view was expressed by Stalin in his letter to Henry Wallace in May 1948:

“The Government of the U.S.S.R. believes that, despite the differences in economic systems and ideologies, the co-existence of these systems and the peaceful settlement of differences between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are not only possible but absolutely necessary in the interests of universal peace.” “ (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

Critics claim that the program denies the inevitability of war between capitalist and socialist states.

This is not correct.

Program does not do this.

Critics claim that the policy of peaceful co-existence is a policy that is formulated in line with the policy that denies the inevitability of war under imperialism.

First of all this is not correct.

Secondly program does not do this.

Is it not obvious, and should it not be obvious to any communist that the only force that can formulate the policy of peaceful co-existence while imperial capitalism exists would be communism, the socialist states, the Soviet State, the states of the people’s democracy.

It should be obvious to all the communists.

Finantial oligarchs, the bourgeois states are not interested in peace. Their history is the history of war making. Their history is the history of breaking their undertakings to peace. Peace is to these real vampires, what the wooden dagger to the heart is to the fictional vampires!

Policy of peaceful co-existence is the policy of Lenin and Stalin. It is the policy of communism, of socialist states.

Communist policy regarding peace is not only the policy of peace between the bourgeois states and proletarian states, imperial-capitalist states and socialist states, it is not just the policy of peaceful co-existence.

Peace policy of communists is also the policy of peace amongst the bourgeois states, amongst the imperial-capitalist states.

Do these mean that we should close our eyes to the reality of imperialism, to the reality of capitalism, to the reality of the existence of those who propagate war and those who make war?

Of course not!

Program does not do so!

“It is the working people whose united fight, will alone ensure that this possibility (of peace and of peaceful co-existence m.n) is made a reality.” (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

1.3.1: Peaceful co-existence and Khrushchev the warmonger (20th Congress)

1.4: The Defence of the USSR.

Is the defence of the USSR that was building socialism before the Second World War, and the defence of the USSR that was building communism after the Second World War a duty of all the communists?

Of course!

What does this defence consists in as regards military activities?

It consists in making the war preparations against the USSR by the imperialists being led by the USA impossible. It consists in the peace campaign, and winning the masses to peace and against the war.

This is not enough.

It consist in all the people’s democracies declaring clearly that if USSR is attacked it will be considered an attack upon them and that they shall immediately join this war with all the power of their state machine, their military forces, on the side of the USSR, to defend the USSR.

People’s democracies did so.

This is not enough.

It consist in all the communist parties declaring clearly that if USSR is attacked by the state they are organised in, by their own country, it will be considered an attack upon them, an attack upon their own people, their own nation, an attack upon the peace of their own people and their own nation, and that they shall immediately join this war with all the power of their organisations, mobilise the masses against their own state’s criminal activity of making war upon peaceful USSR, and join the war on the side of the USSR, to defend the USSR. This war their own bourgeoisie make upon the USSR would turn into a war of liberation of their own nation from the rule of the war mongering, war making, and criminal rule of their own bourgeoisie!

Communist Parties did so.

This is not enough.

It consist in all the communist parties leading and taking part in their nations liberation wars declaring clearly that if USSR is attacked by the colonial power they are fighting against, it will be considered an attack upon them, an attack upon their own people, their own nation, upon their armed forces and their national liberation war would become a part of the war in defence of the USSR, because the war would be joined on the side of the USSR, and that war would become a part of a worldwide liberation war that include the liberation of their own nation.

Communist Parties did so.

It was the traitors to the movement, traitors to humanity, and the slaves to the war mongers and to the war makers that behaved otherwise.

It was enemies of internationalism; it was enemies of the strategy of the world revolution that behaved otherwise.

1.4.1: Defence of the USSR and the building of communism:

Defnece of the USSR is a many sided issue. Attack by the imperialist on our homeland and its people is many sided. For example the cosmopolitan culture is one of these, Propaganda of lies in politiacal, personal

  1. LIBERATION OF COLONIES AND THE DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLES OF THE EMPIRE!

Critics claim that the program denies the independence of the colonies and oppressed nations of the British Empire and wants to preserve the British Empire.

This is not correct.

Program does not do this.

2.1: Independence of Britain and British People.

“This whole disastrous policy has already led to the loss of our political, military and economic independence.

The fight for peace and the national independence of the British people cannot be separated from the struggle of the colonial and dependent peoples of the British Empire for national liberation.

At the heart of the struggle for peace, so far as the British working class is concerned, is the fight to end American domination over British economic, trade, foreign and military policy;

Therefore, the independence of our own country is inseparably bound up with putting an end to “the present abnormal relations of colonial war and repression between the British people and the peoples of the Empire, by establishing durable friendship with them on the basis of equal rights”. (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

After the Second World War American imperialism has become the dominant imperial power. It clearly occupied and dominated the defeated imperialist countries: Germany, Italy and Japan. To occupy and dominate the Germans they have divided Germany and brought the Nazis back to power while hounding the communists! Only East Germany was free for it was liberated by the USSR.

France and Britain who were part of the victorious allies also ended up being dominated by USA militarily, politically and economically. These countries needed USA to be able to oppress their own workers, their own people. They also needed USA to be able to preserve their colonies. Rulers of these countries, including the right wing social democrats, betrayed the nation, lost the national independence of the country to the Americans and became a subservient slave to the USA. This did not stop them engaging in most foul colonial wars and oppressions, and being most foul oppressors of nations!

Is the fact that, in 1952, Britain and British people had a national liberation problem of its own clear to the critics?

Of course not!

Is it at all clear to the critics that the only force capable of liberating Britain from the USA is the working class led by the communists, and thus the CPGB?

Of course not!

Is it at all clear to the critics that the British Road to Socialism is but a program that takes on board this duty of the communists?

Of course not!

Is this something new in the development of imperialism?

Yes it is.

Should it be considered and should our policies be changed accordingly?

Of course!

2.2: “A new situation faces us” in the fight for the liberation of the peoples of the British Empire:

“Durable friendship requires “the withdrawal of all armed forces from the colonial and dependent territories, and handing over of sovereignty to Governments freely chosen by the peoples”. This would give the basis for “a new, close, voluntary and fraternal association”, with mutually beneficial economic exchange and co-operation, and mutual defence against American imperialist aggression.

This is an extremely important new conception, for the first time clearly stated. It recognises the necessity not only to end all relations between the peoples of the present Empire which are based on political, economic and military enslavement, but also, in doing this, to take into account the economic needs of all the peoples concerned, and especially the American imperialist threat to any isolated country.” (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

After the First World War, after the October (November) Revolution, we have assumed power not only in Russia of Russian people but in the Tsarist Empire, in the Russian Empire. We have lost parts of it to Japan and Poland and Finland decided to separate, but the rest of the empire voluntarily stayed together as parts of the Soviet Union.

Did we as communists do our utmost to keep all these nations with us instead of separating from us?

Of course we did. It was clear that to fight imperialism, nations of the world must join forces. The more nations, the more countries unite, the more are our chances of fighting back against the military and other attempts of imperialists to defeat us: and attempt they do.

We have formed the Soviet Union not immediately after our victorious revolution but after a long civil war and defeating the intervention of 14 states instigated and led by Churchill and British Empire. During the revolution, during the civil war and during the war against intervention as well as during the building of socialism, a number of facts became clear to all: That, bourgeoisie is not interested in the freedom of “its” nation, it either oppress other nations or permit the imperial power to oppress its “own” nation in order to exploit its own nation and other nations; that the unity of nations against imperialism is the best means of defending each nation’s independence; that, for a nation to be free and independent, it must overthrow its own bourgeoisie, and establish the rule of the proletariat; that poorer nations can be free and skip the period of capitalist development if it is a part of the union of socialist countries and is supported by a socialist country ruled by the proletariat; that bourgeois nations should become nations ruled by the proletariat, they should become nations building socialism-communism, becoming nations that do not have any bourgeoisie; that nations should be rebuilt as socialist nations without a bourgeoisie. All nations should do all that is needed to defend Soviet Union as the defender of all nations, as the defender of independence of all the nations. The stronger the Soviet Union is the more is the support for the liberation of the nations and colonies, the surer is the defense of the independence of all countries and nations.

After the Second World War, the imperialist camp had only the Americans as the dominant power, all becoming subservient to the USA. Imperial countries, even Britain, in order to preserve their own colonies have turned their own country into a colony of the USA, and together with France, surrendered their colonies to America in order to preserve some semblance of colonial ownership. The strongest, the most powerful colony of Britain, India, has been divided by Britain. India and Pakistan did not gain their independence but gained a semblance of independence. Any colony that fought for more, a real independence, did end up having to fight Britain, and America always stood in reserve-and did pounce if Britain was forced to pull back: such was the case in Greece, and always shared the spoils as part of their support for the defeat of colonial peoples: such was the case with Cyprus! We all know not only of the American bases in Britain, but also many an American basis in British colonies: Diego Garcia is well known these days!

Bolsheviks had to fight for the unity of the peoples of the Russian empire as a voluntary union of these peoples, and prove to the whole world that this is the best way forward for the nations to be free from imperial oppression, for national independence, and is the fastest way of development for nations and the best way to defend the national independence of nations.

British communists had to clearly formulate this mode of gaining freedom and independence for colonial peoples not only because it is the best way forward for all the nations of the British Empire, including British people, but also and in the conditions created after the second world war, as the only real way forward for the liberation of colonial peoples-as well as the liberation of British people: one by one they would end up being taken over by USA, thus not being able to be free and independent, but together, they would establish equal relations amongst themselves and together they would be free, British people and the peoples of the empire.

Program clearly formulates that British people and colonial peoples must work together and must unite against American imperialism and British Imperialism to achieve independence for British people and peoples of the colonies and dependent territories.

This is right and must be done.

Does the program deny the nations of the British Empire the right to separate?

No it does not! It simply makes it clear that separation from a Britain ruled by the workers of Britain is not the way forward; it will not give real freedom, it will enslave the colonial peoples to the USA. Unity, a united front and victory of all peoples’ of British Empire demanding equality and unity in a British commonwealth and fighting to achieve this is the best and fastest way to achieve liberation for all.

Does the program deny the right to separate?

No it does not. The fact of the matter is that in the same congress, Britain is asked to agree to separation of Cyprus (and Cyprus uniting with Greece). What is needed by the world movement at that moment is concretely formulated by the program, written into resolutions and applied by the British Communists.

They were true supporters of colonial peoples, and true patriots of Britain, they were true internationalists, true participants and supporters of the world revolution!

How about our critics? Are they any of those?

Of course not! Formulate the opposite of those qualities, and you shall find the qualities of our critics!

2.3: The Evil Empire.

Is “British Road to Socialism” a Defender of the British Empire and Oppressors of the Nations of the Empire?

Critics think so?

But it is not so.

Why do the critics think this?

Simple really. They think so not just about British Communists and the British Road to Socialism. It is same with the Soviet communists. They, the Soviet people, the Soviet communists, Stalin, did not liberate the nations of the Eastern Europe (or the world for that matter). Oh no. They have expanded the “evil empire”! They are the occupiers of other nations’ lands, they are the expansionists. On the same score when the British communists declare in 1952 that they shall establish equal trade and equal relations with the nations of the empire, and will form a common wealth of nations (of the British empire) they are acting just like the Soviet Communists, in an imperial manner, to expand their sphere of influence, to occupy other nations, to enslave other nations, to preserve the British Empire!

To the critics it matters not that British communists are declaring that a people’s democracy will be established in Britain-that is the British Empire of the British financial oligarchs will end!. It is this government of peoples democracy (not the government of the financial oligarchs) that will establish equal relations between the nations of the empire, support the less developed nations of the empire so that they can develop faster (just as the Soviets did with the Russian Empire and its oppressed nations and peoples), and do not let these nations be overtaken by other imperialists -specifically by USA in collaboration with the local collaborationist bourgeois, feudals and others).

And note. Program clearly declares the right of nations to separation if they so wish! Critics criticize the program in spite of this; critics declare the imperial desires of the program and of the British communists in spite of this!

Where there is a will, there, there is a way!

It is, as one can see, a matter of choice, of comprehension of the situation during and after the Second World War. If the Soviets and British communists are not doing all they can do for the liberation of other nations but to enslave them-as the critics would say, they are right. But if the Soviet and British communists were proposing what they proposed to win the liberty of nations, to achieve the fastest rate of development of backward nations and of the world revolution, of world communism, than they are wrong!

It is a matter of comprehension of the time and space of 1952! Of the conditions of 1952! Indeed, of our history and theory and strategy and tactics.

It is a matter of comprehension of internationalism, of the strategy of world revolution.

Our critics are at best a total failure when it comes to all those!

But than, and since our critics keep reminding us that it is indeed a matter of class struggle, very violent at that, one need to conclude where our critics stand in this class struggle, with what class of people they line themselves up!

2.3.1: “Let, then, that working class prepare itself for the task in store for it, - the ruling of this great empire” - Engels

“Thinking men of all classes begin to see that a new line must be struck out, and that this line can only be in the direction of democracy. But in England, where the industrial and agricultural working class forms the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that working class prepare itself for the task in store for it, - the ruling of this great empire; let them understand the responsibilities which inevitably will fall to their share.

(A Working Men's Party; Articles by Engels in the Labour Standard; Written: mid-July 1881; Published: No. 12, July 23, 1881, as a leading article. )

Clearly, it is not the comprehension of the Empire by the oppressor classes throughout the history that matters; clearly, it is not the comprehension of the Empire as a means of oppression of other nations by the oppressor classes throughout the history that matters; what matters is what one needs to do under the given historical conditions to free all the peoples of that Empire; what matters is what one needs to do under the given historical conditions to progress the development of all the peoples of that Empire, and thus the peoples of the world. Clearly, it is a matter of the most developed section of the workers doing its duty towards all other sections of the Empire. It is a matter of the comprehension of the strategy of the world revolution.

Critics do not have the slightest idea of the proletarian, communist world revolution. Critics do not have the slightest idea of the proletarian, communist internationalism.

Critics are clear and base enemies of all these!

2.4: Nation and National Liberation.

All are conditioned by time. All have a history. Nations have a history and the very content of nations change in time, and therefore their definition change in time. The same goes for national independence and national liberation.

What makes a nation?

Critics seem to know only one kind of nation: bourgeois nation. And if they are lucky they will define a nation as Stalin defined a bourgeois nation in 1913.

They do not realize that the world has already seen socialist nations, and these nations have no bourgeoisie, they are without any bourgeoisie, they are not bourgeois nations but socialist nations! They, the critics, do not know of such nations. They cannot see the changes nations have gone through.

Which are independent nations and which are dependent nations?

Critics seem to know only of imperialist nations that oppress and colonies that are oppressed. If he is lucky he will define his oppressor and oppressed nations using Lenin’s Imperialism. They cannot see that one imperial nation can oppress yet another imperial nation, and indeed world wars are fought to achieve this result.

What is a national liberation struggle, what signifies and guarantees a nation’s independence?

Critics do not realize that in the Second World War such nations as French, Dutch, Polish, etc., were occupied and had to fight for their national liberation, for their national independence and that after Second World war such nations as Germans were divided and its Western part occupied and oppressed; that Italians and Japanese were occupied and oppressed, that even the victor Britain (and France, and Dutch etc.) had surrendered its national independence to the USA. Critics do not realize that national question has further spread and that now we have to tackle national independence issues in previously imperialist, independent countries (in some of these, such as Britain and France- they carry on being imperialist at the same time)

Critics know that colonial, dependent nations are oppressed by big imperial powers but since they are bourgeois nations, critics think that the fight for national liberation is a bourgeois fight led by the local bourgeoisie. They do not realize that in the colonies and dependent nations most of the local bourgeois and feudals surrendered to the imperialists, joined the camp of imperialists and totally betrayed the nation and the national independence. Bourgeoisie is in no position to lead the nation to independence. It cannot lead the national liberation struggle.

Critics do not want to know that there is such a force as USSR, now joined by People’s Democracies that champion the national liberation of all nations.

Critics do not want to know that the only way to liberate one's own nation is to join and support the camp of peace and democracy led by the USSR; the only way to liberate one's own nation is to form a united front against the world imperialism led by the USA which united front is the camp of peace and democracy led by the USSR; critics do not want to know that the only way to liberate one's own nation passes through the defence of USSR and that also means the defence of the building of communism in the USSR, because the achievement of the liberation of one's own nation and keeping the independence of one's own nation depends on it.!

All these led to changes in the strategy and tactics of national liberation struggles, as well as in the fight for democracy and socialism!.

All these changes do not make the life more difficult for the workers’ and communists’ movement, but easier, for it widens the swoop of the movement; it widens its allies while leaving the national traitor bourgeoisie without allies in the nation. It brings the national struggle closer to the socialist struggle of the proletariat.

In developed countries proletariats’ socialist struggle merges with the struggle for national independence, national struggle becomes a struggle that needs to be waged in developed, imperialist countries against the local national bourgeoisie and under the leadership of the working class, under the leadership of the communists, and closely merged with the socialist struggle: this situation widens the allies of the proletariat, of communists and strengthens the socialist struggle.!

In less developed colonies and dependent countries national independence has to be won against the native bourgeoisie that has deserted to the imperialist camp, struggle for independence has to be led by the workers, by the communists. Here, although there are very many bourgeois democratic issues that need to be resolved before one can start socialist construction per se, the very leadership of the movement by the workers and communists, connects the national liberation struggle of each nation to the struggle for the liberation of all nations led by the USSR and to the struggle for democratic rights, and thus to the building of socialism.

Formulations of British Road to Socialism that calls for unity of nations of the British Empire, of commonwealth of nations to fight back against USA and its allies is formulated to progress the world revolution and liberation of nations in the fastest way and in a least painful way, in concrete conditions of 1952. These formulations are in line with the strategy of world revolution.

Those who object to these formulations want us, the communists, to abrogate our duty to the world revolution and to our own nations and to the nations of the world!

These critics, while the only option for the nations to gain and preserve their independence is to join forces with the block of peace and democracy formed under the leadership of the USSR, hail the Bandung Conference of 18-25 April 1955, with its aim of dividing this united front, hail its continuer, the non-aligned movement of Tito, this reactionary movement of deception of nations that prepares nothing but the defeat of nations by imperialist. The critics are indeed the true enemies of the nations of the earth.

2.4.1: National Liberation and the defence of the USSR, and the camp of peace, democracy and national independence!

Just as the best way forward for the liberation of oppressed nations of the British Empire is to fight to achieve a British Commonwealth of equal nations, the only way forward for all nations of the world to be free is to join and strengthen and oversee the victory of the camp of peace, democracy and national liberation led by the USSR.

In the era of imperialism after the Second World War, so long as imperialism led by the USA is not met by a mighty and powerful camp of national independence, no nation, including those in the camp of imperialism is free and independent. They are all subservient to the USA and they are all dependent on the USA.

It is thus that any nation that values its independence joins the ranks of the camp of peace, democracy and national independence. Only thus can the nations be equal, only thus more powerful and more developed nations could help the more backward and weaker nations, only thus could the nations join hands and grow powerful, become modern and develop their culture together, only thus could nations cooperate and only thus could cooperation and competition amongst nations lead to the betterment of all, to the equality of all and thus to the independence of all.

All other way forward proposed by this or that traitor to the nations leads to the defeat of all by the USA!

The critics belong to such. While the only option for the nations to gain and preserve their independence is to join forces with the block of peace and democracy formed under the leadership of the USSR, they do all they can to divide and defeat the camp of peace and democracy and national independence, the camp of equality of nations preparing nothing but the defeat of nations by the imperialist.

The critics belong to such. While the only option for the nations to gain and preserve their independence is to join forces with the block of peace and democracy formed under the leadership of the USSR, they hail the Bandung Conference of 18-25 April 1955, with its aim of dividing this united front; they hail its continuer, the non-aligned movement of Tito, this reactionary movement of deception of nations which prepares nothing but the defeat of nations by imperialist.

The critics are indeed the true enemies of the nations of the earth.

  1. “THE BRITISH” ROAD TO SOCIALISM!

“The people cannot advance to Socialism, therefore, unless, led by the working class, they take this power from the capitalist minority and grasp it firmly in their own hands. It is not our view that this, in British conditions; requires Soviet Power and the abolition of Parliament. We consider that the people can transform Parliament into the democratic instrument of their will, and transform capitalist democracy into a real People’s Democracy, through which a People’s Government can break the economic, the political and the propaganda power of the capitalist class, and create the conditions for Socialism in Britain

But this transformation can only be carried through by a united, working class which has ended collaboration with and capitulation to capitalism, leading to a popular alliance of all sections of the working people—clerical and professional workers, teachers, technicians and scientists, working farmers, shopkeepers and small businessmen.”(H. Pollite. 22nd Congress)

Critics claim that the program denies the overthrow of the capitalist class, the assumption of power by the working class to build socialism.

This is not correct.

Program does not do this.

Let us take this opportunity to remind the reader that 1949 to 52 and immediately after is not a period when only BR2S is written in agreement with Stalin and CPGB; but in almost all the countries of the world almost all the communist parties of the world write their own “road to socialism” programs. When critics oppose BR2S, they are opposing not just BR2S but all these programs and all the programs, strategy and tactics formulated by all these parties of the world communist movement in cooperation with Stalin and CPSU.

That would only mean that the critics are, and all of them are, truly Trotskyites, that is a part of the leading detachments of the world bourgeoisie!

3.1: Road to Socialism or How to Assume Power!

Program proposes a none-soviet path of assuming power by the British working class.

It proposes that CPGB and the British workers do not prepare to form soviets during a revolutionary situation and assume power using the soviets that may or may not be formed under the coming revolutionary situation. Program proposes that British Workers do not prepare the overthrow of the bourgeois government using the soviets and replacement of the bourgeois government by a government of soviets.

Program notes that the bourgeois representative democracy has been forced to progress and to use universal right to vote to elect a parliament. It proposes that this bourgeois democracy with its universal right to vote be forced into becoming a people’s representative democracy through winning of these elections at which all the people can vote, through people voting for CPGB and its allies.

This is a mode of political struggle that the British workers have been using and are used to using, it is a traditional way of engaging in politics by the workers of Britain. This is a form of struggle and organisation that has been created and used by the British Workers. Furthermore, British ruling classes who are utterly and totally enemies of democracy are attacking the communists as opponents of democracy relying on this traditional understanding of democratic politics by the British workers since the communists had been propagating for revolution and revolutionary violence. We had also developed a new form of assumption of power by the workers, as distinct from the soviet form, in the East European countries that has used representative democracy with a parliament and a government formed by the parliamentary majority. Based on all these it was thus noted that:

The government formed by a bourgeois parliament elected by the people using universal suffrage is to be transformed into a people’s government being formed by a people’s parliament elected by the people using universal suffrage, that is by winning the elections by CPGB and its allies. All the other bourgeois (imperialist) state institutions of the bourgeois (imperialist) government will be a\so be transformed into the people’s state institutions of a people’s government.

Program propose that an alliance led by the working class, thanks to the leadership of the Communist Party, representing the great majority of the British people, win the elections to put into practice the policy of the program, the British Road to Socialism.

Thanks to this majority, the bourgeois parliament is transformed into a people’s parliament. Based on this majority in the parliament, a people’s government to implement the mandate given to the parliament is formed. These are now people’s parliament and people’s government. To put the program into practice, the necessary changes to the structure of the bourgeois state are implemented, transforming it all together into a people’s state. Since the program, as regards economy, is one of socialist nationalisation, the economic base of the society is also transformed into a socialist economy.

This is the British Road to Socialism, as defined by the program.

3.1.1: East European Road to Socialism.

In Eastern Europe, not the Sovietic form of organisation of the state but parliamentary form of organisation of the state has been used to achieve power, to hold onto power and to build socialism.

There of course, communist parties assumed power immediately after the liberation of the country from the Nazi occupation by the USSR. The whole process was more of an international and internationalist effort by our movement and its leading section, CPSU.

It is thus that we did not have to transform a bourgeois parliament through winning elections. Bourgeois reactionary parliament was smashed and replaced by a new people’s parliament and the bourgeois reactionary-fascist-government by a new parliamentary form of people’s government that was to hold elections to the parliament as soon as possible .Even when the power was shared with the bourgeois parties, even when we ended up in the minority in the government, we had a clear mandate from the people through the organisations of people where we were at the majority and through the powerful red army and intelligence services of the USSR! We had the power at hand and progressed to strengthen our power in the parliament and the government through the bitter class struggle with the bourgeois who were aiming to betray the nation in collaboration with the USA and its subjects-allies, and through the bitter class struggle with the imperialists who immediately turned imperialist towards our countries and towards our nations.

We had a proletarian dictatorship in the form of a people’s democracy, we had a duty and a mandate to build socialism and we begun building socialism as soon as we resolved the problems of our international war against fascism, and resolved any bourgeois democratic issues such as the independence of the country and questions of feudal land ownership and royalty if they existed.

Some people would like us to surrender the power gained and held with the help of the USSR and the Red Army to the bourgeoisie, local and international. This proposal comes from those who shout the loudest about internationalism! Such hypocrites these people are!

Some people would like us to close our eyes to the arming of the Nazis by the USA and Britain and France-and Japan. They would like us to close our eyes to the attempts of the “West” to push the Nazis against us. To their plans to help Nazis kill us and weaken us. Well, for those who are a party to such disgusting plans it would make sense. Some people would like us to surrender power to the local and international bourgeoisie. And they would be the ones who shout the loudest about the internationalism, about the international revolution and about the violent revolutions and revolutionary power!

Some people have no shame!

3.1.2: How to “Approach to Socialism”?

But what are “the ways of approach” to this “final act”, the final act of forming a people’s government that will put into practice the program of BR2S in full!

What does the program propose for this, what are the tactics of the CPGB to achieve this strategic aim?

The first step is the formation of the united front of workers with all its allies against the capitalist class, the most important section of which is the monopoly capitalist class. This will be achieved by a campaign based on the immediate demands of the working class and its allies: Defence and betterment of the living standards, defence of peace, defence of national independence from the American imperialism, liberation of colonial people in co-operation with the British people and not surrendering the independence of colonial peoples to the American imperialists. This united front will also be shaped around an anti-Tory campaign; first; to force the Tories to an early general election; later; to defeat them in an election. The result of the victory in this election will be a Labour government. This Labour government will be formed by a Labour Party that has changed, that has overthrown its right wing leadership and adapted as its program not the British Road to Socialism but the program of the immediate demands formulated in comrade H. Pollitt’s report which are acceptable to all-and needed by all immediately: Defence and betterment of the living standards, defence of peace, defence of national independence from the American imperialism, liberation of colonial people in co-operation with the British people and not surrendering the independence of colonial peoples to the American imperialists; trade with the East European people’s democracies.

This is united front tactics and one of “the ways to approach” to socialism.

Right wing leaderships of Labour Party, Co-operatives, and Trade unions will be defeated, and replaced; their right wing policies changed through the united front activities; these organisations will act as some of the united front organisations; The Labour Party which is transformed as a result of these developments, defeats the Tories, wins the elections and forms a Labour Party government. This is a united front government, “a way to approach to socialism”.

It is thus that the united front is formed and developed to the stage of winning elections based on a mandate to put into practice the British Road to Socialism. This is the stage of people’s democracy, just like the people’s democracy in East European countries, where it performs the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat!

This is the British Road to Socialism.

If one cannot see the revolutionary transformation of the British society in this, it is not the fault of the program!

3.2: Stages of People’s Democracy

“Comrades, we speak of this Programme as not an immediate, but a long-term programme. We do not mean by this that it is some distant vision that can perhaps be realised in twenty or fifty years. We mean that its achievement depends on our first building up the unity of the working class and all working people which alone can realise the programme. That building up is not some far-off task, but one for today and tomorrow, and in the first place, in the fight to bring down the Tory Government.

How rapidly we can proceed beyond that, how soon a People’s Government will become an immediate slogan, is not a matter of any set term of months or years, but entirely of our own successful work, together with all that is best in the Labour movement, in the actual struggle on every issue that concerns the people.” (H.Pollit. 22nd Congress)

Certain critics are very much influenced by the revolutionary rhetoric and they are ashamed of talking of gaining a majority in the parliament and transforming it into a people’s parliament and forming a people’s government and transforming the bourgeois state into a people’s democracy (a people’s democracy that functions as a proletarian dictatorship).

Therefore they feel obliged to interpret the British Road to Socialism and Stalin’s contributions to it in a fashion which they think is revolutionary: BR2S- nothing to do with parliament and winning power through the parliament, therefore it is not reformist. BR2S. Why it most certainly is not peaceful. It is peaceful in its first stage but then it is not building socialism anyway. But in its second stage, when it is building socialism, it is violent. It may say democracy and is democratic in its first stage, but it is dictatorial, dictatorship, proletarian dictatorship in its second stage if need be...

We can see that these critics have in mind the approach of other critics as regards the meaning of being revolutionary. Plenty of shouting high and loud, very little, or rather no real revolution in it!

How to defend the fact that Stalin contributed to and was in agreement with the British Road to socialism while retaining the” revolutionary” honour? Especially now that all other “roads to socialisms” written before the death of Stalin have begun to come to light. That every country had its own “road to socialism” similar to British Road to Socialism.

What a problem. Let us see if there is a solution to it?

3.2.1: Two Stages of Peoples Democracy:

Are there two stages to People’s Democracy?

Yes indeed.

If the country in question is such that it faces economic and political issues of feudal (pre capitalist) nature that need to be resolved, and these are of such an overwhelming weight compared to the capitalist formation of the country that proletariat cannot resolve these issues “in passing”, as a side issue (however important they may be) such as the way Bolsheviks handled the bourgeois democratic issues in Russia, then of course people’s democracy, even though led by the proletariat, cannot skip over the” bourgeois democratic” stage however much what appears to be socialist measures are also implemented (such as nationalisation of industry and of some land).

There are also countries which are so backward that they deserve a special mention in our program: these are pre capitalist countries, such as Mongolia and Albania. These countries are so backward that on their own they could not build socialism, but in cooperation with the country that is building socialism, thanks to its support, they can skip the stage of capitalism and pass into socialism from the pre-capitalist conditions. Such countries cannot even provide the proletarian leadership to build socialism, and this proletarian leadership as well as the support to build socialism (and that is besides other things is to build an industrialised country) requires the leadership of the country with a proletarian dictatorship and able to build an industrial, socialist country!

In some countries people’s democracy is a means of building socialism directly-however much it may also be tackling bourgeois democratic-national liberation issues! In such countries people’s democracy acts as proletarian dictatorships, and once the monopolist bourgeois, fascist bourgeois are overthrown, each form of government where the proletariat leads in one way or another, is a people’s democracy that directly functions as dictatorship of proletariat. It is of course perfected each and every passing day.

3.2.2: Two Stages of Peoples Democracy and the Critics:

According to critics the peoples democracy that British Road to Socialism is talking of is a people’s democracy that is at its first stage that is at its bourgeois democratic stage.

Please take note: we are being told that in Britain we are leading the movement to form a government that will resolve bourgeois democratic issues and that not in passing but as the main determining issues, as issues that determine the nature of the revolutionary process?

How very reactionary one can get in the name of trying to be revolutionary!

Surely Stalin would say you love me as a bear love a man and hug him to love him!

If democracy is dominated by the people led by the working class, by the communists, and if there is no insurmountable economic and political reason due to the backwardness of the country concerned (such as China) every further step of democracy is a further “approach to socialism” and there is no bourgeois democratic stage to it (such an “approach to socialism” was the first form of the proletarian dictatorship formed by the coalition of the Bolsheviks and left socialist revolutionaries). Only if the country in question has an insurmountable economic and political reason due to its backwardness (such as China) then there is a bourgeois democratic stage and the people’s democracy in question does not yet act as a proletarian dictatorship! It is only in such countries that people’s democracy is in its first stage of development akin to bourgeois democratic stage and the building of socialism is not yet a direct and immediate task.

But than what to do, since the critics understand from building of socialism as a direct and immediate task? During the first stage of the Bolshevik revolution Bolsheviks did not have the chance and the opportunity to start building socialism immediately. They had assumed power having the right-and thus the ability to do so, but if you are attacked by 14 states, you look into that first. The defence of the realm becomes the most important and most immediate task! And that does not mean that revolution was not socialist nor does it mean all the other bourgeois things critics propose. Critics should read Stalin’s views on the stages of the revolution especially his answer to a Chinese comrade who thought the first stage of the October revolution was a bourgeois democratic stage!

But even here, why is it that one revolves around the difference between the first and second stages of the people’s democracy? How about what is common to the both stages? Is there anything common between the people’s democracy in its first stage and in its second stage? How come the critics disregard this most important factor? And of course there are such commonalities as the leadership of the communist party, as the leadership of the working class (and even for the countries that have no proletariat this leadership can be attained thanks to unity with the world movement, such as Mongolia and Albania) and thus the fact that even the people’s democracy in its first stage firmly places the country in question on “the road to socialism”!

Labour Party governments as proposed by comrade H. Pollitt, as a united front government, would not put building socialism as their immediate task, but nevertheless that would still be “an approach to socialism”, it would be “on the road to building socialism” but it would not be a people’s democracy at its first bourgeois democratic stage.

If anything the Labour Party government proposed by Comrade H. Pollitt would be akin to the coalition government of Bolsheviks and left socialist revolutionaries.

Our critics are truly rightists who want to look at our tasks and duties from the right.

3.2.3: Two stages of People’s Democracy, United Front Government and the Critics:

Another interpretation by the critics, this time in relation to the anti-fascist united front government is also proposed: it seems that an anti-fascist government as proposed by Dimitrov in 1935 is also a government that resolves bourgeois democratic issues, just like a people’s democracy in its first stage? That an anti-fascist government is a government that is formed to defend bourgeois democracy and is thus is similar to a people’s democracy at its first, bourgeois democratic stage, that it requires taking a step back from our program-of socialist revolution- in order to save bourgeois democracy! Oh no. It will never ever build socialism. This is not its immediate task. Therefore it is there to solve bourgeois democratic problems. It is not there to build socialism; therefore it is like a people’s government at its first bourgeois democratic stage-a people’s democratic government at its bourgeois democratic stage although the country in question is at its socialist stage of development.

If the Trotskyites are diversionists and dividers of the movement shouting revolution at the top of their voice, who on earth are these critics?

Faced with a huge threat from fascism we would of course be happy to defend bourgeois democratic rights, the national independence, the living standards of workers etc., but let us face it, and let us understand this which is clearly understood by the bourgeoisie, if we are engaged in this process, as we must; if we end up leading this process, as we must; it is rather problematic that things would stay at a stage that will not threaten the limitations of bourgeois form of democracy, that is things will stay in a stage that the rule of the bourgeoisie is not shaken at all; that we shall be good boys like all right wing social democrat leaders and save bourgeois rule from the fascists and from the fascist bourgeois without further ado? Or rather and indeed that one could do such a thing if the movement set in motion is to progress-unless one decided to betray the workers altogether and lead to the defeat of the fight against fascism!

How very reactionary one can get in the name of trying to be revolutionary!

When we form the united front of all workers and around it of all the people and of all the nation to defend democracy and national independence and peace and the living standards of workers; when this united front activity leads to the formation of powerful organisations of the workers and the people and further on to a government of the united front; it would be asking of us to become outright reactionaries that all that power is used to preserve nothing but the power of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy without forcing their limits and indeed overcoming these limits. Why do you think it proves so difficult to form such united front organisations if workers organisations are dominated by the bourgeoisie and their henchmen in the movement? Ever since the Spanish Revolution it was obvious that united front led by the workers, by the communists inevitably leads to more than simple preservation of simple, limited bourgeois rule and bourgeois democracy. That extremely narrow limit is inevitably passed over. Even when there are still bourgeois parties; even when power is shared by such bourgeois parties; even when they are in the majority; and nay more, even when the country’s development is in the bourgeois democratic stage.

This forcing of the limits, this overcoming of the limits is not simply the result of our leadership, the leadership of the workers. The reason for this is not simply that we are involved in it and that we are leading it. One of the main reason for it is that things are taken to extreme by a section of the bourgeoisie, by a section of the financial oligarchs, and this so much so that even a section of the bourgeoisie and even a section of the financial oligarchy is threatened by them and the events, by the changes, by the developments. And another need, another inevitability created by these conditions is that communists and workers must come to the fore and lead the fight against the monstrous conditions created by the monsters! No one else will do it and no one else can do it!

If we are going to get ready for the inevitable results of what is oft repeated conclusion of Stalin, that if socialism is defeated what awaits humanity is barbarism, one should know what is what and face it!

If we consider the united front and united front governments for a country, development of which is not at a bourgeois democratic stage but at a socialist stage, we clearly and easily see that an anti-fascist government is an "approach to socialism”! It is not a step back from ones program, but a move forward in the given conditions, an approach to socialism in the given conditions. There can be many stages, many steps, all being an approach to socialism, but none of these steps is “a bourgeois democratic revolution”, none of these steps results in a bourgeois democratic government without further ado, none of these steps is a step back from the aims of the programs, rather each is, and inevitably is, an approach to socialism. And because this is well understood by the sections of the bourgeoisie who are attacked by the fascists and by the right wing leadership of social democracy, they always try to compromise with the fascists until they have no choice but to surrender to the communists and working class leadership-always trying to drive this leadership to a bourgeois line one way or another. United front requires the defeat of anti-people, anti-national traitorous policies, policies that surrender to the fascists, to the enemies of the nation. And this is how a united front and a united front government is built! Not by taking a backward step but by taking a forward step, a forward step in defence of democracy, thus a forward step towards socialism!

If we consider the united front and united front governments for a country, development of which is not at a socialist stage, but at a bourgeois democratic stage, we clearly and easily see that, an anti-fascist government is an approach to socialism! It is not a step back from ones program, but a move forward in the given conditions, an approach to socialism in the given conditions. There can be many stages, many steps, all being an approach to socialism, but one of these steps is “a bourgeois democratic revolution”, one of these steps results in a bourgeois democratic government, but not one without further ado, it is in fact a people's government led by the communist party that solves bourgeois democratic tasks, and none of the steps taken, the governments formed, is a step back from the aims of our maximum program of socialism, rather each is, and inevitably is, an approach to socialism. And because this is well understood by the sections of the bourgeoisie who are attacked by the fascists and by the right wing leadership of social democracy, they always try to compromise with the fascists until they have no choice but to surrender to the communists and working class leadership-always trying to drive this leadership to a bourgeois line one way or another. United front requires the defeat of anti-people, anti-national traitorous policies, policies that surrender to the fascists, to the enemies of the nation. And this is how a united front and a united front government is built! Not by taking a backward step but by taking a forward step, a forward step in defence of democracy, thus a forward step towards socialism!

One would think that all the critics that talk of permanent revolution and thus continuous revolution would easily understand this. The theory of the permanent revolution that is not in line with the historical conditions is no theory of permanent revolution, but a theory of permanent defeat!

If we have to resolve bourgeois democratic issues and if we have to form a government that has to resolve those issues first and most of all, we form such a government of the people led by us. A people's democracy, a people's government! All the steps we take in forming such a government, all the developments regarding united front and united front governments is not a step back from our program but a step forward to achieve that program. But we are not a bourgeois party representing the bourgeois class. We are a communist party representing the proletarians, the working class, and all the working people, and the entire nation. For us, a people's government that tackles bourgeois democratic issues is but a step in the direction of forming a people's democracy, a people's government that tackles and solves socialist issues. Revolution does not stop half way. It is continuous, it is permanent!

3.2.4: Two stages of the People’s Democracy and the Theories of Building Socialism.

Immediately after Stalin has died Chinese Communist Party declares that they are now at the stage of socialist revolution, that they are building socialism that their people democracy is but a proletarian dictatorship. This is confirmed by Mao’s introduction to the “Uprising in the Countryside” and indeed by “the Contradictions Amongst the People”. This is also confirmed by the 8th Congress of the CPC held in 1956, just after the infamous 20th Congress of the CPSU.

It is clear that a theory of building socialism which is akin to Tito’s line of building socialism is declared valid and is applied by CPC. According to this one can build a socialist countryside without the industrialisation, without the industry that can supply tractors etc., for the countryside and for the formation of collective farms. It is declared that CPC can build collective farms, socialist ones at that, without the industry.

Of course, formation of collective farms goes hand in hand with getting rid of the largest class of capitalist, that of the capitalists of the countryside, the Kulaks. It is thus that the collectivisation of CPC and the methods of finishing off the bourgeois of the cities in China is never completed, even when they are declared to be finished off, and it is thus that the theory of never ending class struggle with the bourgeoisie, and many a cultural revolutions and a building process that will take 1000 years are formulated. These are all Titoist methods of building socialism that do not get rid of the bourgeoisie, that do not build its industry, and that do not get rid of the world imperialism.

Based on this while CPC has formulated a speedy passing into the second stage of the people’s democracy and with its friendly solutions of contradictions with the bourgeoisie, with its never putting an end to the bourgeoisie, or getting rid of the bourgeoisie while there is no industry but in a declared form a la Tito, the defenders of Mao come up with theories that CPC has never passed on to the second stage of the people’s democracy, that they got stuck at the first stage of people’s democracy. This helps justify the existence of the bourgeoisie etc. But this does not help to understand the fact that what we have with CPC is a theory of building socialism-communism which is not Leninist-Stalinist, but utterly adventurist and Titoist, thus Trotskyite. It is in fact used to hide this simple fact. Why? Because these comrades are themselves adamant supporters of other ways of building socialism-communism, other ways than Lenin-Stalin way. They are utter opponents of building communism in one country, they are not just a la Tito they are also a la Molotov!

As is known, Enver Hoca whose county was a county with no industry and a country with pre capitalist formation of economy and thus could not build socialism on its own, declares to be building socialism and have built socialism again without a machine building industry, and indeed declared to be passing into communism while it could not even repair its tractors. But of course when Khrushchev the arch Trotskyite announces that USSR will build communism soon, it is same Enver who declares that the shops of USSR are empty and Khrushchev keeps talking of building communism, and is thus lying, that USSR cannot build communism. Here in the person of Enver we have a theory of two stages of people’s democracy and its completion with communism, all without industry, all with the bourgeoisie and commodity economy persisting and he talks of about our USSR in this fashion and not expose the traitor Khrushchev for one traitor cannot expose another!

3.3: On the road to building socialism

The same critics declare that the parliament where majority will be obtained and a government will be formed, as a people’s government, is but a step on the road to building socialism; it is not building of socialism, and thus the government concerned is not a peoples democracy that is functioning as a proletarian dictatorship but more or less something akin to the first stage of peoples democracy of Eastern Europe-as they conceive it, one that will not be building socialism, one at a bourgeois democratic stage!.

It is also similar to the anti-fascist united front government-as they conceive it: one that is formed as a result of taking a step back, one that is built to save the bourgeois democracy, the bourgeois rule!

In other words, since the government in question will not act as a proletarian dictatorship, be it because it is a people’s democracy in its first stage of development, or because it is an anti-fascist government formed due to taking a step back in relation to our ultimate aim, in relation to our program, and it is trying to save the bourgeois rule with its bourgeois democracy, these governments are forgiven: they can be reformist, they can come into being without violence, they can be none dictatorial, they can be parliementerist etc., etc., for they do not have an immediate task of building socialism, they are simply on the road to building socialism!

By the way, if you are a people’s government led by the communists, led by the workers but not able to immediately concentrate on building socialism since you have such huge pre capitalist tasks to resolve first, would you as communist and as workers still be somewhat over the limits of bourgeois democratic stage? Ask yourself the question: What sort of direction would you be trying to direct the whole country into? What road would you like to take the country on to? A socialist road, or a capitalist road? Or is there a third road: social democrats and some of the critics say there is such a road!

Even in such backward conditions if the government is led by the workers, by the communist, the country would be on the road to socialism, although there would be a battle with the bourgeoisie as to what road to take the country onto.

But what is meant by “on the road to socialism” if the country is at the stage of socialist revolution (even if the country is one that need to resolve bourgeois democratic issues in passing). It seems that, according to critics, if one talks of being “on the road to socialism” one is exempt from building socialism. But one thing is clear from the program and from the report of comrade Harry Pollitt, that when the people’s democracy with a mandate to apply the program is established, the country will most certainly be on the road to socialism: it will be building socialism!

What reactionary and right wing content is given by the critics to the very concept of “on the road to building socialism”! That concept instead of being a battle cry for even the most backward nations on earth becomes a means of surrender for even the most developed nations on earth! Such are the effects of Titoist-Trotskyism!

And more: Every Labour Party government which is the result of not surrender to the right wing leadership but a result of battles won against them, of a development of the united front with a program that aims to resolve the immediate issues faced by the working class, by the people and the nation, that is also a step on the road to building socialism! It is an approach to socialism!

3.3.1: Surrender of CPGB to the Right Wing Leadership of the Labour Party:

One of the causes of the defeat of the CPGB after Stalin’s and H. Pollitt’s death, is precisely the surrender to the right wing leadership of the Labour Party, co-operative movement and the Trade union movement. Instead of defeating them, CPGB surrendered to them. Closely connected to this is the morality and the fighting capability of the British working class. It was well known to the CPGB of 1949-52 that the British working class that compromise and surrender to the capitalist class could not make a revolution, could not take over the government, could not build socialism and one of the task of the party was precisely to transform the working class into a class that does not surrender to the capitalists, that do not compromise time and again with the capitalists and is determined to topple them.

On these two points, after Stalin and H. Pollitt and in line with the defence of Tito and company we see out and out Trotskyism and thus the surrender to the right wing leadership of the labour party and to the compromising-reactionary bourgeois mood of the workers.

3.4: peaceful transformation-peaceful transition:

Our program and its presenter, comrade H. Pollitt, clearly talks of transforming the parliament into a people’s parliament, forming a people’s government as a result of having the majority in this parliament, and transforming the civil service and other state institutions using this governmental power, etc.,; and this is explained. This will be done by creating the united front, by organizations in the factories and everywhere and by active campaigns. It will be done based on these united front organizations and activities and by winning the elections again based on these organizations and activities.

Is there a talk of peaceful transition? No there is no talk of this.

Is there a talk of violent transition-our revolutionists demand this? No, save a possibility, a strong possibility of violence by the ruling class and its representatives in civil service etc., there is no talk of violence either.

Is there no talk of what to do if this possibility of violence by the reactionaries becomes a reality, as is claimed by the critics? Not so. What will be done about this is extremely clear: Society will be organized from top to bottom, under the leadership of workers. Workers will be unified and the people, the nation will be unified around the workers. They shall be organized with a new mentality that means they give up their slavery to the capitalists. This is a working class which has ended collaboration with and capitulation to capitalism. All the working people as well as professionals and small farmers etc., will be organized, they will be informed; they will also have the example of the USSR and Eastern Europe!

Let us be clear about this: there is not much of an escape route for the capitalists of Europe. Under democracy they lose! The only open route for them is war! And that route is being closed to them by the mighty peace movement.

They are finished: When we achieve the break in Britain, they will be finished!

Such was the situation in 1952! We were for democracy, we were for peace, and we were for “peaceful transition”. We did this “peaceful transition” in Eastern Europe, and we would do so in Britain, France and Italy-and the USA!

Such was the situation in 1952.

We are communists, we do not close our eyes to the facts of history, and we do know that in desperation the ruling class, the monopolists and their representatives will most likely try to put up a last fight: We offer them a peaceful way out. We offer them a way to surrender. If they do not take it we make sure that they will be defeated for the people are conscious and organized; organized and conscious and a part of this consciousness is the very high probability that old rulers will rebel against the people’s parliament, and against the people’s government. If they do, the people will be ready: they may, the ruling classes may, together with their friends within the movement huff and puff and lash out, but there is nothing they can do: not only shall we have a well-organized people we also have the USSR and East European people’s democracies as an example and to rely on.

The program is proposing a democratic way forward, within the present bourgeois democracy and continually forcing this democracy to expand to the benefit of the people. Program and its proposers do not talk of peaceful transition, they do not talk of violent transition, they simply explain what need to be done within the present democratic structure. They do not propose a violent revolution, but they note of the highly probable violence of the present ruling class and its henchmen.

3.4.1: Peaceful Transformation and the Revisers of Marxism:

After the death of Stalin one of the most important issues that has divided the communist movement was precisely this issue. Those who talk of peaceful transformation were revisionists, reformists, those who talk of violent revolution, armed struggle etc., were the revolutionists.

This of course is a clear diversion from the main issues: attack on Stalin and thus surrender to the Titoites; attack on Stalin thus attack on Lenin-Stalin line of building socialism and communism, agreement with the Titoites of many different ways of building socialism-communism, all of these being contrary to the Lenin-Stalin line of building socialism communism and in line with the Tito line of building socialism; undermining the peace process and joining the arm race, actually arming other nations and driving them to war in cooperation ( or opposition, if you like) with the USA; encouraging and supporting the non-aligned movement while dividing the communist movement, etc etc.

While our motherland. While the hope and leader of humanity was being diverted from building communism, and thus while the future of humanity was being destroyed, we were being asked to discuss how to make revolution, violent or peaceful? While our revolutionary base was being destroyed by Khruschevites, by Titoite-Trotskyites, we were being asked to decide who is revolutionary and who is reformist based on the possible scenarios of possible revolutions!

Still, if we have to decide as to who is revolutionary and who is not, we have to make it clear that he is a revolutionary who understand the place of his own country’s, his own nation’s revolution within the bounds of the world revolution and he would than know how to conduct himself, his party, his nation so that being revolutionary would be all dependent on achieving the best result for the world proletariat, and this all depends on the niceties of the class struggles past and present.

Few things are clear though. Khruschevites and their 20th congress try to tie the communists to the peaceful and democratic and open way of doing things, and when the USA and UK organize a coup-d’etat and massacre of revolutionaries and communists say in Indonesia they are nowhere to be found, while if such things happened Soviet Intelligence would have warned our comrades and preparations would have been made to stop such a massacre. While our Chillian comrades win the elections and do all day can to organize a peaceful transformation they are forced to seek salvation through the UN dominated and controlled by the USA and no support comes from USSR, but of course Enver Hoxha is quick to point out that it is the fault of those who chose the peaceful way instead of the violent-revolutionary way.

And the things with the violent revolutionary way? How are they with them? They just in line with Tito declare that they have gained the independence of Yugoslavia on their own through partisan warfare, and China joins the chorus after the death of Stalin-that China did same and even in opposition to Stalin, by correcting his mistakes, and again on their own, through armed struggle, through partisan struggle. But that was a huge lie and distortion of history not only of military history of the world-partisan warfare has a history going back to Spanish war against Napoleon- but also getting support from the Red army and our red base was a must for the victory in Yugoslavia and China, Furthermore, none of the violent revolutions as proposed by this wing has succeeded, and the other side has criticized them in the fashion of Enver Hoxca criticizing them.

We are communists. We have to face the reality of the organized forces within the working class movement and we have to face the reality of the mood of the working class and poor presents and the whole nation, the whole country, inclusive of the ruling classes. Nay more we have to note and consider the countries that surround us and the whole world. Based on this we devise our tactics. Only idiots would refuse this and only Trotskyites would do their best to turn us into idiots and only those who compromise with the Trotskyites would bow to such deceptions and go along with our enemies, especially with our enemies within!

Revolutions will be made, for the workers will be prepared for such an event! We will do this!

3.5. Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the People’s Democracy!

The moment when one mentions democracy, all the critics can think and talk of is bourgeois democracy.

They know not that the predictions of Engels made 1881 was more valid than ever in 1952-and even more valid today:

“Thinking men of all classes begin to see that a new line must be struck out, and that this line can only be in the direction of democracy.”

(A Working Men's Party; Articles by Engels in the Labour Standard; Written: mid-July 1881; Published: No. 12, July 23, 1881, as a leading article. )

They surely know not of the proletarian democracy. But the fact of the matter is that we have established a proletarian democracy in the USSR and in the East European People’s Democracies. A democracy of the people and for the people, a democracy without the bourgeoisie: democracy becomes perfected by getting rid of the bourgeoisie. If one wants to talk of democracy one should talk of proletarian democracy. Bourgeois democracy was such a narrow and backward form of democracy compared to our democracy-it still is!

In the meantime the big bourgeoisie all around the world has given up on democracy! The only force that was able and capable of establishing democracy (the rule of the people) was- and is, the people themselves led by the workers.

In the developed countries, such as Britain, we will establish people’s democracy that will set us on the road to socialism, a people's democracy that will build socialism.

In the colonies and dependent countries with a heavy burden of bourgeois democratic issues, we shall establish people’s democracies that will set us on the road to socialism; that will overcome the feudal remnants and will build socialism by and after overcoming the resistance of the bourgeoisie!

Democracy is not bourgeois democracy, democracy is people’s democracy!

Could sections of the bourgeois take part in this democracy? Of course they could, they would be (and are) more than welcome. They would have to know and see and be happy about the fact that the nation led by the workers, minus the traitorous bourgeois, is fighting to save the nation and give people the democracy. They would then be able to see that this democracy cannot be restricted within the bounds of narrow bourgeois democracy, that this democracy is a people’s democracy and will grow and build socialism, and will further grow until the limits of democracy of the people itself is reached-until the political state, democracy itself comes to an end, - there is no other way forward for a democracy led by the workers and applied by the people! If the bourgeoisie cannot handle it, they would have to join the traitors to the nation, if they cannot handle it they would have to rebel against the people, rebel against the nation. They would most like do so. They are more than welcome to that too! We are communists, we are not Khrushchev’s and Tito’s Trotskyites! We shall always be prepared and ready to punish them for their trespass against the nation!

And today, people’s democracy, the proletarian democracy will be formed as direct democracy, be it through the transformation of the bourgeois parliamentarian democracy, be it through formation of a soviet form of democracy, or be it through a totally unknown form of organisation of the proletarians and of the people as a whole that may come into being during a revolutionary situation. But we are going to say that today, people’s democracy, the proletarian democracy will be formed as direct democracy, through the transformation of the bourgeois parliamentarian democracy.

What will the critics do about it?

They will huff and puff, shout high and loud, and declare how opposed to the Stalinist Bureaucracy and reformism they are and how bureaucratic and reformist we the Stalinists are!

The fact that our critics are totally unaware of the direct democracy of the proletarians in the era of the micro-chips goes a long way to explain their ignorance in relation to the proletarian democracy of the Soviets and the People’s Democracies! They are indeed the true reactionaries, the true opponents of democracy, the widest forms of which are the different forms of the proletarian dictatorships!

3.5.1: Proletarian Dictatorship and the People’s State!

It seems that the reformists of Khrushchev’s sort has given up on proletarian dictatorship, declaring the Soviet state to be a people’s state. Revolutionary section of the division is incensed. How there he, for there will be proletarian dictatorship for the next 1000 years, for building socialism is a very long process which requires a proletarian dictatorship and loads of cultural revolutions.

We do of course know that these revolutionaries are of Trotsky ink and their building of socialism takes such a long time-in fact a never ending story-because they just cannot get rid of the bourgeoisie in their socialism, and thus the class struggle with the bourgeoisie. It will take a 1000 years. This is another reason why the revolutionary section ( i do beg the pardon of the reader for calling these extreme reactionaries revolutionary) cannot accept that Stalin was set upon building communism after the second world war and was adamant at building communism in one country-and soon at that. Not 1000 years but 10 or 20 years more like!

Based on this approach of the revolutionists, when Khrushchev declares the Soviet state no longer a proletarian dictatorship but a people’s state, they begin to shout high and loud. Proletarian dictatorship for ever and ever. But the communists-not Khrushchev- have to face a problem. It is this. Since we build socialism and in the process got rid of the bourgeoisie as a class, since when we (not those revolutionists take note) since when we build socialism the proletarians of the old become the communal owners of all the means of production, and since only a class of men who does not own any means of production are the proletarians, when we build socialism we put an end to the class of bourgeoisie and the class of proletarians. Thus there are no longer any proletarians in our state, in our country. So, how to have a proletarian dictatorship when there are no proletarians. It is impossible!

It is this conclusion that our so called revolutionary section (represented by China and Albania) cannot accept-since bourgeoisie will always be there in their socialism, since there will be no industrialisation in their socialism. Since their socialism is in line with that of Tito that is Trotsky!

But and before we go into a state of affairs where the proletariat no longer exists, let us go back to the fact that proletarian dictatorship is a people’s state right at its inception, right at its start. It is a state that is directed that is given a direction to building socialism due to the hegemony of the proletariat, due to the direction given to the state by the party of the proletariat, as to the administration of this state, it is right from the start administered by the whole people, proletariat draws into the administration of the state wider and wider sections of the people each passing day and the state right at its start is a people’s state. It is a peoples state whose very content, whose very essence is a proletarian dictatorship, for it is directed, managed by the proletarian party and it is directed to building of socialism, to building of communism by the communist party and this direction is not to be compromised and not to be “shared” by anybody!

So what happens when we build our socialism (not the socialism of the revolutionary Trotskyite, maoist-enverist comrades). We put an end to the class of proletarians within the country and thus proletarian dictatorship comes to an end within the country and there is no ifs and buts about this, but putting the matter in this fashion is rather restricted and wrong. For so long as the world has capitalism left in it, every country of proletarian dictatorship even after it has built its socialism and got rid of the proletariat as a class, has a duty to the world revolution, is but a base for the world revolution and the class struggle does not come to an end until the world is cleared of the bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes. In the countries where we, the students of Stalin will build socialism we shall end the class of the bourgeois and thus the class of the proletarians, and thus we shall put an end to the proletarian dictatorship within the country. But ours will remain a proletarian dictatorship for we are, even as owners of means of production, a part and parcel of the world proletariat, and we shall keep our proletarian dictatorship until we put an end to the proletarian class of men in the whole world!

3.6: THE ROLE OF DEMOCRACY IN DEFEATING THE RIGHT WING LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT-1952

AND

THE ROLE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN DEFEATING THE RIGHT WING LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT- 2012

“VllI. THE BRITISH ROAD TO SOCIALISM

“It means developing a new form of democracy in which the full genius of the working people will flower in a way that will astonish the world.” (H. Pollit, 22nd Congress)

When democracy, the people’s power, the people’s rule is for this but not for that, here but not there, now but not later, when democracy is not consistently applied, it is a means either for the bourgeoisie to govern the society, a means of cheating the people, or a shortcoming in the governance of the people by the people that must be got rid of-and the faster the better.

It is with democracy, just like with everything else that only by taking it to its quantitative limit, to its maximum, shall we be able to overcome it as a form of governance of men by men, as a form of proletarian dictatorship, as a form of people’s democracy, as a form of political state!

With the democracy under proletarian rule, under communist rule, the limitation of democracy is the end of governance of men by men. The end of political rule of one man over another, the end of political rule of men over men, this is the limit of democracy under communism. Until that limit is reached, democracy will be extended continuously. When that limit is reached political rule of men by men will come to an end, and thus democracy as a form of such a rule will also come to an end. Rule of men over men will be replaced by (communal) rule of men over things.

We do actually and already know where this extension of democracy will lead us under the rule of communism: it will lead us to direct democracy as defined by our party (Direct Democracy (Communist) Party). Direct democracy as defined by our party leads us directly to the limit of democracy, of political government of men over men!

Most certainly, even the least of democracy applied by the communist state, by the proletarian dictatorship, by the state of people’s democracy, which shall be the state of direct democracy, is millions of times more than the most of democracy that can be provided under any form and shape of a bourgeois state. This is an issue of quality, the change of quantity democracy achieves when it is applied under proletarian rule as opposed to when it is applied under a bourgeois rule! Change of quality results in the change of quantity, and democracy under proletarian rule, even when it has to be a formal dictatorship, not a democracy, is still a million times more democratic, is still a million times more empowering for the people than the most democratic of bourgeois democracy, that bourgeoisie has ever been able to present to humanity!

Proletarian democracy, communist democracy can change in a progressive fashion, in a forward move only by coming to an end, where rule of men over men comes to an end, where political state comes to an end.

Growth of democracy under bourgeois conditions, extension of democracy under bourgeois conditions always comes with its own narrow limitations. These limitations are many and varied, just as the bourgeois democracies in different countries are many and varied, and these limitations are always narrow and reactionary. But they all have one limitation in common, and it is the most important, the character defining limitation of all bourgeois democracies: it is the bourgeois ownership of property. Ask the best of bourgeois democracy if it can permit the demos, the people, to exercise democracy regarding this issue, to decide on what should be the form of ownership, that is ask it to extend democracy so that people can decide this issue in a democratic manner, ask it to apply democracy to decide this issue, and anytime and every time, and you shall find that it is beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy! People are not permitted, cannot possibly be permitted to decide that issue under bourgeois democracy. Who should own what cannot be decided using democracy under bourgeois conditions! It is thus that the moment a step is taken by the bourgeois society that permits the democracy to extend so that issue of forms of ownership can be decided using democracy, it comes to its limit, its limits are either about to be overcome, or is already overcome: bourgeois democracy changes it character. It cannot change its nature, its character in the fashion the proletarian democracy, communist democracy changes when it comes to its own limit. Bourgeois democracy can change in a progressive fashion, in a forward move only by becoming a true democracy, where people truly rule. Thus it changes, it is negated by becoming a proletarian democracy, a people’s democracy, a communist democracy.

Comrade Harry Pollit’s report to the 22nd Congress of CPGB, the program of CPGB accepted by the 22nd Congress, aims to achieve this change of bourgeois democracy into a people’s democracy, into a true democracy!

THE ROLE OF DEMOCRACY IN ACHIEVING THE UNITY OF THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT.

What was the main thing required to achieve the victory of the CPGB’s program of 1952, the BR2S?

It was the unity of the working class!

What was required to achieve this unity?

The defeat of the right wing leadership of the trade union movement!

What was one of the most important weapons that workers needed to defeat the right wing trade union leaders and thus to achieve unity?

It was democracy!

Let us read from Comrade Harry Pollit’s report to the 22nd Congress of CPGB, of 1952:

“More Rank And File Control

They (the right wing leaders*) develop the practice of closed-door negotiations and secrecy, and sometimes even on the character of the claim they are submitting, right up until decisions are reached by trade union executive committees.....

When recommendations on wage claims have been reached, the right-wing union leaders submit them to hurriedly convened delegate conferences, often without giving the rank and file the chance to exercise their democratic rights of consultation and decision. No wage agreements should be reached without adequate rank-and-file consideration and decision.

In the fight to increase wages and protect hard-won gains in working conditions, there needs to be the maximum reporting back to members and full democratic rights for the branches and lodges in determining each issue. The guarantee of this, of course, is maximum activity in the factories and pits reflecting itself in a vastly improved local trade union branch life, into which the majority of its members are drawn to participate with conviction and enthusiasm.

The right wing leaders practice closed-door negotiations and secrecy. Without providing the necessary information to the workers and without giving them the right to decide submit their recommendations to hurriedly convened delegate conferences. Democracy that involves rank and file is not allowed to work.

If right wing leaders are defeated, No wage agreements would be reached without adequate rank-and-file consideration and decision. To achieve this adequacy, there must be the maximum reporting back to members and full democratic rights for the branches and lodges in determining each issue. Shop Committees and Shop Stewards

The closest linking up of the shop stewards on a national scale in every industry represents a further strengthening both of workshop organisation and trade unionism as a whole.

At the same time, shop committees and shop stewards will find their work gains greater support in the degree to which they keep their members in the factories and trade union branches fully informed of all that is taking place in the factories, the discussions with managements, and what policies should be adopted by the workers.

The development of such a practice will in turn strengthen the fight for greater democracy inside the trade unions, and help to secure greater rank-and-file control and the right of final consultation and decision on all trade union agreements with the employers’ organisations”

(H. Pollit, 22nd Congress)

Let us summarise some of these points:

-Members must have democratic rights of consultation and decision

-No wage agreements should be reached without adequate rank-and-file consideration and decision

-There needs to be the maximum reporting back to members and full democratic rights for the branches and lodges in determining each issue

-Because of the right wing leadership democracy that involves rank and file is not allowed to work.

-There must be the maximum reporting back to members and full democratic rights for the branches and lodges in determining each issue.

-Keep the members in the factories and trade union branches fully informed of all that is taking place in the factories, the discussions with managements, and what policies should be adopted by the workers.

-Strengthen the fight for greater democracy inside the trade unions, and help to secure greater rank-and-file control and the right of final consultation and decision on all trade union agreements with the employers’ organisations.

What comrade Harry Pollit is requesting is clear: all issues must be known to each worker in the factory, thus in the branch and the lodge; to achieve this, there must be maximum report back on all issues. There must be maximum consultation on all issues amongst members based on these report backs and members must decide each issue based on these informations and consultations using democratic means-voting on them!

The right wing leaders do not report back to the members, do not inform the members, do not consult with them, and do not give them a chance to discuss the issues. Is this not understandable from their point of view? If one is betraying the class and is working hand in glove with the employers that is exactly how one would behave. It would not take long for the truth to come out if democracy is practiced in the movement, and truth means the end for the right wing leaders! That is why they always opposed democracy and that is why they will always oppose it!

An active branch life is considered as a means of achieving democracy. At the same time, democracy is one of the most important means of having an active branch life! The more report backs, the more information on all issues, the more discussion of all issues, the more consultation, the more right to decide all issues inevitably leads to a more active branch and lodge, and to the truth coming out sooner or later, or rather sooner than later! The right of final consultation and decision by the members is a killer application for the right wing leaders everywhere!

It is thus that our party (DDCP) teaches all worker comrades to demand from their unions leaders that direct democracy is applied in the running of the affairs of the branches and the lodges-and the whole union- and that the unions force the employers to provide the means and the time for the workers to practice direct democracy in running the affairs of their unions!

This is one sure way of defeating the right wing leaders in the movement. This is one sure way of uniting the trade union movement in line with the wishes of the worker comrades.

Direct democracy using the internet provide for continuous report back, provides for continuous consultation, provides for continuous discussion and provides for continuous right to decide each and every issue by each and every worker in the factory, by each and every member of the branch and the lodge! The fight for democracy in the factory and in the trade union branches and lodges, in the whole union, extended to the fight for direct democracy is a fight to defeat the right wing leaders and to unite the trade union movement!

“... The rank and file of the Trades Union Congress were never consulted by the Deakins and Lawthers before they walked out of the World Federation of Trade Unions,...

We are certain that if the rank-and-file members of the British trade union movement were allowed a democratic vote taken on this issue of reuniting the trade unions of Britain with their brothers of the World Federation of Trade Unions, the answer would be an emphatic “Yes”.!

(H. Pollit, 22nd Congress)

3.7: Parliamanterism?

Critics attack the CPGB of 1952 and its Program as reformist as opposed to being revolutionist. They are for the Soviets and the revolutionary, violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, while CPGB of 1952 and its British Road is parliamentarist, reformist.

Labour Party was a parliamentarist Party. It still is. It builds its election mechanism, its election organisation and aims to win elections. It is the leader of the Labour Party, the cabinet -rather the inner sanctum of the cabinet - (when Labour Party is in government) and the parliamentary Labour Party which are the decisive force in the Labour Party and election mechanism is there for the leader and the right wing leaders of the parliamentary Labour Party to govern in line with the right wing leadership’s right wing, bourgeois, imperialist and nationally traitorous policies.

What was proposed by CPGB is totally different. Qualitatively different: A force based in the factories, based in the democratic and radical organisation of the working class is to be built. A working class which has ended collaboration with and capitulation to capitalism is to be created. A unified, active, organised working class and a unified people around the policies of British Road to Socialism, around the CPGB and its allied united front organisations is to be built. Labour party is to be transformed, its right wing leadership is to be defeated, Parliamentary majority, a people’s parliament and a people’s government relying on this real force, a force inside and outside the parliament is to be achieved. Relying on these forces any possible attempt of the reactionary monopolist capitalist class, the ruling class and its representatives in the civil service etc., is to be defeated-if they act against the wishes of the people of Britain, against the people’s parliament and its government!

This is not parliamentarism. This is a democratic and thus extremely revolutionary challenge to the bourgeois democracy and thus to bourgeois parliamentarism! It is extremely revolutionary!

3.8: Engels on parliamentary cretinism; democracy and democratic way of winning power.

It is always a mistaken route to take, to refer to the references from the authorities in Marxism to undermine an opponent, if the references have nothing to do with the time and place that is under consideration.

So, let us smile, and go back to 1848 and to Europe in general and Germany in particular, and back to 1881 and to Britain.

While doing this, let us keep few things in mind.

That critics declare BR2S to be an example of parliamentarism and not revolutionary; that it proposes that communists assume power through democratic, peaceful means and not through violent and revolutionary means; that it aims to preserve and rule over the British empire and thus enslave the colonial peoples, it aims to carry on with their national oppression by the British empire.

3.8.1: Engels on the parliamentary cretinism, written on 1884, concerning 1848.

“Finally, we exposed the parliamentary cretinism (as Marx called it) of the various so-called National Assemblies. These gentlemen had allowed all means of power to slip out of their hands, in part had voluntarily surrendered them again to the governments. In Berlin, as in Frankfurt, alongside newly strengthened, reactionary governments there stood powerless assemblies, which nevertheless imagined that their impotent resolutions would shake the world in its foundations. This cretinous self-deception prevailed right to the extreme Lefts. We told them plainly that their parliamentary victory would coincide with their real defeat. And it so happened both in Berlin and in Frankfurt. When the “Lefts” obtained the majority, the government dispersed the entire Assembly; it could do so because the Assembly had forfeited all credit with the people.”

(Marx and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49); Written: in mid-February and early March, 1884; First published: in Der Sozialdemokrat. March 13, 1884)

We believe all the critics refer to similar parliamentary cretinism when they refer to BR2S.

Do they have any justification for that?

No, they do not!

BR2S is based on having real sources of power at hand and warns the proletariat about the possible misuse of the sources of power the bourgeoisie holds in its hands.

Let us further note that Engels is writing about 1848, but in 1884.

We make special note of the dates for the next reference was written by him on 1881, and about 1881, that is the above lines were written after the following lines. That is unless he wants to call himself a parliamentary cretin Engels do not equate the democratic means of achieving power with parliamentary cretinism!

Good reading, as they say!

3.8.2: Engels on democracy and democratic way of winning power.

“Thinking men of all classes begin to see that a new line must be struck out, and that this line can only be in the direction of democracy. But in England, where the industrial and agricultural working class forms the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that working class prepare itself for the task in store for it, - the ruling of this great empire; let them understand the responsibilities which inevitably will fall to their share.

Moreover, in England a real democratic party is impossible unless it be a working men's party. Enlightened men of other classes (where they are not so plentiful as people would make us believe) might join that party and even represent it in Parliament after having given pledges of their sincerity. Such is the case everywhere. In Germany, for instance, the working-men representatives are not in every case actual working men. But no democratic party in England, as well as elsewhere, will be effectively successful unless it has a distinct working-class character. Abandon that, and you have nothing but sects and shams.

We live in a world where everybody is bound to take care of himself. Yet the English working class allows the landlord, capitalist, and retail trading classes, with their tail of lawyers, newspaper writers, etc., to take care of its interests. No wonder reforms in the interest of the workman come so slow and in such miserable dribbles. The workpeople of England have but to will, and they are the masters to carry every reform, social and political, which their situation requires. Then why not make that effort?”

(A Working Men's Party; Articles by Engels in the Labour Standard; Written: mid-July 1881; Published: No. 12, July 23, 1881, as a leading article.)

Clearly democracy is a tool one can use, if only one knows how to use it, if only one is determined to use it to achieve the rule of the proletariat! It is not a necessity in itself that this would lead one into parliamentarian cretinism! It all depends; time and place and all that! Rather like the talk of the world revolution. Not all the talk of world revolution leads one to doing things to achieve the world revolution. Some of the talk of the world revolution can only lead to the defeat of the world revolution! Such is the talk of the world revolution of Trotskyists and Titoists!

3.8.3: Engel's Le Figaro Interview, May 13, 1893,

This interview clearly shows that during the period of “peaceful building up” before the First World War, opposition to the violence, opposition to the violent ways could be the ways of the revolutionaries, and a revolutionary way. Parliamentary struggle, the use of the parliament could be such, and does not automatically lead one to parliamentary cretinism.

Here are some other words of Engels from this interview, do please note that these are not said about non bureaucratic Anglo-Saxon countries such as Britain, but about extremely bureaucratic and militarist Germany! In other words, it all depends on time and place!

“"In that case, would you answer violence with violence?"

"We would not be mad enough to walk into the trap set by the government to catch us, because there is nothing the German government would like more than an insurrection, in order to crush us. We are all too well acquainted with the current state of our forces and those of the government to risk a game like that from sheer high spirits.....”

“Will the socialist party have candidates in all the constituencies?"

"Yes, we shall have candidates in all 400 constituencies. It is important to us that we should muster our forces."

"And what is your final goal as German socialists?" Mr. Engels looks at me for a few moments and then says:

"Why, we have no final goal. We are evolutionaries, we have no intention of dictating definitive laws to mankind. Prejudices instead of detailed organisation of the society of the future? You will find no trace of that amongst us. We shall be satisfied when we have placed the means of production in the hands of the community, and we fully realise that this is quite impossible with the present monarchist and federalist government."

“I permit myself to observe that the day when the German socialists will be in a position to put their theories into practice still seems a long way off to me.!

"Not as far as you think," replied Mr. Engels. "For me the time is approaching when our party will be called upon to take over the government. …...

Indeed, take the figure of our supporters since the start of our parliamentary struggles. There is a steady progression at each election. Personally I am convinced that, if the last Reichstag had run the full legal term, that is to say if the elections had not taken place until 1895, we would have collected three and a half million votes. Now there are ten millions electors in Germany, and on average seven million who vote. With three and a half million electors out of seven million, the German empire cannot continue in its present form. And ... do not forget this fact, which is very important: the number of our electors tells us the number of our supporters in the army. With one and a half million out of ten million electors already, that is roughly a seventh of the population in our favour, and so we can count on one soldier out of six. When we have three and a half million votes -- which is not far off -- we shall have half the army."

“When I express doubt as to the loyalty of the socialist troops in the army to their principles in the event of revolution, Mr. Engels makes the following statement, word-for-word:”

"The day when we are in the majority, what the French army did instinctively in not firing on the people will be repeated in our country quite consciously. Yes, whatever the frightened bourgeois say, we are able to calculate the moment when we shall have the majority of the people behind us; our ideas are making headway everywhere, as much among teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. as among the workers. If we had to start wielding power tomorrow, we should need engineers, chemists, agronomists. Well, it is my conviction that we would have a good many of them behind us already. In five or ten years we shall have more of them than we need."

3.9: “Spanish Revolution” by M. Ercoly, Member of the Executive Committee, Communist International, 1936. and “1936: From February to July. From the Election Victory of the People's Front to the Fascist Insurrection, By M. Navarro Ballesteros. (Special Edition, 17 May 1938)

“The democratic republic which is being established in Spain is unlike the usual type of bourgeois-democratic republic. It is being born amidst a civil war in which the working class plays the leading part, at a time when socialism has been victorious on one-sixth of the earth’s surface, while in a number of capitalist countries conservative bourgeois democracy has already been routed by fascism. It is a distinctive feature of this new type of democratic republic that fascism, which has taken up the struggle against the people, is being suppressed by the armed force of the people, and that in this republic there will be no place for this chief and bloodthirsty enemy of the people. …..Secondly, the material basis of fascism will be destroyed in this republic..... Thirdly, should the people be victorious, this new democracy cannot but be alien to all conservatism; for it possesses all the conditions necessary for its own further development, it provides the guarantees for further economic and political achievements by the working people of Spain. And it is precisely for this reason that all the forces of world reaction desire the defeat of the Spanish people.

…...All parties of extreme reaction and war in all capitalist countries are sympathetic to the insurgents(the fascists.mn) and ready to support them. The fighting Spanish people is faced not only by the insurgent generals, but by the whole front of world reaction.......

….....Lastly, there is the opposite camp, the camp of the working class, the camp of democracy..........”

Here we find out that even before the end of Second World War, we have the tactics of Forming a United People's Front, in which sections of revolutionary bourgeoisie take part, we have the tactics of forming a government with the bourgeoisie, but with the revolutionary bourgeoisie, we have the tactics of taking part in elections, parliamentary elections at that, winning the elections and forming a people's government as a result of winning the elections as a people's front.

It turns out that what is proposed by British Road to Socialism is not so unique and it has been applied under conditions much worse than those that existed after the second world war, and can even be part and parcel of fighting a revolutionary civil war!

Here we have to warn some of the critics who seem to think that us forming a government with the bourgeoisie against fascism would mean taking a step back.

This has never been our policy and it was not in Spain either!

We take part in elections, we win elections and we win a majority in the parliament together with our allies, we take part in a people's government that includes the bourgeoisie, but that government means the revolutionary movement has taken a step forward under the giving conditions of Spain, and that step forward is a people's democracy, and all that can lead to the organisation of the civil war against the fascists!

  1. INTERNATIONALISM AND ONE’S HISTORY (OR INTERNATIONALISM AS THE BASIS OF ALL COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES):

“Slutsky assumes that in their appraisal of the Lefts in the West, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were guided by their own factional considerations and that, consequently, the Russian Bolsheviks sacrificed the great cause of the international revolution to the interests of their faction. It scarcely needs proof that there can be nothing more base and disgusting than such an assumption. There can be nothing more base, for even the basest of Mensheviks are beginning to understand that the Russian revolution is not a private cause of the Russians; that, on the contrary, it is the cause of the working class of the whole world, the cause of the world proletarian revolution. There can be nothing more disgusting, for even the professional slanderers in the Second International are beginning to understand that the consistent and thoroughly revolutionary internationalism of the Bolsheviks is a model of proletarian internationalism for the workers of all countries.

Is it not obvious that people who regard these questions as "factional" questions fully expose themselves as base and degenerate elements?”

(Stalin; Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism; Letter to the Editorial Board of the Magazine "Proletarskaya Revolutsia" 1931;The magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia, No. 6 (113), 1931)

“The Information Bureau’s resolution was a powerful call for revolutionary vigilance. It was a reminder that those who sink into the mire of anti-Sovietism run the danger of falling into bourgeois nationalism; a danger against which Comrade Stalin warned already twenty-two years ago-(in 1927.mn):

“He is an internationalist,” Comrade Stalin says, “who unreservedly, unhesitatingly and unconditionally is prepared to defend the U.S.S.R., because the U.S.S.R. is the base of the world revolutionary movement, and it is impossible to defend, to advance this revolutionary movement without defending the U.S.S.R. For he who thinks of defending the world revolutionary movement without, and against, the U.S.S.R., goes against revolution, and is bound to slide into the camp of the enemies of revolution. (J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. X, p. 51.)” (Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the latter half of November 1949; Published by the journal “for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy!” 1950. Gh. Gheorghiu-dej—Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Assassins and Spies)

The whole matter of comprehension of BR2S, is based on the comprehension of internationalism, on the comprehension of the strategy and tactics of the world revolution, of comprehension of our history.

One does not become a communist revolutionary, an internationalist, a liberator of one's own nation and the liberator and defender of oppressed nations through the path of revolutionary phrase mongering. One becomes a true communist revolutionary, a true internationalist only by developing and applying a strategy for world revolution that will provide for the fastest and least painful way of achieving the world revolution, fastest and least painful way of defeating the world bourgeois, of defeating imperialism.

It is thus that after October (November) Revolution one cardinal rule of being a communist revolutionary, an internationalist was to take up the defence of the Soviet Union, the defence of building socialism-communism in the Soviet Union as the most important duty of all communists and proletarians of all countries - even if at the expense of your own country’s revolution (unless of course your country was in a position to provide more for the world revolution, was able to provide more for the peoples of the world, and this concretely, practically, not as a possibility, especially not as a policy to damage the world revolution)! For the very existence of the Soviet Union and its building of socialism-communism was the best way of speeding the world revolution, speeding the defeat of the world bourgeoisie. It is thus that having a correct plan of building socialism-communism and applying this correct policy is also a cardinal issue of the victory of the world revolution, of internationalism. After the Second World War, the most important duty of the communists and proletarians was still the defence of Soviet Union that is building communism, and thus was a base of the world revolution. To this was added the defence of the People’s Democracies that are building socialism and the defence of the People’s Democracies that are building the conditions to build socialism.

With the Soviet Union that is building communism we are free, we can build socialism, we can build the conditions to build socialism, and we can make revolutions, we can win the fight for democracy and for peace, we can be victorious; with the Soviet Union that is not building communism, with the Soviet Union that is not fighting for the world revolution, we are not free, we are defeated, without it we are, the whole world is, oppressed by the imperial powers. Barbarity becomes the order of the day!

In 1952, with the Soviet Union that is building communism, and with the British proletariat in power and colonial peoples of British Empire becoming members of the “British” Commonwealth of Nations led by the British proletariat in power, those colonies and Britain becomes free together; and the world imperialism is sent to its death bed; separated from a Soviet Union that is building communism, separated from this unity of free nations of the British Commonwealth, Britain remains a subject of USA and Britain’s colonial peoples become subjects of Britain and USA. BR2S, its approach to achieve power in Britain and its approach to liberate the colonies is the fastest and least painful way of achieving revolutionary power in Britain and in the colonies, of the liberation of the peoples of British Empire, including British people, and thus it is the best way of contributing and the way of contributing the most to the least painful and fastest way of achieving the world revolution.

Such was the approach of the program. It was in complete agreement with the Stalin plan of the world revolution. Critics do not agree with the BR2S of 1952, for they are not true communist revolutionaries, that is, they are not true internationalists!

Critics do not agree with not only the BR2S but all other R2S programs that were formulated by our parties in cooperation with Stalin and the CPSU, for they are not true communist revolutionaries, that is, they are not true internationalists!

4.1. A FEW POINTS OF ONE’S HISTORY TO REMEMBER:

J. Stalin dies on the 5th of March 1953. In August of 1953, at the meeting of the Supreme Soviets, Comrade Malenkov who has just in 1952, at the 19th Congress of the CPSU presented a summary of the teachings of J. Stalin on the economic laws of socialism gives a speech regarding the economic laws of socialism and thus the building of socialism-communism in the USSR (and in all the people’s democracies) that is clearly Trotskyite. A line that will make the building of communism impossible and thus will destroy the world communism is proposed.

It seems that all, including Comrade Molotov has forgotten J. Stalin and his teachings!

J. Stalin dies on the 5th of March 1953. In August 1953 steps to slow down the industrialization of all the people’s democracies, starting with the East German People’s democratic Republic is formulated and applied. This is followed by the same being done in all the people’s democracies.

It seems that all, including Comrade Molotov has forgotten J. Stalin and his teachings!

J. Stalin dies on the 5th of March 1953. In 1953 August steps to talk about the cult of the individual, clearly trying to blame J. Stalin is being talked and written about.

It seems that all, including Comrade Molotov has forgotten J. Stalin and his teachings!

J. Stalin dies on the 5th of March 1953. Beginning of 1954 Tito, the spy of USA and Britain, The murderer of our comrades, the destroyer of people’s democracy in Yugoslavia, the mass murderer of the Greek people, organizer of spying activities in the USSR and all the people’s democracies, formulator of Trotskyite form of building socialism, that is the destruction of socialism, is rehabilitated with all others in the USSR and in the People’s Democracies.

It seems that all, including Comrade Molotov has forgotten J. Stalin and his teachings!

J. Stalin dies on the 5th of March 1953. By the end of 1956. all the practice of building socialism is changed by the CPSU, outright Trotskyite adventurist methods are applied with all the plans of building communism of J. Stalin with all the abiding of economic laws of building socialism being abandoned. New and many and varied ways of building socialism including that of Tito are declared valid and begun to be applied in all the people’s democracies - China and Albania contributing profusely. (Particularly see Congress of Communist Party of Chine, of 1956)

It seems that all, including Comrade Molotov has forgotten J. Stalin and his teachings!

4.1.1: ONE CAN NOT TURN BOLSHEVISM, AND THE LEADERS WHO FORMULATED BOLSHEVISM INTO A MATTER OF DISCUSSION:

“I cannot refrain from protesting against the publication of Slutsky's article in your magazine as an article for discussion, ….. the question whether Lenin was or was not a real Bolshevik, cannot be made into a subject of discussion.

That means that you intend once again to draw people into a discussion on questions which are axioms of Bolshevism. It means that you are again thinking of converting the subject of Lenin's Bolshevism from an axiom into a problem requiring "further analysis." Why? On what grounds?

Fraudulent manoeuvres must be branded as such and not made a subject of discussion.”

(Stalin; Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism; Letter to the Editorial Board of the Magazine "Proletarskaya Revolutsia" 1931;The magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia, No. 6 (113), 1931)

The attack on Stalin was a clearly Trotskyite activity for the basis of Trotskyism is enmity of Stalin. This is visible in its Titoite version too. And behind this enmity lies the open enmity towards building of communism in the USSR-and people’s democracies.

Any compromise in this issue is a compromise in our line and thus is a first step in the destruction of our cause.

Who would not know this?

Trotskyite traitors. That is who!

4.1.2: AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR THE TITOISTS WERE THE ENEMIES OF COMMUNISM AND ASSASSINS AND SPIES AT THE SERVICE OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM:

“On the basis of irrefutable facts testifying that the Tito clique have definitely swung over to fascism and deserted to the camp of world imperialism, the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties considers that:

  1. Tito, Rankovic, Kardelj, Djilas, Pijade, Gosnjak, Maslaric, Bebler, Mrazavic, Vukmanavic, Koca Popovic, Kidric, Neskovic, Zlatic, Velebit, Kolishevski and the other members of this espionage group are enemies of the working class and the peasantry, enemies of the peoples of Yugoslavia.

  2. This espionage group represent not the will of the peoples of Yugoslavia, but the will of the American and British imperialists, and have therefore betrayed the interests of the country and destroyed the political sovereignty and economic independence of Yugoslavia.

  3. The “Communist Party of Yugoslavia,” as at present constituted, having fallen into the hands of enemies of the people, assassins and spies, has forfeited the right to be called a Communist party and is merely an apparatus for carrying out the espionage assignments of the Tito- Kardelj-Rankovic-Djilas clique.”(Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the latter half of November 1949; Published by the journal “for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy!” 1950. Communist Party Of Yugoslavia in the Power Of Assassins and Spies — Resolution of the Information Bureau.)

4.1.3: THE ROTTEN LIBERALISM TOWARDS THE TROTSKYITES, AND THE TIOTISTS WHO WERE THE NEW TROTSKYITES WOULD LEAD TO DEFEAT:

“Trotskyism has long since ceased to be a faction of communism. As a matter of fact, Trotskyism is the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, which is fighting against communism, against the Soviet regime, against the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R.

That is why liberalism in the attitude towards Trotskyism, even though the latter is shattered and camouflaged, is blockheadedness bordering on crime, on treason to the working class.

That is why the attempts of certain "writers" and "historians" to smuggle disguised Trotskyist rubbish into our literature must meet with a determined rebuff from Bolsheviks.

That is why we cannot permit a literary discussion with the Trotskyist smugglers.

But what do the Voloseviches care about the facts of Lenin's life and work? The Voloseviches write in order, by decking themselves out in Bolshevik colours, to smuggle in their anti-Leninist contraband, to utter lies about the Bolsheviks and to falsify the history of the Bolshevik Party.” (Stalin, Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism, Letter to the Editorial Board of the Magazine "Proletarskaya Revolutsia" 1931)

“As you see, the editorial board made a mistake in permitting a discussion with a falsifier of the history of our Party.

What could have impelled the editorial board to take this wrong road?

I think that they were impelled to take that road by rotten liberalism, which has spread to some extent among a section of the Bolsheviks. Some Bolsheviks think that Trotskyism is a faction of communism — one which makes mistakes, it is true, which does many foolish things, is sometimes even anti-Soviet, but which, nevertheless, is a faction of communism. Hence a certain liberalism in the attitude towards the Trotskyists and Trotskyist-minded people. It scarcely needs proof that such a view of Trotskyism is deeply mistaken and harmful. As a matter of fact, Trotskyism has long since ceased to be a faction of communism. As a matter of fact, Trotskyism is the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, which is fighting against communism, against the Soviet regime, against the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R.”

(Stalin; Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism; Letter to the Editorial Board of the Magazine "Proletarskaya Revolutsia" 1931;The magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia, No. 6 (113), 1931)

“There can be no doubt that the chief role in this dastardly work will be assigned to the old spies and agents-provocateur of the Tito clique. They will endeavour to utilize people like Rajk, as well as every weakness and fissure in the ranks of the party and the government service, and malcontents, nationalist elements and people with dubious pasts.

We must constantly bear in mind, as Bolshevism teaches, that it is necessary to put an end to the opportunist complacency which arises from the false assumption that as our strength grows the enemy becomes more tame and inoffensive. This assumption is fundamentally fallacious. We must remember that the more hopeless the position of our enemies becomes, the more readily will they resort to “extreme methods”.

Let us raise still higher the victorious banner of proletarian internationalism, by fostering devotion to the Soviet Union—the first socialist country, the foundation of the world revolutionary movement and the main bulwark of the struggle for the peace and liberty of peoples—to the great Bolshevik Party, the leading force in the world revolutionary movement, and to the genius who is the teacher of labouring humanity and the leader of the struggle of the peoples for peace and Socialism, Comrade Stalin.”(Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the latter half of November 1949; Published by the journal “for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy!” 1950. Gh. Gheorghiu-dej—Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Assassins and Spies)

  1. SOME OF THE REASONS OF CPGB’S DEMISE (OR CPGB TURNS TITOIST- TROTSKYITE):

5.1: CPGB POLICY ON TITOISTS AFTER STALIN:

A) “We were shocked to learn that a number of those arrested in the Soviet Union as traitors to the people were in fact devoted patriots and Communists; and that a number of those tried and convicted as traitors in the people’s democracies were the victims of deliberate provocations and fabricated evidence.

It is clear now that on the basis of false information we, in all good faith, made a number of mistakes, as in our support for the accusations against the Yugoslav Communist leaders as traitors, and our condemnation of a number of those falsely convicted.”

(Lessons of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U.; Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party; 13 May 1956)

B) “The restoration of state and Party relations between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, with the Soviet withdrawal of unfounded charges against the Yugoslav leaders, was an important step.

But while boldness and initiative were shown by the Soviet Union in the case of Yugoslavia, there was not the same speed in overcoming errors in the relations between the Soviet Union and other East European socialist states.” (Communist Party of Great Britain; Political Resolution; 25th Congress Report, 19-22 April 1957)

5.2: CPGB POLICY ON STALIN AFTER STALIN:

A) “It was shown how the fact that Stalin had progressively in this period put himself above the Party and above the state, had led to the belittling of the Party and the people, to serious lapses in the democratic functioning of the Party, to violations of socialist law and grave injustices to loyal comrades, to a certain stultification in intellectual life, and to some serious mistakes in home and foreign policy.

The Soviet leaders at the Congress courageously laid bare these mistakes, and have taken resolute steps to correct the mistakes, to repair injustices done, and to ensure that they cannot recur.

Following the report and discussions at the closed session of our Twenty-Fourth Congress, a whole series of discussions on the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. have taken place throughout our Party organisations.

It is quite wrong to refuse to face up to the errors and injustices revealed, to refuse to acknowledge them, to try in any way to cover them up. If that is done we cannot appreciate the important steps already taken in the U.S.S.R. to correct them and to repair them. If we refuse to accept and acknowledge weaknesses, we can never learn from them, nor appreciate the positive influence of their exposure and correction.”

(Lessons of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U.; Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party; 13 May 1956)

B) “It was on this tremendous positive background that the Congress carried forward the correction of the errors and distortions of the later years of Stalin’s life, and the crimes to which they gave rise.

Our Draft Resolution makes a brief examination and estimation of Stalin.

In the later period of his life, Stalin increasingly put himself above the Party and the state, leading to the belittling of the Party and the people, to serious lapses in the democratic functioning of the Party, particularly regarding collective leadership, to violations of Socialist law and grave injustices to loyal comrades, to a stultification in intellectual life, and to some serious mistakes in home and foreign policy.

(Political Report by John Gollan; Twenty-Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain; April 19-22 1957)

5.3. CPGB ON THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWENTIETH CONGRESS:

“It took steps to overcome the consequences of the cult of the individual. These consequences included mistakes and failures in the operation of State and Party democracy, unjust treatment of a number of national minorities and a number of Jewish people, breaking of Socialist legality, and errors in the relations between Socialist states. Most vigorous efforts are being made to put right all these errors and injustices.

The errors and abuses which were revealed came as a profound shock to our Party which rightly condemned them as alien to Socialism.” (Communist Party of Great Britain; Political Resolution; 25th Congress Report, 19-22 April 1957)

  1. CONCLUSION

During and after the second world war, open Trotskyists were more or less finished. With the victory of USSR with the building of socialism in the USSR and USSR moving openly towards building communism, with all the people's democracies joining in this endeavour, Trotskyism had to assume different forms. One of these was Titoism!

The actions and the polices of Titoists are in complete agreement with Trotskyism. Enmity of USSR and Stalin; spying and working for imperialist powers to defeat and divide and destroy USSR; declaration that USSR acts as an imperialist power, that USSR is an oppressor of other nations, that USSR does not recognise the equality of nations; in the same fashion CPSU, does not recognise the equality of communist parties and the oppresses other communist Parties, CPSU imposes its views on them, and those views are wrong; that Yugoslav Party liberated Yugoslavia on their own, that USSR did not liberate Yugoslavia and Yugoslav people; that USSR's way of building socialism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism is wrong, and that exploitation of workers in the USSR carries on for there is a bureaucratic cast in power; that they have a new and correct way of building socialism, and they can build socialism independent of USSR and they would not need USA either; that they do not need to belong to either of the camps; that there is a Yugoslav way of building socialism that is totally independent of the USSR and USA and it is the Yugoslav way of building socialism; and that they, unlike USSR, will finish off all exploitation and all inequality in Yugoslavia in a year or two.

This declaration of Yugoslav way of building socialism that is independent of USSR and distinct from the Lenin-Stalin way of building socialism led to nothing but the loss of independence of Yugoslavia to USA economically, finantially, militarily, diplomatically; it led Yugoslavia to siding with the camp of war, the camp of imperialism dominated by the USA; it meant keeping the urban and rural bourgeoisie alive and declaring that one is building socialism while the bourgeois classes and their property, their commodity and their market are kept alive instead of being destroyed. It is a declaration in practice that socialism cannot be built, that bourgeoisie cannot be gotten rid off, by “proving” that socialism cannot do anything better than the bourgeoisie. This is Trotsky's theory in a new form that is hidden with the declarations of building socialism-in order to destroy it better.

The fact that Titoist leaders and parties are nothing more than spies and assassins at the service of the American and British imperialism has been exposed, the fact that the theories, strategies and tactics formulated and all the lies created by Titosits can only lead to defeat has already been exposed-that is by 1948.

Yet, CPGB leaders go along with the leaders of the CPSU who declare these spies and assassins as their comrades, and declare the Tito and gang their comrades.

To transform the theory, the strategy, the tactics of the world communist movement which have been proved in practice, to transform the very life of leaders of world communist movement who led the formulation and application of these theories, strategies and tactics into a subject of attack, a subject of belittlement let alone a subject of discussion, has only one real aim and has only one real result: to smuggle in confusion into our ranks, to create confusion in our ranks and thus to destroy Bolshevism and the parties and states of the proletarians. To destroy the line of building socialism-communism of Lenin and Stalin, and thus to finish off the building of socialism-communism.

Yet, CPGB leaders go along with the leaders of the CPSU who declare all the things they declare about Stalin and thus about our theory, strategy and tactics, about our practice.

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, helps the diversion of USSR form building communism, and thus instead of defending the USSR, helps dig the grave of the USSR.

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, helps the diversion of European Peoples' Democracies from building socialism, and thus instead of defending the European Peoples' Democracies helps dig the grave of the European Peoples' Democracies.

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, helps the diversion of Albania and Asian Peoples' Democracies from building the grounds to build socialism, and thus instead of defending Albania and the Asian Peoples' Democracies helps dig the grave of Albania and the Asian Peoples' Democracies.

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, helps the diversion of French, Italian, American and all other parties from being consistent fighters for Peoples' Democracy, thus instead of defending the world communist parties that are not in power helps dig the grave of these world communist parties and their struggle for people's democracy.

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, and digs its own grave as a party of communists; it is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist and digs the grave of BR2S, the grave of the rule of the British workers in Britain and the British Commonwealth!

It is thus that CPGB turns Trotskyite and Titoist, and BR2S, its program of revolution, its program of victory, its program of people's democracy is destroyed.

That a defence of Titoism is an attack on Bolshevism, an attack on building socialism-communism in the USSR, an attack on world revolution and internationalism should have been clear to all the Bolsheviks.

That if such an attack by Titoists and in defence of the Titoists is not repulsed and Bolshevism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of world revolution, that is internationalism is not defended when these attacks materialised, this would lead to the defeat of Bolshevism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of world revolution, that is internationalism, to the defeat of the USSR and people's democracies and all other revolutions. To the defeat of the world communism!

That an attack on Stalin and Stalinism is an attack on Bolshevism, an attack on building socialism-communism in the USSR, an attack on world revolution and internationalism should have been clear to all the Bolsheviks.

That if such an attack by Titoists and in defence of the Titoists on Stalin is not repulsed and Bolshevism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of world revolution, that is internationalism is not defended, this would lead to the defeat of Bolshevism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, the Lenin-Stalin plan of world revolution, that is internationalism, to the defeat of the USSR and people's democracies and all other revolutions. To the defeat of the world communism!

These two changes first the surrender to Titoists and the second, taking part on the attacks and discussions on Stalin (and one leads to the other) have paved the way for the total defeat of world communism and the total victory of world Trotskyism, “the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie” (Stalin). It is also known that by 1952 almost all national sections of the world big bourgeoisie have turned counter revolutionary!

These two changes have changed the interpretation of everything regarding our theory, our strategy, our tactics, our history. What is socialism and how does one build socialism and communism; what is the plan of building socialism-communism; what is the world revolution and how does one work to achieve the speediest victory of the world revolution; what is internationalism; what is the revolutionary power of the proletarians. Who is a Bolshevik and who is a Trotskyite enemy of the people: Tito the unjustly treated comrade, and Stalin the criminal who unjustly treated Tito?

Interpretation of BR2S, including the changes to BR2S is based on these decisive changes, and yet none of the critics who are taken in by Trotskyism even notice this simple fact of life, and are driven into discussion on the meaning of being revolutionary without any reference to these changes.

How to be revolutionary without comprehending and defending Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism; how to be revolutionary without comprehending and defending Lenin-Stalin plan of achieving the world revolution?

Without any consideration given to these issues discus until you drop and the world communism is defeated comprehensively-and carry on discussing even now so that the defeat is never stopped and never reversed!

How can one remain a revolutionary if one is a participant of the destruction of the plan of building communism in the USSR? And whoever takes part in this takes part in the destruction of the world revolution, and each and every possible revolution. How can one remain a revolutionary if one is a participant of the destruction of the plan of achieving world revolution, of the destruction of internationalism?

Impossible!

Yet critics by defending violent revolution and the phrase mongering about the Soviet forms of proletarian dictatorship as the only revolutionary form of proletarian dictatorship and what's not, hope that they shall become revolutionaries. The fact is that by instigating a discussion on these issues which have been resolved and instead of the essential issues, the critics by their views and the issues they discuss within the bounds of their Trotskyite -Titoist views have just participated and continue to participate in the destruction of communism!

One becomes revolutionary by talking about making revolution using violent methods?

How many revolutions have you made since Stalin has died and the Soviet Union have been transformed into a hot bed of Trotskyism?

Nil. Zero.

One becomes revolutionary by establishing soviet form of proletarian dictatorships using revolutionary, violent means rather than winning elections and transforming the parliament into a people's democracy?

How many revolutions have you made and how many soviet forms of proletarian dictatorships have you established since Stalin has died and the Soviet Union have been transformed into a hot bed of Trotskyism?

Nil. Zero!

But have you not been told that if the USSR is defeated so is the world revolution?

Yes you have.

Have you not been told that Tito and anyone who behaves in a liberal fashion to Tito is a traitor!

Yes you have!

And yet here you are defending all those who have taken part in Tito's defence after Stalin's death, and in the attacks on Stalin and still carry on defending these traitors!

Compromisers are themselves traitors!

What is one clear and well known characteristic of Trotskyism?

It is enmity of Stalin. There was not and there is not a communist who does not know this. It is well known that behind the enmity of Stalin by the Trotskyites, lurks the enmity of USSR, the enmity of building socialism (after Second World War, the enmity of building communism) in the USSR, and thus the enmity of the victory of the world communist movement over the world imperialism!

And yet no sooner than Stalin dies the talk of the cult of the individual starts. And no sooner than 1956 February, the 20th Congress of the USSR an outright and most disgusting attack on Stalin is launched by the Trotskyites within the movement.

And all join in this attack. Can any of the critics show us one section of the movement, be it Khruschevites, be it Enverist, Maoist, Cheist, etc., that has objected to this and declared this attack as nothing more and nothing less than Trotskyism?

No!

Was there a communist than, and is there a communist now who does not know the simple fact that Trotkysim is the defeat of building socialism in the USSR, and thus the defeat of building of communism in the USSR, and thus it is the total and utter defeat of the world communist movement?

No!

Is this the most important issue as regards the British movement! Of course it is. And yet there is not one word uttered by any of the critics on this determining factor: it is here that British movement takes part in the defeat of the world movement and thus in its own destruction. All other issues raised by the critics relating to BR2S are secondary-as well as being wrong.

“Our speakers should never be on the defensive about the Soviet Union, People’s China or the New People’s Democracies.” (H. Pollitt. Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party -1952)

The moment this principle was broken, thus Trotskyism-Titoisms was allowed to win, is the moment CPGB was defeated together with the whole world movement.

Let us take this opportunity to remind the reader that 1949 to 52 and immediately after is not a period when only BR2S is written in agreement with Stalin and CPGB; but in almost all the countries of the world almost all the communist parties of the world write their own “road to socialism” programs. When critics oppose BR2S, they are opposing not just BR2S but all these programs and all the programs, strategy and tactics formulated by all these parties of the world communist movement in cooperation with Stalin and CPSU.