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

SOME ASPECTS OF THEORY (1)

  1. TWO MARKETS

After the Second World War two parallel markets were formed. One formed around USSR and included the People’s democracies, the other comprised the world Imperialist Capitalist market, formed around USA and included all the capitalist-feudal markets.

Before the end of Second World War and formation of the people’s democracies, coupled with the USA’s economic embargo of USSR and People’s Democracies, there was one world capitalist market. USSR could only trade with the world capitalist market. After the Second World War and with the formation of the people’s democracies a new world market, that of socialist-democratic market came into being. USSR and people’s democracies could now trade amongst themselves. Just as the USSR and people’s democracies represented new, socialist, economic, social and political countries, so the trade amongst them was of a qualitatively different nature. The aim of this trade was to help each other, but mainly of USSR helping the people’s democracies. Only through planning of each country’s economy in accordance with Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism could the support to be given to others and support to be received from others could also be planned in a way that could help the building of socialism-communism. Thus, this trade was also developing a common planning that covered all the socialist states-not yet perfected but certainly perfecting itself.

  1. SOCIAL IMPERIALISM OF USSR

It is well known that Tito the Trotskyite declared USSR an imperial power and people’s democracies as countries dependent on this imperial power. Thus this idea of “social Imperialism” of USSR originates, first in Trotsky, and later is pushed forward by Tito. It is later on taken up by China and Albania and others.

Was USSR an imperial power oppressing and exploiting the people’s democracies and other countries, aiming to achieve maximum profit from its dealings with those countries in between 1945-1953? Of course not!

Was USSR an imperial power oppressing and exploiting the people’s democracies and other countries, aiming to achieve maximum profit from its dealings with those countries in between 1953-1991? No it was not. It was a power that was busy restoring capitalism in USSR and people’s democracies, and help destroy the world communist movement. It was a power busy restoring capitalism and getting rid of the second parallel market, the socialist market and organising the convergence of this market into the world capitalist market. All the activities of USSR and people’s democracies (including China and Albania) as well as the communist parties going along with these restorers of capitalism and destroyers of the socialist world market is to be considered first and most of all as activities to restore capitalism and destroy the world socialist market, and thus world communism. It is thus that these activities of these states are not imperialistic (or domination) orientated. It is capitalist restoration orientated!

Were the policies of USSR and people’s democracies (including China and Albania) social imperialist policies. Yes they were, but not in the sense that as countries they were imperialist. It was social imperialist in the sense that they were adapters to world imperialism, to world domination of USA (and UK). They were social imperialist as traitors to communism and thus to world proletariat! As active participant in the organisation of the domination of the world by imperialism, of world domination by USA (and UK).)

One should take note of the fact that Yugoslavia was “passed onto” to USSR by USA by 1964-67 as regards provision of military equipment, military funding and all sorts of credits. In this fashion, USA and other could make their maximum profits while USSR could cover the none-profitable “aid” that Yugoslavia needed to survive as a “socialist” country. Germany was also “forced” into receiving Yugoslav workers as “guest workers” by USA to keep the Yugoslav economy ticking!

  1. BUREAUCRAT BOURGEOISIE

In a bourgeois society bureaucrats are bourgeois bureaucrats just as intellectuals are bourgeois intellectuals, at the service of the bourgeoisie. But they are not bureaucratic bourgeois!

What makes a bourgeois a bourgeois is the fact that they own capital which they use to extract surplus labour from the workers-they can be industrial bourgeois, trade bourgeois, agricultural bourgeois, they can be financial bourgeois, and these days they can also be financial oligarchs. But they are not bureaucratic bourgeois!

A bureaucrat can use his position to take bribes etc., and make a lot of money. For them to become bourgeois they need to invest their money as a capitalist. Then they become a bourgeois. They may keep their positions as bureaucrats as well. But still that does not make them bureaucrat bourgeois.

It is thus that the consideration of Chan Kai-shek and his gang as “comprador bureaucrat bourgeois” is not correct. But it is correct to consider this approach a Trotskyite as a basis of an approach as regards building of socialism in China and USSR!

For Trotskyites-Titoites any hierarchy under socialism is declared bureaucratic. Yet we know that every communal activity, even production, requires hierarchy. This is more so under socialism where all, including production is state owned and state controlled. To call hierarchy as such this and that and to declare a war against it is to declare a war against any communal activity, and thus to the building of socialism-communism-such is the communism of Trotskyites-Titoites! They will do anything to make communism impossible.

Under the conditions of socialism bureaucrats are members of the hierarchy that wants to preserve their positons in this hierarchy and in so doing block the progress of socialism. If allowed to get away with it they become out and out degenerates! It is they who destroyed USSR and People’s Democracies! (Socialism nay more communism will not get rid of hierarchy as such, cannot get rid of hierarchy as such. On the contrary as a fully and consciously organised society it will have a full and consciously organised and much respected hierarchy.)

One thing about Trotsky and his followers is that they have formulated every possible “proof of USSR not being socialist”. One “clever” thing about these “theories of possibilities” is that and as Hegel puts it “in the world of possibilities everything is possible-and thus everything is impossible”! In the world of real possibilities all these possibilities are not just and simple distortions of facts, they are also many sided and varied forms of distortions of Marx’s theory, and thus distortions of Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism!

One of these distortions declare that USSR is ruled by bureaucrats. They exploit the workers and thus what we have is not socialism. What is it then?-many a possibility is formulated. One of these declare that USSR is capitalist. These bureaucrats are in fact nothing but a bourgeois class (could they be the bureaucrat bourgeois?) exploiting the workers using capitalist methods. This capitalism of these bureaucrats is state capitalism.

From Trotsky Tito borrows and develops these theses. Not only is USSR ruled by bureaucrats, thus USSR not socialist, but it is also imperialist-and the people’s democracies are its colonies.

With the Trotskyites and Titoites you have your bureaucracy (and bureaucrat bourgeois) ruling USSR before 1953.

These theses are taken up and changed a bit by the Chinese (and Albanians). It is declared that bureaucrat bourgeoisie was always present in the USSR, and because a Cultural Revolution was not organised against them they took over the party and government and thus USSR became a social imperialist country (and the people’s democracies its colonies).

Thus we have two declarations. One (Tito and Trotsky) declares that in the USSR “bureaucrat bourgeoisie” has always been in power and thus USSR was never socialist, but social imperialist. The other “bureaucrat bourgeoisie” has always been but then gain power and became social imperialist.

The commonality is for both theory is their declaration that bureaucrat bourgeoisie has always been around.

There are of course those who declare that in the USSR bourgeoisie as a class has actually been destroyed -and to claim that bourgeoisie as a class is not destroyed is a distortion of Stalin-and socialism. And yet they follow all this by the declaration that revisionists are the political representatives of bureaucrat bourgeois, they took over after Stalin, in 1956, and USSR became state capitalist, social imperialist, country! It is thus that they declare their bureaucrat bourgeois ready and present before 1953. In other words they share this approach with all the Trotskyites, Titoites and thus with the Chinese and Albanians-and come what may they cannot give it up! They are indeed the latest version of Trotskyites-Titoites!

  1. AUSTRIA-1954

The governing forces in Austria were social democratic and right wing. They were out and out national traitors betraying the Austrian independence to USA. Austrian communists were exposing this fact and fighting against these reactionary forces. They were fighting for Austria’s national independence from USA and for people’s democracy.

In the midst of these battles, and in the name of peace, an agreement of “neutrality” of Austria, while these national traitors were in power, was reached and Red Army was withdrawn from Austria in 1954. This withdrawal is not a move to achieve peace in the world, it is a surrender of peace forces to the warmongers, to imperialism, to USA.

This development raises a few questions.

Is this a move that help the world peace forces? No!

Is this a move that help Austrian communists fight for the Austrian national liberation from USA? No!

Is this a move that help Austrian communists fight for the Austrian democracy? No!

Is this a move that paralyse the Austrian Communist Party? Yes!

What happens to the people’s democracy program of Austrian Communist Party when they are left high and dry through this traitorous act? Was there a division in the party around this-no!

  1. VISIT TO YUGOSLAVIA BY THE SOVIET DELEGATES AND THE RESULTING COMMUNIQUE.

If we know nothing we know this, that Yugoslav way of building socialism is nothing but restoration of capitalism. If we know nothing we know this that Tito and his gang are nationalists who declares USSR to be an imperial power (just like USA as they say) and people’s democracies are subservient countries to USSR’s imperialism. If we know nothing we know this that Tito and his gang are spies at the service of USA and under their direction are busy organising spying activities and uprisings in the people’s democracies. If we know nothing we know this that Tito and his gang have murdered and locked up all the communists who support Cominform’s line that expose the fact that Tito and his gang are spies of USA busy restoring capitalism in Yugoslavia. And that Yugoslav communists had no other choice but to start organising their party anew, and illegally, so that they could start the fight against Tito and his gang and restore Yugoslavia to the road of building socialism and unite it with the family of socialist countries again.

In the midst of all that a Soviet delegation led by Khrushchev arrived in Yugoslavia in 1955!

They have been entertained, wined and dined by Tito and Gang! And they have signed a common communique at the end of the trip!

In this communique one finds that different ways of building socialism is accepted, and that Yugoslav way of building socialism is declared a way of building socialism.

  1. MOLOTOV AND YUGOSLAVIA

It is said that Molotov agreed to the “state visit” to Yugoslavia. But not to party relationships!

First of all the communique signed by the Soviet delegation agrees to Yugoslav way of building socialism as a way of building socialism. But all knows that is nothing but restoration of capitalism!

Has Molotov (and others who are supposed to be Stalinists) objected to this?

No! On the contrary, Tito sends his greetings letter to the XX. Congress, and Tito’s gang arrives at the 8. Congress of Communist Party of China together with all others, all in 1956. Especially at the Chinese congress “all different ways of building socialism”, including the Yugoslav way is agreed to. (Chinese way of building socialism, without first developing industry and while the bourgeoisie go on existing as a class- is also declared openly and agreed as a way of building socialism and that line is nothing but the Chinese version of the Yugoslav way of building socialism.)

What results would that have on the activities of the Yugoslav communists organising to fight Tito and his gang! How is one supposed to organise the fight against Tito and his gang, to their restoration of capitalism, against their murder and imprisonment of communists, against their spying activities in the people’s democracies while USSR and people’s democracies and all communist parties declare the Yugoslav way of building socialism as one of the ways of building socialism and is correct! Especially while USSR’s top leadership wines and dines with these spies?

Secondly all state relationships should be of use to the world communist movement. What benefit can be gained from wining and dining with Tito in his Yugoslavia, and signing communiques with it that declares his way of building socialism is just one of the correct ways of building socialism. There is no benefit to the movement but damage all around. The fight of Yugoslav communists against Tito and his gang is paralysed!

We do not know exactly that Molotov’s reasoning is based on separation of state relationship and party relationship, but we do know that the Chinese and Albanians come up with this excuse – but as we have shown, the communique is clear and gives clear OK to Yugoslav way of building socialism. In other words it is not just an issue of “state relationships” but an issue of theory, and thus practise of building socialism-communism.

The reason behind this stand of Molotov (and others) in this matter, as well as other issues we shall look into, is this: They did not stand behind the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism! (It is said that Molotov says: “Khrushchev had a line-he had a plan. We did not.” Indeed they did not! Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism was not theirs! 1952 Party decisions and thus the 5 year plan were not theirs! Only by understanding this can we understand the stand of Molotov and others after 1953 in all different issues which led to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.)

One thing about Trotsky and his followers is that every possible “proof of USSR not being socialist” have been formulated by them. All these formulations are not just and simple distortions of facts, they are also many sided and varied forms of distortions of Marx’s theory, and thus Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism!

One of these distortions is that USSR is ruled by bureaucrats. They exploit the workers and thus what we have is not socialism. What is it then? A further progress to the theses declare USSR is capitalist. These bureaucrats are in fact nothing but a bourgeois class exploiting the workers using capitalist methods. This capitalism of these bureaucrats is state capitalism.

From Trotsky Tito borrows and develops these theses. Not only is USSR ruled by bureaucrats, thus USSR not socialist, but it is imperialist. And these theses are further developed by the Chinese (and Albanians). During the “Cultural Revolution” the theses of bureaucrat bourgeoisie, always present in USSR is put forward by the members of the Gang of Four, the very leaders of the Cultural Revolution. But this is no new “discovery”. It is Trotsky and Tito.

But the Chinese talk of bureaucrat bourgeoisie is not specific to USSR. They find it in Chine even before revolution of 1949. Mao talks a lot about bureaucrat bourgeois even before the 1949 revolution. Stalin refers to this bureaucrat bourgeoisie of Mao in his talk with the Indian communists. He notes that there is no such thing as “bureaucrat bourgeoisie”, that what is being talked of are people who use the state power they have obtained to make money from state contracts through outright bribery etc. And as such they are not bourgeois!

What is the issue here?

For Trotskyites-Titoites any hierarchy under socialism is declared bureaucratic. Yet we know that every communal activity, even production, requires hierarchy. To call hierarchy this and that and to declare a war against it is to declare a war against any communal activity-such is the communism of Trotskyites!

What transforms any hierarchy to bureaucracy is to be looked at based on the economic-social-political make-up of the society. Under bourgeois (and feudal) conditions bureaucracy is part of life. Division into classes is and preservation of this division is a necessity. Under such conditions the ruling classes have to separate the structure to rule the lower classes from the lower classes, lower classes must not be engaged in the administration, in the running of the state. Thus they must create a bureaucracy to run the state. Civil, military and religious bureaucracy is a must for bourgeois-feudal societies!

Are these bureaucrats bourgeois? In a bourgeois society they most certainly are-just as they are feudal in a feudal society! But they are a cast, not a class. They are at the service of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class and that is why, just like the bourgeois intellectuals at the service of the bourgeoisie are bourgeois intellectuals, they are bourgeois, bourgeois bureaucrats.

(Under bourgeois conditions we even have worker comrades with a bourgeois mentality, and thus although their living conditions may not be bourgeois, and not even petty bourgeois, they are most certainly bourgeois! We know that in many a metropoles there is a relatively large section of workers who live under petty bourgeois conditions and quite a large section of these behave just like petty bourgeois that have not separated themselves from the bourgeoisie!)

Bourgeois bureaucrats aims to keep their privileged position, and that is their most typical characteristics. But they also make full use of their position-bribery is rampant. They will use any opportunity to make as much money as they can using their positon. The higher they are the more they can make. When they are in a positon of controlling the state, when they are at the helm, they can make the most. And they do. In the good old days politicians were directly members of the ruling class, while civilian, military and religious bureaucrats were a mixture of members of the ruling class and others who are not members of the ruling class, With the developments in political activities and the bureaucracy “others” enter politics and bureaucracy and nay more these are left to them to do more and more.