Restoration of Capitalism-5

Let us have a further look into some more of the theoretical distortions our Tito-Trotsky based restoration of capitalism theoreticians propagate.

-I-
PROLETARIAT
CONTENT
SOME QUESTIONS OF THE MOVEMENT

1. Proletariat;
   
2. Modern proletariat;
   
3. Machines that produce machines;
   
4. Leading role of the “proletariat” in the progress of capitalist society into a socialist society.
   
5. Workers and proletarians-under capitalism (1)
   
6. Workers and proletarians-under socialism (1)
   6.1; proletarian dictatorship under socialism.
   6.2; People’s state under socialism
   6.3; Bourgeoisie under socialism and thus proletarian dictatorship as a means of class struggle against the bourgeoisie under socialism.
   6.4; Proletarian dictatorship under communism;
   6.5; Proletarian dictatorship is a none state
   
7. Workers and proletarians-under capitalism (2)
   
8. Workers and proletarians-under restoration of capitalism from socialism (2)
   SOME QUESTIONS OF THE MOVEMENT
   
   1. Proletariat;
   We all know that proletariat came into being during slavery. The section of the people who have no property at all. Propertyless. Proletarian.
   They existed throughout the history. This is distinct from the lumpen proletariat which are the proletarians who being forced to live outside of production engage in criminal activities to survive.
   
   2. Modern proletariat;
   Modern proletariat is the proletariat that capitalism produce not just in industry, but also in mining, forestry, fishing, agriculture, and of course as lumpen proletariat.
   But the main thing about capitalist development is the capitalist industry and thus the modern proletariat of capitalism is the modern industrial proletariat that comes to be as part of the capitalist industrial development. This is the proletariat that works in production using machines and thus works in the factory.
   
   3. Machines that produce machines;
   Capitalist industry, and thus capitalism comes to its own when it starts to make machines using machines, and that work becomes a separate industry on its own.
   The law of priority development of production of means of production for progressive capitalist production becomes established thanks to this development.
   
   4. Leading role of the “proletariat” in the progress of capitalist society into a socialist society.
   It is rather interesting to note that many a “proletarian revolutionary” do not consider as to why the proletariat, that is modern industrial proletariat, is the leader of the further progress of present day class society-as to why it must lead all the classes into the future?
   It is because modern industrial proletariat is a special product of modern capitalist industrial production and any further progress of production under these modern conditions require further progress of industry which makes the capitalist not a means but a burden to this further progress while the proletariat is a must to further progress this industrial productive activity.
   It is thus that they must lead all classes and sections of the society to build and further progress the industrial productive activity. And only they by coming to power, further progressing the industrial production-to computerised fully automated production as we speak- that humanity can develop production and thus get rid of all classes. Otherwise it would get stuck in the rule of the capitalist which cannot, simply cannot carry the further progress of production to satisfy continuously increasing human needs.
   Although all the modern industrial proletarians are the leaders of all proletarians of capitalist production, and of all classes and thus of farmers, peasants and of the intellectuals, the very leaders of modern industrial proletarians are the section of the proletarians that work in the sector of industry that builds machines to build machines. Just as that section of industry is the leading section of industry for capitalist industrial production, so are the proletarians who work in that section of industry are the leading section of all modern industrial proletarians-and of all modern proletarians. And thus of present day society.
   
   5. Workers and proletarians-under capitalism (1)
   There are sections of proletarians who are able to save money and thus buy property-such as a house. These proletarians by being able to do this, and thus being able to achieve a petty bourgeois mode of life, that of the life of a petty proprietor, are in fact no longer proletarians but “workers” who have to work to survive just like a proletarian but owns property, like a petty bourgeois and live better compared to the proletarians, like a petty bourgeois.
   Marx and Engels refer to the English bourgeoisie while progressing themselves aiming to form workers who are rather like petty bourgeois. This due to the English monopoly in industry at that time.
   As we know English bourgeoisie was not able to achieve this aim but did achieve bourgeois conditions –and bourgeois approach to politics- amongst the upper sections of the workers.
   During Lenin’s time with the development of monopoly capitalism, with imperialism, all the major capitalist countries were able to produce their own bourgeoisiefied upper crust-the source of opportunism in the working class movement.
   
   5.1; CPGB in one of its teaching materials –before 1953- undermines the distinction between proletarians and workers, calling all labourers who have to work to live workers.
   
   6. Workers and proletarians-under socialism (1)
   We know that after the victorious October Revolution, Soviet Proletarians became the common owners of the means of production in the USSR. This was well established with the building of socialism in the USSR (which building legally confirmed by Stalin Constitution).
   Before the building of socialism there were relatively large sections of capitalists in the cities-which were got rid of relatively quickly; and in the countryside, which took longer to get rid of. Once these were done and once socialist constitution came into being based on the actual building of socialism in industry and agriculture, once proletarians did become the common owners of all means of production through their state (noting the collective farm property as a lower form of this-but not the state farms and not the tractor stations) and as can be seen, proletarians of USSR were no longer proletarians (be they of industry or agriculture). Not an upper crust of proletarians but all proletarians of USSR, and in common, were the owners of everything-to all intent and purpose.
   Thus, they were no longer proletarians but workers.
   And just like their proletarian comrades in capitalist countries, it was the “modern industrial workers” who were the leaders of all sections of the people (of the collective peasants and intellectuals), and just like their proletarian comrades under capitalism, in the USSR, under socialism too it is the section of the workers who work in the section of the industry that produce machines to build machines, who are the leading sections of the workers under socialism. For it is their section of industry that has to lead all other sections of production and distribution to fully automated production and thus to the age of plenty where the classes will disappear!
   
   6.1; proletarian dictatorship under socialism.
   If one has to note that one has built socialism in one country, and thus the proletarians who have built that socialism are no longer proletarians, but workers, one may come to the conclusion that the proletarian dictatorship in the said country is no longer a proletarian dictatorship but a “workers’ dictatorship”.
   This approach could be used and there would be nothing wrong with it by itself. But this can lead to a major problem regarding nationalism. For the cause of the proletariat is not a national (one country) cause. Proletariat is by nature an international class and its cause is an international cause. Liberation of one of its sections, in one country, in one nation, only provides better conditions for the liberation of all the sections of the proletariat, provides a base area for the world proletariat.
   It is thus that until the whole sections of the proletariat is liberated even if its liberated section builds communism in one country, its state, one taken full note of the changes it has gone through, and noting this, is still a proletarian dictatorship, for it is but a part and parcel of the proletariats fight against the bourgeoisie all over the world.
   
   6.2; People’s state under socialism
   First of all one has to note that the proletarian dictatorship, that is the proletarian state is a people’s state, led and thus directed by the proletariat. Communist party constantly draws all sections of the people into the administration of the state of the proletarian dictatorship. Understood within this context there is nothing wrong with the declaration of the proletarian dictatorship being a people’s state.
   But under socialism, with exploiting classes destroyed, there are still classes; proletarians (old proletarians the new workers); the collective farm peasantry; and intelligencia as a stratum. Thus the state, although a people’s state, administered by al the sections of the people, is still a proletarian dictatorship for only the proletariat can lead the society to communism-as understood above-as workers. Thus so long as classes exists under socialism so does the leadership, directing role of the proletariat (of the workers) and thus the proletarian dictatorship remains.
   To replace dictatorship of the proletariat with a people’s dictatorship, meaning the common leading role of the people (of proletariat and collective peasantry) is reactionary. To disregard the fact that proletarian dictatorship is a people’s state is also reactionary.
   
   6.3; Bourgeoisie under socialism and thus proletarian dictatorship as a means of class struggle against the bourgeoisie under socialism.
   We all know that the period of building socialism in a country is also a period of class struggle against the bourgeoisie that exist in that country. But once the socialism is built, it is not only the proletariat of the socialist country that becomes no longer proletarian but workers, the bourgeoisie is no longer. Bourgeoisie as a class does not exist any longer.
   Thus the theory that there is bourgeoisie in a country that has built socialism is a reactionary theory, it is actually a theory of bourgeois socialism- such is the socialism of Tito-Mao and others. Thus the justification of the proletarian dictatorship under socialism because there exist bourgeoisie under socialism is a reactionary theory, is a bourgeois, Tito-Mao theory.
   Opposition of this proletarian dictatorship to Khrushchev’s “people’s state” and taking sides in this “struggle of opposites” produce nothing but defeat for the communists for both sides of the argument are against communism, against Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism.
   
   6.4; Proletarian dictatorship under communism;
   If the proletariat of one country builds communism in one country because the imperialist encirclement has not been broken and thus the state has to be preserved under communism, that state will still be a proletarian dictatorship! Under communism there will be no class differences, and no distinction between the inteligencia and the workers, and all will take part in the administration of the state directly-through the development of direct democracy, as the last form of state- using computers-internet- but the state will still be the proletarian dictatorship for it will be at the service of the world proletariat and its international cause.
   So long as imperialist encirclement persist and thus so long as the state persist, the state, this peoples state will be nothing but the proletarian dictatorship against the world bourgeoisie!
   
   6.5; Proletarian dictatorship is a none state
   State comes into being as a means of suppressing the majority by the minority. That is what a state is. Means of oppressing-suppressing of the majority by the minority. It comes to be for that purpose, and the moment it no longer serves that purpose it no longer is, it no longer is a state. It is dead! It is no more.
   What is the proletarian dictatorship, the proletarian state? It is a means of suppressing the minority by the majority, thus as Lenin puts it a number of time, it is no longer a state! Furthermore, duty of supressing the minority by our state (within the one country-within that country) comes to an end for all practical reasons as soon as we finish off the bourgeoisie within that country- see Stalin, 18th Congress! Thus the proletarian dictatorship where the socialist society has been built is even less of a none state than the none state Lenin talked of, for there is not even a minority to suppressed within the country!
   And that is why the motive form of development of our socialist society during its transition to communism becomes criticism and self-criticism!
   If the imperialist encirclement persist as it reaches communism, our state will have the best armed forces and the best intelligence services, but more importantly it will have the most conscious, most humanly moral, most organised, most cultured people, with the most means of satisfying their ever rising material and cultural needs- with no class differentiation at all- who will actually be that state. It will thus be the strongest state the world has ever seen, and that state will be the most developed form of the “none state!”, and it will thus start to disappear as soon as imperialist encirclement is replaced with the communist encirclement!
   
   7. Workers and proletarians-under capitalism (2)
   The general crises of capitalism has deepened after October Revolution, for this reason even the developed capitalist countries were not able to produce a large section of workers as opposed to proletarians, this in spite of the technical progress that made production of goods much faster and easier. Only USA had progressed in producing proletarians with property, that is workers, and that was a very small section of the proletarians.
   This situation did not change after the coming into being of people’s democracies. Crises of capitalism did further deepen. There appears steps taken to make life easier for the proletarians, but that deepening of the general crises and the worsening of the conditions of the proletarians in the developed countries and in their colonise continued. With 1953, with the death of comrade Stalin, and with the change of direction in the USSR and People’s democracies, and with the development of the technique of production, we see that a relatively large section of the proletarians-compared to 1953- are given petty bourgeois living conditions, that a relatively large section of the proletarians become workers who own some property and are able to save some funds in the developed countries after 1953.
   
   8. Workers and proletarians-under restoration of capitalism from socialism (2)
   It is said that with the assumption of power by the revisionists (who are but Titoite traitors) after 1953-Stalin’s death (or 1956, 20th Congress) (or for some 1961-the new program of Khrushchev) the workers of USSR become proletarians for they are no longer the common owners of the property of USSR through their state-for the state is now run by the revisionists. This of course is similar to Trotskyite theory of Stalin’s bureaucrats controlling the state, and thus Soviet workers are proletarians being exploited by these Stalinist bureaucrats. Or new bourgeois, or bureaucrat bourgeois, etc etc.
   If only would say the traitors, these Titoite Trotskyites who destroyed USSR. If only things were that easy to do!
   
   8.1; With Yugoslavia, where socialism was not built and the restoration of capitalism by the Titoite (Trotskyite) traitors was a quick affair. There the rich peasants and through them the tradesmen within the country and tradesmen representing each “independent enterprise” working with the imperial powers led by USA provided the perfect environment to transform all the products of Yugoslavia and thus the workers’ labour power into commodity. This transformation of labour power into a commodity has given to such forms that labour power as a commodity was actually sold to the German imperialists beginning late 1960s, and early 1970s.
   Since this was coordinated by anti-communist, fascist forms of state governance by the Anglo-American spy network of Trotskyite –Titoite traitors, communists were immediately forced into the underground and begun to organise a new communist party to destroy the Titoite- Trotskyite fascist spy ring of traitors and to re-built the socialist Yugoslavia. This process was betrayed from within with the establishment of relations with the Titoites and with the declaration of their governance as yet another form of building socialism by CPSU and USSR and by the people’s democracies and by all the communist parties.
   
   8.2; Transformation of USSR and European people’s democracies assumes different forms, due to 1. USSR being a socialist country where the bourgeoisie has been destroyed all-together (and the country is highly developed in all respects). 2. Needs of USA led imperialism to dominate and exploit the world.
   
   -II-
   BUILDING COMMUNISM IN ONE COUNTRY.
   
   

1. Building Communism in One Country and its “antagonist” -New Trot opponents
   
   Let us read Stalin himself.
   “As you see, we now have an entirely new, Socialist state, without precedent in history and differing considerably in form and functions from the Socialist state of the first phase. But development cannot stop there. We are going ahead, towards Communism. Will our state remain in the period of Communism also?
   Yes, it will, unless the capitalist encirclement is liquidated, and unless the danger of foreign military attack has disappeared. Naturally, of course, the forms of our state will again change in conformity with the change in the situation at home and abroad. No, it will not remain and will atrophy if the capitalist encirclement is liquidated and a Socialist encirclement takes its place.
   That is how the question stands with regard to the Socialist state”
   P421-422; Stalin Selected Works. V14
   REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE TO THE EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U.(B.) (Delivered March 10, 1939.)
   
   Certainly once socialism has been built, as it was built in the USSR and thus a socialist state-and the famous constitution-was also created, one has to decide as to what to do!
   Go on to building communism or be satisfied with what is built-socialism?
   Actually, there is no choice here. “Development cannot stop”. “We are going ahead, towards Communism”
   It is thus that plans were being drawn regarding the building of communism after the Second World War! The slogan, “We shall achieve plenty”, that is communism, was the slogan of the day!
   
   

1.a) The attacks on Lenin Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, besides all other issues, also relate to this issue. Many comrades who claim to defend Stalin that he is the builder of socialism in the USSR and the destroyer of Hitler etc., have basically two differing approach to this issue.
First one openly declare that communism cannot be built in one country and that Stalin has made a mistake declaring communism can be built in one country.
Second one declares this approach as an attack on Stalin, that actually Stalin is not here talking of the higher stage of communism but talking of the first phase of communism, that is after all socialism. And those who attack Stalin claiming that he is talking of higher phase of communism are distorting him. They put this view forward for they also agree that communism cannot be built in one country!
Both these approaches agree that one cannot built communism in one country!
We on our part call both these approaches as “New Trotskyism”!
Before socialism was built the position of Trotskyism was the denial of the possibility of building socialism in the USSR. They also declared that it is Stalin who came up with this “impossible” policy. You show them Lenin’s co-operative plan, thus his plan of building socialism in USSR, and as is known there are many a writing of Lenin that openly declares that “we have all we need to build socialism” and that we are building it. No matter. A sect is a sect. It will close its eyes to reality, lie about it and go on repeating: You cannot build socialism in one country! This is an absolute unchangeable truth of all Trotskyite sects.
And what are you supposed to do if you cannot built socialism while you are the government? Of course you restore capitalism! We all know of Trotsky’s plan of restoration of capitalism which has now been realised!
But while Stalin was alive socialism has been built! Everyone knows it. Stalin applied and developed Lenin’s plan of building socialism in one country, in the USSR, and socialism was built!
Now that socialism has been built now comes the question. Can communism be built in one country? Especially in such a large and powerful country of many nationalities as USSR that has the support of the world proletariat?
Under these conditions, under the conditions of socialism having been built in one country Trotskyite sects had to adapt. Other than coming up many a varied forms of “proving” that socialism has not been built in one country, they also had to come up with a view that accepts the building of socialism in one country but declare that communism cannot be built in one country!
One sect and one absolute truth of a sect opens up opportunities for many an interpretation of that absolute idea.
Socialism has been built in one country, and it can be done, but communism cannot be built in one country!
So you are the government, you have built socialism but you cannot built communism!
What are you supposed to do then? Of course you restore capitalism!
Come back to the holy grail of Trotskyism for after all what does the “socialism cannot be built in one country” really there for: to restore capitalism. If you are forced to accept that socialism has been built, you then have to come up with a new grail: “socialism can be built in one country but communism cannot be built in one country”!
In fact the restorers of capitalism in the USSR has gone through two phases.
Khrushchev phase was when high sounding declarations were being made of building communism while every policy proposed and applied was blocking this building of communism and was creating absolute chaos and degeneration and preparing the ground for the restoration of capitalism. He was a follower, under different conditions, of his close friend and comrade Tito the Trotskyite.
This phase came to an inevitable end, communism was not built.
The second phase (of Brezhnev) was based on giving up on building communism in USSR-they anchored themselves on what they called “higher phase of socialism” until the total destruction was ordered by their imperial masters!
This policy of denying the possibility of building communism in one country is the policy of restoration of capitalism in a country that has built socialism! This is to help cover the crimes of traitors who destroyed socialism that was built by declaring that building of communism in one country is impossible. You see, that is why they could not build it! They could not built communism not because they are traitors to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism; but because it cannot be done!
It is thus correct that they are all called “New Trotskyites”!
Titoite-Trotskyite all of them! Traitors to communism, enemies of the people all of them!
Furthermore, this discussion about building communism in one country is not just a simple issue of Stalin making a mistake or Stalin not being interpreted correctly- as those who declare that one cannot build communism in one country say. It is directly related to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building world communism! It is thus that these critics and correctors inevitably “criticise” Stalin here and there and everywhere!
They come up with Trotsky here and there and everywhere while swearing to Stalin here and there and everywhere!

They have corrections and or correct interpretations in plenty!

It is thus correct that they are called “New Trotskyites”!
New Trotskyism is the worst form of Trotskyism!

2. BUILDING COMMUNISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND FINAL VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY
Some comrades are adamant that one cannot build communism in one country. Especially that one cannot build communism in one country and keep the state which is the proletarian dictatorship.
One part of these comrades declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state while Stalin says one can build communism in one country and must keep and strengthen the state while and after the building of communism if imperialism has not been destroyed or at least neutralised.
How wrong is Stalin and how anti Lenin is Stalin, not only is he anti Lenin he is even anti Stalin. For he was himself opposed to the final victory of socialism in one country, and yet he is talking of building communism in one country.
The other part of these comrades also declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state while those who say that Stalin says one can build communism in one country and must keep and strengthen the state while and after the building of communism if imperialism has not been destroyed or at least neutralised are distorting Stalin-these are Trots who are putting words into the mouth of Stalin.
How wrong are these anti Stalin Trots, how typical distorters of the truth these Trots are for Stalin himself was opposed to the final victory of socialism in one country and these Trots say he wants to build communism in one country.
And these antagonists in politics both refer to the following view from Stalin:
“Does this mean that such a victory can be termed a full victory, a final victory of socialism, one that would guarantee the country that is building socialism against all danger from abroad, against the danger of imperialist intervention and the consequent danger of restoration? No, it does not. While the question of completely building socialism in the U.S.S.R. is one of overcoming our own, "national," bourgeoisie, the question of the final victory of socialism is one of overcoming the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that the proletariat of one country is not in a position to overpower the world bourgeoisie by its own efforts. The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that such a task is within the power only of the proletariat of several countries. Consequently, the final victory of socialism in a particular country signifies the victory of the proletarian revolution in, at least, several countries.”

The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.
Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party
Report Delivered on December 7
Source: Works, Vol. 9, December 1926 - July, 1927

One thing is clear, here, the question at hand is the final victory of socialism in one country. The question of final victory is the question of the “danger from abroad.. the danger of imperialist intervention and the consequent danger of restoration”. “The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie.”

All of this has nothing to do with building communism in one country after the building of socialism in one country has been achieved. After building socialism in one country we move to building communism in one country, and we have all we need to achieve this, the building of communism in one country, especially in a country like USSR, after the building of socialism in one country. As regards the question of final victory of communism things remains the same, for it is indeed the same question! “The Party says that for the final victory of socialism (communism. Mn) in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie.”

Comrades who call each other all sorts of names for they are such antagonists in their approach to this question and to this view of Stalin base their antagonism in the wrong comprehension of our theory, and that is why they end up in one and the same mistaken idea: Both sides of the antagonism declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state. One side of the antagonism blame Stalin for putting forward this view (of building communism in one country and keeping the state) the other side blame these comrades for distorting Stalin and declare that Stalin never defended this view (of building communism in one country and keeping the state). To both sides of the antagonism the view of building communism in one country and keeping the state is wrong.

Well we have seen that comrades on both sides of this antagonism is wrong and what we have is a case of wrong opposites meeting at one point!

And since both sides of this antagonism love to declare their love of dialectics and blame all other for not using “dialectics of this and dialectics of that” and even “dialectics of Marxism” we can say that such is the dialectics of these comrades’ ideas!

For after all dialectics has to be materialist and reflect the facts of the life of the proletariat-historically and presently!