Comment on the Draft Program of CPI ML (New Proletarian) 1999
A number of attempts have been made in the past to revise the revolutionary contents of Marxism Leninism under the guise of creative development of Marxism-Leninism. All these attempts have contributed to misguide the struggle of working class movement, to blur the working class consciousness and to deviate the political line of working class party from scientific and revolutionary line of Marxism Leninism. The draft program of CPI ML (New Proletarian) 1999 published in 2000 belongs to such category of attempt on Indian soil. It seeks to revise the Marxist Leninist understanding on various concept such as i) proletarian revolution different from proletarian socialist revolution ii) concept of new proletariat as different from the concept of proletariat iii) concept of extended democratic centralism in place of the concept of democratic centralism iv) the objective of proletarian revolution as establishing proletarian democracy in stead of dictatorship of proletariat and v) lastly justifying and glorifying bourgeois element of technical and managerial experts and revisionist clique in USSR after the death of Stalin. Not only this the whole document is full of contradiction and distortion of facts of history. It attempts to provide justification for Khruschevite revisionism and opportunism in international communist movement and openly disassociates itself from the revolutionary legacy of ML movement in India.
The draft program deals with two main issues : i) Ideological issue ii) Programmatic issue.
The author of Draft Program wrongly alleges that ‘the followers of October Revolution failed to show foresight in displaying revolutionary democracy in the society at large and the party in particular’ (page-2).
The allegations of draft program that followers of October revolution failed to display ‘revolutionary’ democracy is nothing but “petty bourgeois democratic prejudices” which is basically oriented against the dictatorship of the proletariat and in favor of bourgeois democracy in disguised form. Lenin has said:
“The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set in. It is inevitable that the slogans of our era are and must be: abolition of classes; the dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of achieving that aim; the ruthless exposure of petty bourgeois democratic prejudices concerning freedom and equality and ruthless war of these prejudices”. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 31, p 392.
Lenin has further said :
“But the dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must crush them in order to free humanity from wage slavery: their resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no freedom, no democracy. Lenin, State and Revolution, International Bookshop, p 67
The author of Draft Program further wrongly asserts that democratic centralism does not provide legitimate opposition (without referring to any specific class-bourgeois or proletariat) within the party, that it does not provide a right to dissent by the minority opinion within the party and hence Draft Program was obliged, for the first time, to extend the concept of democratic centralism.
Under the heading CPI(M-L) : Manifesto : 1999-2000: issued by the C.C., extending the concept of democratic centralism, it says :
“2. By extending the concept of democratic centralism, we resolve to provide Legitimate Opposition with the party for achieving the aim of having one communist party in one country under one flag.
3. In the form of extension of democratic centralism, we provide the provision to be used as a right to dissent by the minority opinion within the party and its experiment also.” Page 1
If we apply the above principle of extended democratic centralism in Indian conditions, it implies that the draft program wishes to unite various communist parties in India viz. CPI, CPM, CPI ML , SUCI etc in one party and under one flag by extending the concept of democratic centralism. According to draft program this can be achieved by granting right to legitimate opposition to various factions with different political line and their right to experiment also in one party. Thus draft program is openly in favor of ideological plurality and their practice in the party. It amounts to allowing the practice of revolutionary line as well as revisionist and reformist (bourgeois) line in the party. Thus it opens the flood gates for bourgeois ideology in the party which will lead to dilution of proletarian ideology in the party.
Further, even if we consider that the right to legitimate opposition amounts to right to criticism and self criticism, it has been widely recognized in classical Marxist-Leninist literature as vitally important for the accomplishment of socialist revolution and for the activities of communist parties. But in the words of Lenin, “It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: for what class?” Lenin- The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky(1918)- C.W.28
But Draft Program is silent and does not disclose as to for which class it wants freedom, liberty; for which class it wants to extend democratic centralism. Even its allegations against followers of October revolution are general and not in the context of class –bourgeois or proletariat. Lenin had rightly identified this trend as one of bourgeois political trends.
“Those who try to solve the problems involved in the transition from capitalism to socialism on the basis of general talk about liberty, equality, democracy in general ... thereby only reveal their petty-bourgeois and philistine nature and ideologically slavishly follow in the wake of the bourgeoisie.” . Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 29, p 422.
We will see in the foregoing paragraphs that the concept of extended democracy which Draft Program seeks to introduce, is in fact a democracy for the bourgeois elements and it wants to give absolute freedom to bourgeois element to practice their political line in the party and in the society in the name of granting democracy to the minority legitimate oppositionists.
The differences in the post Stalin period of International Communist Movement and break of unity is solely assigned to Khruschev by the Revolutionary ML movement all over the world. The slanderous allegations made by Khruschev against Stalin and propounding the revisionist theory of three peaceful in the 20th Congress in secret speech was the first attempt of Khruschev to divide and break the unity of International Communist Movement. But Draft Program is very soft towards Khrushchev. It refers this treacherous step of Khruschev without indicating any disagreement with him, without thinking even for a moment that it did amount to breaking of unity in the rank and file of CPSU and in the International Communist Movement; as if Draft Program considers this heinous step of abusing Stalin and introducing revisionism in the international communist movement within the legitimate right of Khruschev. It says : “With Khrushchev ascending to power the internal contradiction of the communist world came out in the open with the leakage of the secret speech not through the communist organ but thorough the CIA.”page -4 There is nothing against Khruschevite revisionism attacking the prestige of Stalin and other anti-communist stand in the speech. Why? Because it’s target of attack is not Khruschevite revisionism but Mao and E. Hoxa’s opposition to that of revisionism. It says further : “This contradiction is widened further by E. Hoxha and Mao by declaring openly a divided communist entity.” page -4 Thus blame for dividing communist unity is thrown to Mao and E. Hoxha and not to Khruschev. At page 7, the Draft Program writes “Overnight Kruschev took over the reigns of the CPSU and cause a vertical division in the ranks of the world proletariat. Mao and Enver Hoxha deepen the split with their idealist outlook.” So in the two line struggle between Khruschev on the one hand and Mao and Enver Hoxha on the other, Draft Program clearly takes the side of Khruschev by declaring the outlook of Mao and Enver Hoxa as an idealist. But it is silent whether the vertical division in the ranks of the world proletariat caused by Kruschev was retrogressive or revolutionary division.
Mao and E. Hoxa, to the best of their efforts, struggled and fought against this rotten revisionist line of Khruschev which was quite necessary and as per the demand of the time if the world revolutionary International Communist Movement was to progress further. Revolutionary groups all over the world have upheld their struggle against Kruschevite revisionism. But the Draft Program, the only so called revolutionary document, considers it a crime on the part of Mao and Enver Hoxa. It declares further :
“Mao and Enver Hoxa by declaring the CPSU a revisionist party and the USSR as a social imperialist state forgot that they were breaking the backbone of the world proletarian system.”
The Draft Program at the one hand considers itself the champion of extended democratic centralism granting legitimate opposition to natural dissent and on the other hand it attacks Mao and Enver Hoxha for criticizing CPSU as a revisionist party without disputing the correctness of their criticism against Khruschevite revisionism, against their steps in dismantling socialist economy, introducing bourgeois reform in Soviet economy and their stand on the issue of Stalin question. It even admits that there was a serious deviation in CPSU when Khruschev came to power. But what was the nature of this deviation? It is silent over this issue. Was it necessary to raise objection to such deviations of Khruschev? Did Mao & E. Hoxha raise any of such objections correctly? It is silent on all these issues. Thus, Draft Program disassociates itself from the revolutionary legacy of international ML movement. When Mao and Enver Hoxa shows their dissent, it brands them as unity breaker without examining whether they were correct or not in declaring CPSU as a revisionist party. Even though it dares to declare that CPI-ML New Proletarian would grant legitimate opposition to natural dissent in the party and in the society.. Was the dissent of Mao and Enver Hoxha not a natural dissent against Khruschev who has made, even according to Draft Program, serious deviations? Granting the right of legitimate opposition to natural dissent and simultaneously blaming the legitimate dissent maker for breaking unity without examining the correctness of opposition from the interest of working class movement, amounts to what? Is it not making the mockery of it’s so called “legitimate right to dissent” and clearly taking the side of bourgeois deviations of Khruschev revisionism against the interest of international working class movement?
There can be no unity between two lines- revolutionary and revisionist lines - because revisionism is nothing but a bourgeois political trend in disguised form. The break was inevitable and natural. At that point of time fighting Khruschevite revisionism was the most important international task of world proletariat and Mao and E. Hoxha very much played their role in the fight against revisionism. But Draft Program puts Mao, Tito, Khruschev, and E. Hoxha in the same category and says :
“But inspite of development during Stalin’s period Tito, Khruschev, Mao and Enve hoxha failed to move from the national tasks to the international tasks of the world proletariat.” P-15
But Draft Program never forgets to grant natural dissent to even bourgeois parties. It declares : “As a communist party, neither in unnatural way we intend to forcefully liquidate other communist parties, nor having come to power, ban the bourgeois parties.”p-1
Thus, it is much concerned granting full democracy to revisionist and bourgeois parties when its party will come in power. Its concept of extended democracy amounts to granting full democracy to both revisionist parties as well as open bourgeois parties but the opposition from revolutionary working class interest by Mao and E. Hoxha against revisionist deviation of CPSU under Khruschev leadership is not tolerated and attacked by Draft Program and is branded as unity breaker of international communist system. Because under the new concept of extended democracy, Khruschev has legitimate right to dissent against Stalin and hence he can not be blamed as unity breaker but Mao and E. Hoxa do not have right to legitimate dissent against Khruschevite serious deviation and hence they should resort to self criticism. Therefore, Draft Program further says : “Instead of resorting to self criticism within the united proletarian system, Mao and Enver Hoxha declare a hostile crusade against the USSR.” If there was a serious deviation in the leadership of Khruschev, then who was to resort to self criticism? Kruschev or Mao and Enver Hoxha? Because Khruschev did not resort to self criticism, the only alternative left to the class conscious proletariat all over the world including Mao and Enver Hoxha was to resort to criticism and not to self criticism. If the leadership of CPI (M-L) New Proletarian does not resort to self criticism for revising the various concept of Marxism-Leninism, the only alternative before us is to resort to criticism and not to self criticism.
Thus, in the whole document there is nothing against Khruschev, Brezhenev and Andropov. The draft program has crossed all the limit in defending these revisionist capitalist roaders after the death of Stalin in USSR and says:
“When the Bolsheviks seized power they had to utilize the services of this old bureaucracy during the NEP period. This continued till the Soviet proletariat was able to churn out from its own ranks scientist, technicians, managers, doctors, skilled and semi-skilled workers- from the womb of the Soviet society. This new army was immersed in the lesson of proletarian internationalism founded by Lenin and Stalin. Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov were the products of this society who in spite of serious deviations were proletarian by class origin.” Page 10
It is true that Marx, Engles and Lenin were opposed to egalitarian communism and they declared that ‘by formally declaring productive forces the property of entire state, the weaknesses of distribution of wealth and the existence of bourgeois right and its associated differences do not end with a single stroke of the proletarian pen. The distribution of wealth among the proletarian workers will be according to the working ability of each worker and as long as it exists the ‘bourgeois right’ will continue to exercise influence. Therefore differences in wages according to differences in the ability to work was to continue in the first phage of communism.
But the construction of Socialism in Soviet Union was conditioned by the circumstances it directly encountered as Marx has rightly said that people "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte).
During the early year of socialist construction, the question of wages to be paid to bourgeois specialist arose. Wages paid to the bourgeois specialist were not according to ability to work but something more than this. Lenin says :
“The next question is about wages; the specialist gets three thousand, he goes from place to place and is difficult to catch. I say this about the specialists—they are people who have a knowledge of bourgeois science and engineering at a higher level than the overwhelming majority of workers and peasants; such specialists are needed and we say that at the moment we cannot introduce equalitarian wages, and are in favour of paying more than three thousand. Even if we pay several million a year in wages it will not be too much as long as we learn to work well with their help. We do not see any other way of arranging things so that they do not work under time lash, and as long as there are few specialists we are compelled to retain high wages”.
“….We say that it is better to pay out an extra million or a thousand million as long as we can employ all the specialists, for what they will teach our workers and peasants is worth more than that thousand million.” Collected Works Volume 29
Lenin has further said:
“Even at that time we had to retreat on a number of points. For example, in March and April 1918, the question was raised of remunerating specialists at rates that conformed, not to socialist, but to bourgeois relationships, i. e., at rates that corresponded, not to the difficulty or arduousness of the work performed, but to bourgeois customs and to the conditions of bourgeois society. Such exceptionally high—in the bourgeois manner—remuneration for specialists did not originally enter into the plans of the Soviet government, and even ran counter to a number of decrees issued at the end of 1917. But at the beginning of 1918 our Party gave direct instructions to the effect that we must step back a bit on this point and agree to a “compromise” (I employ the term then in use). On April 29, 1918, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee adopted a decision to the effect that it was necessary to make this change in the general system of payment.[3] Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party October 29-31 , 1921 Lenin’s Collected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33,
Therefore, the wages paid to bourgeois specialist were something different from what was discussed by Marx, Engels and Lenin before the October Revolution of 1917 in the context of bourgeois right and existence of difference of wages which were to be paid according to the principle of ability to work in the lower phage of communism. Though these bourgeois specialists were wage earners in the Soviet Society, they were bribed with higher salaries and better living conditions when they had to be relied upon to assume technical and managerial authority. They were given broad authority in performing day to day administrative and technical tasks.
They were bourgeois elements not because they were also enjoying bourgeois right to receive wages according to their ability to work but because they were getting much higher salary compared to general working class which was according to bourgeois customs and to the conditions of bourgeois society, because they were occupying technical and managerial authority in the organization; because of their very social and economic status in the Soviet Society. Proletarian state had employed them to use their expertise to run and manage the economic production. Because of their these social position they were not and could not be recognized as proletariat.
However, Soviet union began to train its own experts and mangers recruited from the ranks of the workers and peasants. But despite their class origin, their position in the Soviet society in terms of technical and managerial authority and the higher salary compared to general working class they were getting, was not much different from the technical and managerial experts of bourgeois origin. Thus even under Stalin period “inequalities” did exist and Marxist-Leninist have concluded that these were too extensive. Such inequalities included wide range of differentials between skilled and unskilled labor and higher compensation of for managerial and technical personnel.” Page- 80-81 Restoration of Capitalism in USSR 1990
The Draft Program openly takes the side of these bourgeois elements of technical and managerial expert to whom it calls as technical and managerial proletariat and falsely claims that these bourgeois elements were a necessity to manage the proletarian state economy and politics. It is a fact that right from the time of Lenin till the death of Stalin these bourgeois elements of technical and managerial expert were under command of general working class politics under the policy of keeping separate the technical authority on the one hand and political authority of working class on the other. These bourgeois elements were never a necessity to manage proletarian state and politics during the life time of Lenin and Stalin. However, Draft Program says:
“Before the demise of the Soviet state, the technical and managerial proletariat was a necessity to manage the proletarian state economy and politics. What decides whether the proletariat is in power in a state is that the economic level of the productive forces are owned by working class at large.” Page 10
Because draft Program fails to recognize the revisionist takeover of the CPSU by Khruschev clique which created the conditions for restoration of capitalism, it justifies revisionism and bourgeois element – the technical and managerial expert- the social base of revisionism in post Stalin period of USSR as if its development and rising to power was natural development and was due to development of science and technology and it was not a counter revolution. It says: “The development of science and technology are a fact of life in the contemporary world and whether it is the proletarian or the imperialist world both can not deny this hard fact of life. This urge has created a technical and managerial proletariat which in turn has created the proletarian intelligentsia which is the basis of the communist party ranks in the proletarian world today.” P- 12
The Draft program is very much aware that these technical and managerial experts can not be called as bourgeois class but they enjoy “bourgeois right” over and above the general masses of working class even though it considers it as proletariat and not bourgeois element:
“These ranks do not constitute a bourgeois class but in the proletarian world enjoy certain “bourgeois rights” over and above the general mass of working class. In the proletarian world the commonness of rights cannot be established because the distribution of wealth is according ‘to the nature of work performed’ not according to the needs of the proletariat’ which happens only in communism.” P-13
The bourgeois right amongst the working class in the form of minor difference of salary and “bourgeois right” in the form of much higher differences of salary over and above the salary of general mass of working class and the position of technical and managerial authority enjoyed by technical and managerial experts of bourgeois elements in any society, including socialist country, are not one and the same thing and can not be ignored while identifying bourgeois elements who were the main social base of Khruschevite revisionism and restoration of capitalism in USSR. Because Draft program fails to identify the bourgeois element in USSR it was but natural that it could not have understood the revisionist takeover of CPSU by Khruschev and his clique and thereby weakening the dictatorship of proletariat which had created the conditions for restoration of capitalism in USSR and hence Draft Program fails to investigate what type of bourgeois right Khruschev and his clique had set before them to introduce in Soviet society. There is a difference between the bourgeois right to retain personal property earned by dint of one’s own labor and bourgeois right to retain private property earned through the exploitation of workers.
Therefore, it declares : “On the one hand we refuse to categorize the “bourgeois right” in proletarian states including the erstwhile USSR as “bourgeois class”. P-14 and it considers the erstwhile USSR and China as a socialist state. It says : “It was Marx and subsequently Lenin who pointed out the basic anarchy of the capitalist system in which production is social-the result of toil of millions of workers the world over, while the ownership is individual of the capitalists who employ the workers, exploit their labor power and generate surplus value with the profit motive.” P-8
It put the questions: “Can anybody prove that in the erstwhile USSR and the contemporary China the relation of production coincided with individualized capitalist system. Could any body prove the existence of capitalism in USSR and China in those turbulent years. What actually happened was that the CPC under Mao equated “bourgeois right” with the bourgeois class and declared the USSR as a social imperialist state.” P-11
The Draft Program recognizes only one form of capitalist system i.e. individualized capitalist system based on individual ownership of means of production. However, it is not necessary that capital will take the form of individualized capital only, it may take the form of social(group) capital. But even if capital takes the form of social(group) capital, it contents does not change.
While commenting on joint stock company, Marx has said as follows :
“Capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labor power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individual) as distinct from private capital and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings….” Capital III Ch.27
In the USSR after the death of Stalin, the revisionist clique under the leadership of Khruschev managed their victory in the decision making body of the party and they converted CPSU, the party of working class, in to a party of bourgeois elements and replaced the dictatorship of proletariat with the dictatorship of bourgeois which they covered by declaring the Soviet State as the state of the whole people. In the economic sphere, steps were taken to introduce capitalist relation of productions in the guise of introducing various reforms.
In 1957 MTS(Motor Tractor Station) was sold to collective farm as their property, as a result collective farms became the owner of basic instrument of production and there was an extension of sphere of commodity circulation because a gigantic quantity of instruments of production came within the orbit of commodity circulation.
In 1964 the CPC published a pamphlet entitled On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical lesson. In the said article, numerous examples of individual enterprises, as quoted from Pravda, were given.
Latter on steps were taken to transfer the state property to individual separate enterprises which was independent of state and was not responsible to state. And this was done in the name of granting more freedom to enterprise in making decision in order to maximize profit and reduce cost. We put below the following extracts from the W. Bland article AN OPEN LETTER TO THE "NEW COMMUNIST PARTY published in 1991:
“The Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on 4 October 1965, gave an enterprise rights of possession over the production assets it holds:
"The enterprise will exercise the rights of possession . . of the property under its operational control". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): 'Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR', Volume 2; New York; 1966; p. 291).
Consequently, the acquisition of production assets by an enterprise is described as 'purchase':
"The single approach to managing the economy is displayed . . .in granting enterprises equal rights . . . to buy means of production". (P. G. Bunich: 'Methods of Planning and Stimulation', in: 'Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems'; Moscow; 1972; p. 36).
That the terms 'rights of possession' and ‘purchase' are not here being used in-exactly as shown by the fact that the Statute gives the enterprise-the right to lease or sell the means of production it 'possesses':
"The enterprise will exercise the rights of disposal of the property under its operational control. . . . The enterprise may lease to other enterprises and organisations buildings and structures, as well as production, warehouse and other facilities assigned to it. . . .Surplus equipment . . . may be sold by the enterprise to other enterprises and organisations. . . .Sums obtained from the sale of material values representing fixed assets will remain at the disposal of the enterprise". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 291, 293, 295).
The transfer of the ownership from the state to an enterprise is not its transfer to an agency of the state, for the 'socialist state production enterprise' is described as an
"independent enterprise", (Ibid.; p. 291).
And:
"The state is not responsible for the obligations of the enterprise, and the enterprise is not responsible for the obligations of the state". (Ibid.; p. 291).
Furthermore, the property rights of an enterprise are vested in its director:
"The enterprise is headed by a director. . . . The director of the enterprise may, without the power of attorney, act in its name. . . . dispose of the property and funds of the enterprise". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 310-11). “ From W.W Bland
Thus, this transfer of ownership of assets including the means of production from the state to an independent enterprise of which the property right was vested in its director, was a major change in the economic structure of the Soviet society. It implied that the ownership of means of production was not with the Soviet state but with the enterprise which was independent and was not responsible to the Soviet state. This implied that working class was robbed of its socialist property. Besides, the labor power was made a commodity. As workers were robbed off the socialist property, they were given right to sell their labor power to earn lively hood and enterprises were given right to hire and fire as widely prevalent in a capitalist society:
"A working person constantly retains the right to dispose freely over his labour power. He realises this right by concluding a labour agreement with the enterprise". (A.Sukhov: 'Labour Mobility and its Causes', in: 'Nauchnye Doklady Vysshei Shkoly: Ekonomicheskie Nauki', No. 4, 1972).”
Will W. Bland rightly puts that “the term 'dispose over' is clearly a euphemism for 'sell'. In Soviet society 'the expenditures of labour on the cost of reproducing labour power' was 'assessed in value terms' which were precisely equivalent to the value of labour power’ as analysed by Marx:
"The objective factor which determines this level (of wages -- WBB) is the need to provide factory and office workers . . . with the means of livelihood sufficient for the reproduction of labour power". (Y. L. Mannevich: 'Wages Systems', in: 'The Soviet Planned Economy'; Moscow; 1974; p. 230).
"The cost of reproducing skilled labour power is the value assessment of equivalents of the living means that form the fund for the compensation of labour power". (E. N. Zhiltsov: 'Concerning the Subject of the Economics of Higher Education', in: 'Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta: Seriia Ekonomika', No. 1, 1973).
Thus in Soviet Society means of production was made commodity and enterprises were given rights to purchase and dispose of means of production during Khruschev-Brezhnev period. Thus, collective farm and enterprises became the owner of means of production in which full authority was given to Director. Director was given the liberty to hire and fire the workers and the motive force of production was to maximize profit for each individual and separate enterprise. Thus, Capital in the USSR after the introduction of reform during Khruschev and Brezhnev period, took the form of social(group) capital in the main and not individual capital of early capitalism and its undertaking assumed the form of social undertaking in which Director was vested with full authority to dispose of its assets or purchase new assets including means of production out of its own profit and to distribute profit by way of salary, incentives etc. Apart from this there were also private enterprises in form of individualized capital as quoted by CPC in their pamphlet mentioned above. The workers were robbed of the socialist property and their labor power was made a commodity. This socio-economic structure was not of socialism but was one of a varieties of capitalism. We would like to suggest our reader to go through W. Bland book entitled “The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union” in which various aspects of capitalist reforms introduced in USSR during Khruschev – Brezhnev period has been dealt with in detail.
Thus a new form of economic ownership and possession of means of production was introduced in the Soviet Economy in which the Directors, technical and managerial experts of non-proletarian bourgeois elements of each enterprises were given full right over the assets of the enterprises. This could not have done without robbing all the right of working class over the socialist property including the means of production. Profit was made the main motive of production.
Thus, on one pole there was a class of technical and managerial experts who occupied the position of redistributors, on the other a working class which produces the social surplus but has no right of disposition over it. As a result there was a gradual increase in class differences as a result of rising importance of the relationship of individual in each separate enterprise to the means of production and this was accompanied by an increase in secondary differences related to nature of work and to attributes of social position such as income, education and access to cultural goods. All these facts show that a new type of capitalism was restored in Soviet Society much prior to Gorvachov coming to power.
Let us come to Draft Program again. Was there any need to fight these so called technical and managerial “proletariat” endowed with “bourgeois right” in USSR? In the First Draft Declaration of CUCI (ML) 1983, it says:
The point of matter is that the basically antagonistically classes do not exist in socialism, but what exists is the “bourgeois right”, the fight against which is a historical one, based on development of productive forces and communist consciousness.” P-8
But in the Draft Program of 1999 the word fight have been withdrawn and it says : The simultaneous march between the development of productive forces and communist consciousness is the only way out to abolish the bourgeois right.”
Thus in 1999, according to Draft Program there is no need to fight bourgeois right. In fact Draft Program has no agenda to fight bourgeois right of both types because it considers technical and managerial experts, the bourgeois element as the main vehicle of proletarian revolution and necessary to manage economy and politics of proletarian state in socialism. In 2006, in it’s article “A Review of the World Situation Today 1990-2006” it openly defends the privatization of socialist economies by the bourgeois elements of “technical and managerial proletariat” in the following words:
“Privatisation of the socialist economies” in essence is compromise with what we have called as “bourgeois right” in transition to socialism. Beyond that if there is a real entry of promote capital in the Soviet economy in form of Indo American joint ventures, we categorically assert that such a privatisation with technical managerial proletariat in command is strengthening the overall process in the direction of “transition to socialism” and will ultimately lead to socialism because it will raise the level of productive forces in USSR to match the same at the disposal of USA. …. If the bourgeois can carry in its womb embryonic socialist structures to strengthen itself, why could proletariat in Soviet Union not carry within its certain capitalist structures to strengthen its material base of productive forces.”
It is strange that the author still holds the view that privatization with “technical and managerial proletariat” in command was strengthening the overall process in the direction of “transition to socialism” in the USSR. We know that such privatization has led USSR to open capitalism and not to socialism. It has not contributed to the growth of productive forces in the USSR rather privatization has been hindrance to the growth of productive forces.
Thus the whole thesis of Draft Program, in fact, amounts to glorification and inclusion of bourgeois element of technical and managerial expert in the concept of proletariat which was the social base of Soviet revisionism after the death of Stalin and who were primarily responsible for complete destruction of dictatorship of proletariat in Soviet society and who completed the process of restoration of capitalism in Soviet society. This thesis of glorification of technical and managerial strata was further extended and was applied in the theory of proletarian revolution by Draft Program. It revised the concept of proletariat to include non-proletariat strata of technical and managerial experts etc. which it declares as ‘new proletariat’ and the stage of revolution as that of new proletarian stage of revolution as distinguished from proletarian socialist revolution. Thus, the concept of new proletariat in the draft program amounts to inclusion and glorification of leading role of bourgeois element of the working class, a class of aristocratic labor which has been the main social base of revisionism, reformism and opportunism in the working class movement as rightly identified by Marx, Engels and Lenin.
We would like to draw the attention of our readers towards some observations made on Soviet Russia during the period of Lenin and Stalin on the one hand and during the period of Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov on the other hand which will clearly show that to what extent Draft Program has gone in defending revisionism of Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov period and in distorting the historical facts of the revolutionary period of Lenin and Stalin.
On Soviet Russia during the period of Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev and Andropov:
A number of attempts have been made in the past to revise the revolutionary contents of Marxism Leninism under the guise of creative development of Marxism-Leninism. All these attempts have contributed to misguide the struggle of working class movement, to blur the working class consciousness and to deviate the political line of working class party from scientific and revolutionary line of Marxism Leninism. The draft program of CPI ML (New Proletarian) 1999 published in 2000 belongs to such category of attempt on Indian soil. It seeks to revise the Marxist Leninist understanding on various concept such as i) proletarian revolution different from proletarian socialist revolution ii) concept of new proletariat as different from the concept of proletariat iii) concept of extended democratic centralism in place of the concept of democratic centralism iv) the objective of proletarian revolution as establishing proletarian democracy in stead of dictatorship of proletariat and v) lastly justifying and glorifying bourgeois element of technical and managerial experts and revisionist clique in USSR after the death of Stalin. Not only this the whole document is full of contradiction and distortion of facts of history. It attempts to provide justification for Khruschevite revisionism and opportunism in international communist movement and openly disassociates itself from the revolutionary legacy of ML movement in India.
The draft program deals with two main issues : i) Ideological issue ii) Programmatic issue.
The author of Draft Program wrongly alleges that ‘the followers of October Revolution failed to show foresight in displaying revolutionary democracy in the society at large and the party in particular’ (page-2).
The allegations of draft program that followers of October revolution failed to display ‘revolutionary’ democracy is nothing but “petty bourgeois democratic prejudices” which is basically oriented against the dictatorship of the proletariat and in favor of bourgeois democracy in disguised form. Lenin has said:
“The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set in. It is inevitable that the slogans of our era are and must be: abolition of classes; the dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of achieving that aim; the ruthless exposure of petty bourgeois democratic prejudices concerning freedom and equality and ruthless war of these prejudices”. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 31, p 392.
Lenin has further said :
“But the dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must crush them in order to free humanity from wage slavery: their resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no freedom, no democracy. Lenin, State and Revolution, International Bookshop, p 67
The author of Draft Program further wrongly asserts that democratic centralism does not provide legitimate opposition (without referring to any specific class-bourgeois or proletariat) within the party, that it does not provide a right to dissent by the minority opinion within the party and hence Draft Program was obliged, for the first time, to extend the concept of democratic centralism.
Under the heading CPI(M-L) : Manifesto : 1999-2000: issued by the C.C., extending the concept of democratic centralism, it says :
“2. By extending the concept of democratic centralism, we resolve to provide Legitimate Opposition with the party for achieving the aim of having one communist party in one country under one flag.
3. In the form of extension of democratic centralism, we provide the provision to be used as a right to dissent by the minority opinion within the party and its experiment also.” Page 1
If we apply the above principle of extended democratic centralism in Indian conditions, it implies that the draft program wishes to unite various communist parties in India viz. CPI, CPM, CPI ML , SUCI etc in one party and under one flag by extending the concept of democratic centralism. According to draft program this can be achieved by granting right to legitimate opposition to various factions with different political line and their right to experiment also in one party. Thus draft program is openly in favor of ideological plurality and their practice in the party. It amounts to allowing the practice of revolutionary line as well as revisionist and reformist (bourgeois) line in the party. Thus it opens the flood gates for bourgeois ideology in the party which will lead to dilution of proletarian ideology in the party.
Further, even if we consider that the right to legitimate opposition amounts to right to criticism and self criticism, it has been widely recognized in classical Marxist-Leninist literature as vitally important for the accomplishment of socialist revolution and for the activities of communist parties. But in the words of Lenin, “It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: for what class?” Lenin- The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky(1918)- C.W.28
But Draft Program is silent and does not disclose as to for which class it wants freedom, liberty; for which class it wants to extend democratic centralism. Even its allegations against followers of October revolution are general and not in the context of class –bourgeois or proletariat. Lenin had rightly identified this trend as one of bourgeois political trends.
“Those who try to solve the problems involved in the transition from capitalism to socialism on the basis of general talk about liberty, equality, democracy in general ... thereby only reveal their petty-bourgeois and philistine nature and ideologically slavishly follow in the wake of the bourgeoisie.” . Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 29, p 422.
We will see in the foregoing paragraphs that the concept of extended democracy which Draft Program seeks to introduce, is in fact a democracy for the bourgeois elements and it wants to give absolute freedom to bourgeois element to practice their political line in the party and in the society in the name of granting democracy to the minority legitimate oppositionists.
The differences in the post Stalin period of International Communist Movement and break of unity is solely assigned to Khruschev by the Revolutionary ML movement all over the world. The slanderous allegations made by Khruschev against Stalin and propounding the revisionist theory of three peaceful in the 20th Congress in secret speech was the first attempt of Khruschev to divide and break the unity of International Communist Movement. But Draft Program is very soft towards Khrushchev. It refers this treacherous step of Khruschev without indicating any disagreement with him, without thinking even for a moment that it did amount to breaking of unity in the rank and file of CPSU and in the International Communist Movement; as if Draft Program considers this heinous step of abusing Stalin and introducing revisionism in the international communist movement within the legitimate right of Khruschev. It says : “With Khrushchev ascending to power the internal contradiction of the communist world came out in the open with the leakage of the secret speech not through the communist organ but thorough the CIA.”page -4 There is nothing against Khruschevite revisionism attacking the prestige of Stalin and other anti-communist stand in the speech. Why? Because it’s target of attack is not Khruschevite revisionism but Mao and E. Hoxa’s opposition to that of revisionism. It says further : “This contradiction is widened further by E. Hoxha and Mao by declaring openly a divided communist entity.” page -4 Thus blame for dividing communist unity is thrown to Mao and E. Hoxha and not to Khruschev. At page 7, the Draft Program writes “Overnight Kruschev took over the reigns of the CPSU and cause a vertical division in the ranks of the world proletariat. Mao and Enver Hoxha deepen the split with their idealist outlook.” So in the two line struggle between Khruschev on the one hand and Mao and Enver Hoxha on the other, Draft Program clearly takes the side of Khruschev by declaring the outlook of Mao and Enver Hoxa as an idealist. But it is silent whether the vertical division in the ranks of the world proletariat caused by Kruschev was retrogressive or revolutionary division.
Mao and E. Hoxa, to the best of their efforts, struggled and fought against this rotten revisionist line of Khruschev which was quite necessary and as per the demand of the time if the world revolutionary International Communist Movement was to progress further. Revolutionary groups all over the world have upheld their struggle against Kruschevite revisionism. But the Draft Program, the only so called revolutionary document, considers it a crime on the part of Mao and Enver Hoxa. It declares further :
“Mao and Enver Hoxa by declaring the CPSU a revisionist party and the USSR as a social imperialist state forgot that they were breaking the backbone of the world proletarian system.”
The Draft Program at the one hand considers itself the champion of extended democratic centralism granting legitimate opposition to natural dissent and on the other hand it attacks Mao and Enver Hoxha for criticizing CPSU as a revisionist party without disputing the correctness of their criticism against Khruschevite revisionism, against their steps in dismantling socialist economy, introducing bourgeois reform in Soviet economy and their stand on the issue of Stalin question. It even admits that there was a serious deviation in CPSU when Khruschev came to power. But what was the nature of this deviation? It is silent over this issue. Was it necessary to raise objection to such deviations of Khruschev? Did Mao & E. Hoxha raise any of such objections correctly? It is silent on all these issues. Thus, Draft Program disassociates itself from the revolutionary legacy of international ML movement. When Mao and Enver Hoxa shows their dissent, it brands them as unity breaker without examining whether they were correct or not in declaring CPSU as a revisionist party. Even though it dares to declare that CPI-ML New Proletarian would grant legitimate opposition to natural dissent in the party and in the society.. Was the dissent of Mao and Enver Hoxha not a natural dissent against Khruschev who has made, even according to Draft Program, serious deviations? Granting the right of legitimate opposition to natural dissent and simultaneously blaming the legitimate dissent maker for breaking unity without examining the correctness of opposition from the interest of working class movement, amounts to what? Is it not making the mockery of it’s so called “legitimate right to dissent” and clearly taking the side of bourgeois deviations of Khruschev revisionism against the interest of international working class movement?
There can be no unity between two lines- revolutionary and revisionist lines - because revisionism is nothing but a bourgeois political trend in disguised form. The break was inevitable and natural. At that point of time fighting Khruschevite revisionism was the most important international task of world proletariat and Mao and E. Hoxha very much played their role in the fight against revisionism. But Draft Program puts Mao, Tito, Khruschev, and E. Hoxha in the same category and says :
“But inspite of development during Stalin’s period Tito, Khruschev, Mao and Enve hoxha failed to move from the national tasks to the international tasks of the world proletariat.” P-15
But Draft Program never forgets to grant natural dissent to even bourgeois parties. It declares : “As a communist party, neither in unnatural way we intend to forcefully liquidate other communist parties, nor having come to power, ban the bourgeois parties.”p-1
Thus, it is much concerned granting full democracy to revisionist and bourgeois parties when its party will come in power. Its concept of extended democracy amounts to granting full democracy to both revisionist parties as well as open bourgeois parties but the opposition from revolutionary working class interest by Mao and E. Hoxha against revisionist deviation of CPSU under Khruschev leadership is not tolerated and attacked by Draft Program and is branded as unity breaker of international communist system. Because under the new concept of extended democracy, Khruschev has legitimate right to dissent against Stalin and hence he can not be blamed as unity breaker but Mao and E. Hoxa do not have right to legitimate dissent against Khruschevite serious deviation and hence they should resort to self criticism. Therefore, Draft Program further says : “Instead of resorting to self criticism within the united proletarian system, Mao and Enver Hoxha declare a hostile crusade against the USSR.” If there was a serious deviation in the leadership of Khruschev, then who was to resort to self criticism? Kruschev or Mao and Enver Hoxha? Because Khruschev did not resort to self criticism, the only alternative left to the class conscious proletariat all over the world including Mao and Enver Hoxha was to resort to criticism and not to self criticism. If the leadership of CPI (M-L) New Proletarian does not resort to self criticism for revising the various concept of Marxism-Leninism, the only alternative before us is to resort to criticism and not to self criticism.
Thus, in the whole document there is nothing against Khruschev, Brezhenev and Andropov. The draft program has crossed all the limit in defending these revisionist capitalist roaders after the death of Stalin in USSR and says:
“When the Bolsheviks seized power they had to utilize the services of this old bureaucracy during the NEP period. This continued till the Soviet proletariat was able to churn out from its own ranks scientist, technicians, managers, doctors, skilled and semi-skilled workers- from the womb of the Soviet society. This new army was immersed in the lesson of proletarian internationalism founded by Lenin and Stalin. Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov were the products of this society who in spite of serious deviations were proletarian by class origin.” Page 10
It is true that Marx, Engles and Lenin were opposed to egalitarian communism and they declared that ‘by formally declaring productive forces the property of entire state, the weaknesses of distribution of wealth and the existence of bourgeois right and its associated differences do not end with a single stroke of the proletarian pen. The distribution of wealth among the proletarian workers will be according to the working ability of each worker and as long as it exists the ‘bourgeois right’ will continue to exercise influence. Therefore differences in wages according to differences in the ability to work was to continue in the first phage of communism.
But the construction of Socialism in Soviet Union was conditioned by the circumstances it directly encountered as Marx has rightly said that people "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past." (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte).
During the early year of socialist construction, the question of wages to be paid to bourgeois specialist arose. Wages paid to the bourgeois specialist were not according to ability to work but something more than this. Lenin says :
“The next question is about wages; the specialist gets three thousand, he goes from place to place and is difficult to catch. I say this about the specialists—they are people who have a knowledge of bourgeois science and engineering at a higher level than the overwhelming majority of workers and peasants; such specialists are needed and we say that at the moment we cannot introduce equalitarian wages, and are in favour of paying more than three thousand. Even if we pay several million a year in wages it will not be too much as long as we learn to work well with their help. We do not see any other way of arranging things so that they do not work under time lash, and as long as there are few specialists we are compelled to retain high wages”.
“….We say that it is better to pay out an extra million or a thousand million as long as we can employ all the specialists, for what they will teach our workers and peasants is worth more than that thousand million.” Collected Works Volume 29
Lenin has further said:
“Even at that time we had to retreat on a number of points. For example, in March and April 1918, the question was raised of remunerating specialists at rates that conformed, not to socialist, but to bourgeois relationships, i. e., at rates that corresponded, not to the difficulty or arduousness of the work performed, but to bourgeois customs and to the conditions of bourgeois society. Such exceptionally high—in the bourgeois manner—remuneration for specialists did not originally enter into the plans of the Soviet government, and even ran counter to a number of decrees issued at the end of 1917. But at the beginning of 1918 our Party gave direct instructions to the effect that we must step back a bit on this point and agree to a “compromise” (I employ the term then in use). On April 29, 1918, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee adopted a decision to the effect that it was necessary to make this change in the general system of payment.[3] Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party October 29-31 , 1921 Lenin’s Collected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33,
Therefore, the wages paid to bourgeois specialist were something different from what was discussed by Marx, Engels and Lenin before the October Revolution of 1917 in the context of bourgeois right and existence of difference of wages which were to be paid according to the principle of ability to work in the lower phage of communism. Though these bourgeois specialists were wage earners in the Soviet Society, they were bribed with higher salaries and better living conditions when they had to be relied upon to assume technical and managerial authority. They were given broad authority in performing day to day administrative and technical tasks.
They were bourgeois elements not because they were also enjoying bourgeois right to receive wages according to their ability to work but because they were getting much higher salary compared to general working class which was according to bourgeois customs and to the conditions of bourgeois society, because they were occupying technical and managerial authority in the organization; because of their very social and economic status in the Soviet Society. Proletarian state had employed them to use their expertise to run and manage the economic production. Because of their these social position they were not and could not be recognized as proletariat.
However, Soviet union began to train its own experts and mangers recruited from the ranks of the workers and peasants. But despite their class origin, their position in the Soviet society in terms of technical and managerial authority and the higher salary compared to general working class they were getting, was not much different from the technical and managerial experts of bourgeois origin. Thus even under Stalin period “inequalities” did exist and Marxist-Leninist have concluded that these were too extensive. Such inequalities included wide range of differentials between skilled and unskilled labor and higher compensation of for managerial and technical personnel.” Page- 80-81 Restoration of Capitalism in USSR 1990
The Draft Program openly takes the side of these bourgeois elements of technical and managerial expert to whom it calls as technical and managerial proletariat and falsely claims that these bourgeois elements were a necessity to manage the proletarian state economy and politics. It is a fact that right from the time of Lenin till the death of Stalin these bourgeois elements of technical and managerial expert were under command of general working class politics under the policy of keeping separate the technical authority on the one hand and political authority of working class on the other. These bourgeois elements were never a necessity to manage proletarian state and politics during the life time of Lenin and Stalin. However, Draft Program says:
“Before the demise of the Soviet state, the technical and managerial proletariat was a necessity to manage the proletarian state economy and politics. What decides whether the proletariat is in power in a state is that the economic level of the productive forces are owned by working class at large.” Page 10
Because draft Program fails to recognize the revisionist takeover of the CPSU by Khruschev clique which created the conditions for restoration of capitalism, it justifies revisionism and bourgeois element – the technical and managerial expert- the social base of revisionism in post Stalin period of USSR as if its development and rising to power was natural development and was due to development of science and technology and it was not a counter revolution. It says: “The development of science and technology are a fact of life in the contemporary world and whether it is the proletarian or the imperialist world both can not deny this hard fact of life. This urge has created a technical and managerial proletariat which in turn has created the proletarian intelligentsia which is the basis of the communist party ranks in the proletarian world today.” P- 12
The Draft program is very much aware that these technical and managerial experts can not be called as bourgeois class but they enjoy “bourgeois right” over and above the general masses of working class even though it considers it as proletariat and not bourgeois element:
“These ranks do not constitute a bourgeois class but in the proletarian world enjoy certain “bourgeois rights” over and above the general mass of working class. In the proletarian world the commonness of rights cannot be established because the distribution of wealth is according ‘to the nature of work performed’ not according to the needs of the proletariat’ which happens only in communism.” P-13
The bourgeois right amongst the working class in the form of minor difference of salary and “bourgeois right” in the form of much higher differences of salary over and above the salary of general mass of working class and the position of technical and managerial authority enjoyed by technical and managerial experts of bourgeois elements in any society, including socialist country, are not one and the same thing and can not be ignored while identifying bourgeois elements who were the main social base of Khruschevite revisionism and restoration of capitalism in USSR. Because Draft program fails to identify the bourgeois element in USSR it was but natural that it could not have understood the revisionist takeover of CPSU by Khruschev and his clique and thereby weakening the dictatorship of proletariat which had created the conditions for restoration of capitalism in USSR and hence Draft Program fails to investigate what type of bourgeois right Khruschev and his clique had set before them to introduce in Soviet society. There is a difference between the bourgeois right to retain personal property earned by dint of one’s own labor and bourgeois right to retain private property earned through the exploitation of workers.
Therefore, it declares : “On the one hand we refuse to categorize the “bourgeois right” in proletarian states including the erstwhile USSR as “bourgeois class”. P-14 and it considers the erstwhile USSR and China as a socialist state. It says : “It was Marx and subsequently Lenin who pointed out the basic anarchy of the capitalist system in which production is social-the result of toil of millions of workers the world over, while the ownership is individual of the capitalists who employ the workers, exploit their labor power and generate surplus value with the profit motive.” P-8
It put the questions: “Can anybody prove that in the erstwhile USSR and the contemporary China the relation of production coincided with individualized capitalist system. Could any body prove the existence of capitalism in USSR and China in those turbulent years. What actually happened was that the CPC under Mao equated “bourgeois right” with the bourgeois class and declared the USSR as a social imperialist state.” P-11
The Draft Program recognizes only one form of capitalist system i.e. individualized capitalist system based on individual ownership of means of production. However, it is not necessary that capital will take the form of individualized capital only, it may take the form of social(group) capital. But even if capital takes the form of social(group) capital, it contents does not change.
While commenting on joint stock company, Marx has said as follows :
“Capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labor power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individual) as distinct from private capital and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings….” Capital III Ch.27
In the USSR after the death of Stalin, the revisionist clique under the leadership of Khruschev managed their victory in the decision making body of the party and they converted CPSU, the party of working class, in to a party of bourgeois elements and replaced the dictatorship of proletariat with the dictatorship of bourgeois which they covered by declaring the Soviet State as the state of the whole people. In the economic sphere, steps were taken to introduce capitalist relation of productions in the guise of introducing various reforms.
In 1957 MTS(Motor Tractor Station) was sold to collective farm as their property, as a result collective farms became the owner of basic instrument of production and there was an extension of sphere of commodity circulation because a gigantic quantity of instruments of production came within the orbit of commodity circulation.
In 1964 the CPC published a pamphlet entitled On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical lesson. In the said article, numerous examples of individual enterprises, as quoted from Pravda, were given.
Latter on steps were taken to transfer the state property to individual separate enterprises which was independent of state and was not responsible to state. And this was done in the name of granting more freedom to enterprise in making decision in order to maximize profit and reduce cost. We put below the following extracts from the W. Bland article AN OPEN LETTER TO THE "NEW COMMUNIST PARTY published in 1991:
“The Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on 4 October 1965, gave an enterprise rights of possession over the production assets it holds:
"The enterprise will exercise the rights of possession . . of the property under its operational control". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): 'Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR', Volume 2; New York; 1966; p. 291).
Consequently, the acquisition of production assets by an enterprise is described as 'purchase':
"The single approach to managing the economy is displayed . . .in granting enterprises equal rights . . . to buy means of production". (P. G. Bunich: 'Methods of Planning and Stimulation', in: 'Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems'; Moscow; 1972; p. 36).
That the terms 'rights of possession' and ‘purchase' are not here being used in-exactly as shown by the fact that the Statute gives the enterprise-the right to lease or sell the means of production it 'possesses':
"The enterprise will exercise the rights of disposal of the property under its operational control. . . . The enterprise may lease to other enterprises and organisations buildings and structures, as well as production, warehouse and other facilities assigned to it. . . .Surplus equipment . . . may be sold by the enterprise to other enterprises and organisations. . . .Sums obtained from the sale of material values representing fixed assets will remain at the disposal of the enterprise". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 291, 293, 295).
The transfer of the ownership from the state to an enterprise is not its transfer to an agency of the state, for the 'socialist state production enterprise' is described as an
"independent enterprise", (Ibid.; p. 291).
And:
"The state is not responsible for the obligations of the enterprise, and the enterprise is not responsible for the obligations of the state". (Ibid.; p. 291).
Furthermore, the property rights of an enterprise are vested in its director:
"The enterprise is headed by a director. . . . The director of the enterprise may, without the power of attorney, act in its name. . . . dispose of the property and funds of the enterprise". (Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise, in: M. E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 310-11). “ From W.W Bland
Thus, this transfer of ownership of assets including the means of production from the state to an independent enterprise of which the property right was vested in its director, was a major change in the economic structure of the Soviet society. It implied that the ownership of means of production was not with the Soviet state but with the enterprise which was independent and was not responsible to the Soviet state. This implied that working class was robbed of its socialist property. Besides, the labor power was made a commodity. As workers were robbed off the socialist property, they were given right to sell their labor power to earn lively hood and enterprises were given right to hire and fire as widely prevalent in a capitalist society:
"A working person constantly retains the right to dispose freely over his labour power. He realises this right by concluding a labour agreement with the enterprise". (A.Sukhov: 'Labour Mobility and its Causes', in: 'Nauchnye Doklady Vysshei Shkoly: Ekonomicheskie Nauki', No. 4, 1972).”
Will W. Bland rightly puts that “the term 'dispose over' is clearly a euphemism for 'sell'. In Soviet society 'the expenditures of labour on the cost of reproducing labour power' was 'assessed in value terms' which were precisely equivalent to the value of labour power’ as analysed by Marx:
"The objective factor which determines this level (of wages -- WBB) is the need to provide factory and office workers . . . with the means of livelihood sufficient for the reproduction of labour power". (Y. L. Mannevich: 'Wages Systems', in: 'The Soviet Planned Economy'; Moscow; 1974; p. 230).
"The cost of reproducing skilled labour power is the value assessment of equivalents of the living means that form the fund for the compensation of labour power". (E. N. Zhiltsov: 'Concerning the Subject of the Economics of Higher Education', in: 'Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta: Seriia Ekonomika', No. 1, 1973).
Thus in Soviet Society means of production was made commodity and enterprises were given rights to purchase and dispose of means of production during Khruschev-Brezhnev period. Thus, collective farm and enterprises became the owner of means of production in which full authority was given to Director. Director was given the liberty to hire and fire the workers and the motive force of production was to maximize profit for each individual and separate enterprise. Thus, Capital in the USSR after the introduction of reform during Khruschev and Brezhnev period, took the form of social(group) capital in the main and not individual capital of early capitalism and its undertaking assumed the form of social undertaking in which Director was vested with full authority to dispose of its assets or purchase new assets including means of production out of its own profit and to distribute profit by way of salary, incentives etc. Apart from this there were also private enterprises in form of individualized capital as quoted by CPC in their pamphlet mentioned above. The workers were robbed of the socialist property and their labor power was made a commodity. This socio-economic structure was not of socialism but was one of a varieties of capitalism. We would like to suggest our reader to go through W. Bland book entitled “The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union” in which various aspects of capitalist reforms introduced in USSR during Khruschev – Brezhnev period has been dealt with in detail.
Thus a new form of economic ownership and possession of means of production was introduced in the Soviet Economy in which the Directors, technical and managerial experts of non-proletarian bourgeois elements of each enterprises were given full right over the assets of the enterprises. This could not have done without robbing all the right of working class over the socialist property including the means of production. Profit was made the main motive of production.
Thus, on one pole there was a class of technical and managerial experts who occupied the position of redistributors, on the other a working class which produces the social surplus but has no right of disposition over it. As a result there was a gradual increase in class differences as a result of rising importance of the relationship of individual in each separate enterprise to the means of production and this was accompanied by an increase in secondary differences related to nature of work and to attributes of social position such as income, education and access to cultural goods. All these facts show that a new type of capitalism was restored in Soviet Society much prior to Gorvachov coming to power.
Let us come to Draft Program again. Was there any need to fight these so called technical and managerial “proletariat” endowed with “bourgeois right” in USSR? In the First Draft Declaration of CUCI (ML) 1983, it says:
The point of matter is that the basically antagonistically classes do not exist in socialism, but what exists is the “bourgeois right”, the fight against which is a historical one, based on development of productive forces and communist consciousness.” P-8
But in the Draft Program of 1999 the word fight have been withdrawn and it says : The simultaneous march between the development of productive forces and communist consciousness is the only way out to abolish the bourgeois right.”
Thus in 1999, according to Draft Program there is no need to fight bourgeois right. In fact Draft Program has no agenda to fight bourgeois right of both types because it considers technical and managerial experts, the bourgeois element as the main vehicle of proletarian revolution and necessary to manage economy and politics of proletarian state in socialism. In 2006, in it’s article “A Review of the World Situation Today 1990-2006” it openly defends the privatization of socialist economies by the bourgeois elements of “technical and managerial proletariat” in the following words:
“Privatisation of the socialist economies” in essence is compromise with what we have called as “bourgeois right” in transition to socialism. Beyond that if there is a real entry of promote capital in the Soviet economy in form of Indo American joint ventures, we categorically assert that such a privatisation with technical managerial proletariat in command is strengthening the overall process in the direction of “transition to socialism” and will ultimately lead to socialism because it will raise the level of productive forces in USSR to match the same at the disposal of USA. …. If the bourgeois can carry in its womb embryonic socialist structures to strengthen itself, why could proletariat in Soviet Union not carry within its certain capitalist structures to strengthen its material base of productive forces.”
It is strange that the author still holds the view that privatization with “technical and managerial proletariat” in command was strengthening the overall process in the direction of “transition to socialism” in the USSR. We know that such privatization has led USSR to open capitalism and not to socialism. It has not contributed to the growth of productive forces in the USSR rather privatization has been hindrance to the growth of productive forces.
Thus the whole thesis of Draft Program, in fact, amounts to glorification and inclusion of bourgeois element of technical and managerial expert in the concept of proletariat which was the social base of Soviet revisionism after the death of Stalin and who were primarily responsible for complete destruction of dictatorship of proletariat in Soviet society and who completed the process of restoration of capitalism in Soviet society. This thesis of glorification of technical and managerial strata was further extended and was applied in the theory of proletarian revolution by Draft Program. It revised the concept of proletariat to include non-proletariat strata of technical and managerial experts etc. which it declares as ‘new proletariat’ and the stage of revolution as that of new proletarian stage of revolution as distinguished from proletarian socialist revolution. Thus, the concept of new proletariat in the draft program amounts to inclusion and glorification of leading role of bourgeois element of the working class, a class of aristocratic labor which has been the main social base of revisionism, reformism and opportunism in the working class movement as rightly identified by Marx, Engels and Lenin.
We would like to draw the attention of our readers towards some observations made on Soviet Russia during the period of Lenin and Stalin on the one hand and during the period of Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov on the other hand which will clearly show that to what extent Draft Program has gone in defending revisionism of Khruschev, Brezhnew and Andropov period and in distorting the historical facts of the revolutionary period of Lenin and Stalin.
On Soviet Russia during the period of Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev and Andropov:
At the one hand Draft Program holds that bourgeois as a class was not in existence in erstwhile USSR of Khrushchev and Andropov period and on the other hand it establishes that Lenin and Stalin resorted to state capitalism:
“Revolution until now have not broken out in the advanced nations of the capitalist citadel. The productive forces in the Soviet State were inferior than those at the disposal of the advance capitalist countries. Realizing this the Soviet proletariat under the leadership of Lenin resorted to state capitalism and Stalin continued this process as outlined in “The Economic Problems of Socialism.”p-6
Thus, according to Draft Program, after 1917, Soviet proletariat resorted to state capitalism and Stalin continued this process till his death. In other way bourgeois as a class was retained by Soviet proletariat up to the end of Stalin period because State capitalism essentially presupposes the existence of bourgeois as a class, as a owner of means of production engaged in capitalist production.
This observation is totally in opposition to CPI, CPM and ML trend which upholds the contribution of Stalin in resorting the process of transition from state capitalism to socialism in USSR. No one can agree that Stalin continued the process of state capitalism. But Draft Program very shamelessly denies the transition to socialism from state capitalism in Soviet Russia during Stalin period.
But if after 1917, Soviet proletariat did not resort to transition to socialism from sate capitalism during the whole Stalin Period, then how Draft Program can conclude that in the erstwhile USSR and China the existence of the bourgeois can not be accepted as a class. We have seen above how Draft Program shamelessly comes in defense of Khrushchev period of so called socialism.
Thus Draft Program reduces the Stalin period of Socialism to state capitalism and post Stalin period of socialism which was, in fact, one of varieties of capitalism as socialism. Needless to say that this approach is not only an un-Marxist distortion of fact of history but it also indicates that the author of Draft Program has neither minimum level of theoretical understanding nor he is aware of Soviet history to deal with these issues. How does it distort the facts, we will refer one more glaring example. About Mao it says : “Summing up the collective experience of Lenin and Marx before his death Mao came round to the conclusion that capitalism had not been revived in the USSR.”
This is absolutely false and Draft Program should not have said so about Mao having made such statement without having an authentic and proper reference. To impute to Mao something which he did not say is, in our considered opinion, a grave offence. Draft Program may consider that it is within its legitimate right to make such type of statement, but the revolutionary tradition of Marxism-Leninism does not allow us to become so liberal. Thus Draft Program speaks in the language of revisionist Khruschev, Brezhnew, Andropov etc and extends full support to them. Its new concept of extended democracy is anti-Marxist and allows opportunism in the working class politics. It sets to achieve through new-proletarian revolution not dictatorship of proletariat but proletarian democracy. It says : The CPI(ML) is the vanguard party of the Indian proletariat which aims at the establishment of proletarian democracy and projects itself as the vehicle of transition to communism.” P-35. Thus it revise the objective of proletarian revolution and sets the task of establishing ‘proletarian democracy’ in place of ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ which is much liberal to the bourgeois element in the party and in the society. It is also in line with Khruschev-Brezhnew revisionist who denounced dictatorship of proletariat.
2) Programmatic issues : Contrary to traditional left, the Draft Program upholds the stage of revolution as proletarian revolution. It says: “The question of Indian revolution is the question of characterization of Indian state and the phage of Indian revolution. We wish to categorically state that India is a capitalist country with Indian bourgeoisie in state power and the stage of revolution is one of the proletarian revolution. The Indian bourgeoisie is a part of the world imperialist bourgeoisie, the Indian capitalist system is a part of world capitalist system……. Primary bourgeoisie democratic revolution was completed when Indian bourgeoisie took over the reigns of state power in 1947.”p-22
We fully agree with the above propositions. However, we do not agree with the Draft Program in as much as it considers proletarian revolution distinguished from that of socialist revolution. It says: “It is not a socialist revolution we aim at because in the present world situation 40% of the world including the USSR and China is not socialist but going through a phage of transition to socialism as it confronts the world capitalist system led by the U.S. A.” p-23
It is strange that still in 2000 Draft Program considers USSR and China in a phage of transition from capitalism to socialism. However, this contradict its own statement when it says : “It is after Andropov that Gorbachov, Yelstin clique finally took to capitalist path.” Page -10
Its attempt to differentiate proletarian revolution with that of socialist revolution is baseless and contrary to Marxism Leninism. In Marxist-Leninist literature both the terms are used for the one and the same meaning.
The Draft Program is also not consistent so far as its views are on the character of India’s independence is concerned. On the one hand it considers that bourgeoisie democratic revolution was completed when Indian bourgeois took over the reigns of state power in 1947, on the other hand it contradicts its own statement by saying that : The big bourgeoisie in India captured power from the top and repeatedly it declares itself to be politically independent. But without economic independence there can be no political independence. The Indian ruling classes are linked with world imperialist system which denies them complete independence to act. At the superstructure and the base both independence of the Indian bourgeoisie is a myth…….”
If there was no political independence, how bourgeois revolution can be said to be completed? Has bourgeois revolution been completed today? Is there economic and political independence in India today? Thus Draft Program is not consistent on the very concept of completion of bourgeois revolution and on the stage of proletarian revolution in India. Secondly, the proposition that without economic independence there can be no political independence is also wrong and contrary to Marxism Leninism.
However, it appears that only to distinguish its political line with that of SUCI , Draft Program uses the word proletarian revolution as distinguished from socialist revolution. But in 2000, as it was bound to openly admit the demise of Soviet socialism, it had no alternative but to coin a new word. And hence it replaces proletarian revolution with that of new proletarian revolution, without dealing with this new concept. Under the heading “Why new proletarian revolution” we come to know only that “the new CPI(ML) New Proletarian has emerged from the womb of capitalism and the social democracy of the Liberation group.” No where the concept of new proletarian revolution as distinguished from the old position of proletarian revolution is elaborated or dealt with in the whole document.
Origin of new proletariat: In post world war II political literature two un-Marxist trend appeared on the concept and future of working class. We are aware of the view of Bernstin who in 1899 opined that middle class does not disappear and advocated this fact as one of the principal grounds for the revision of Marxist theory. Renner, in 1953 argued that a substantial growth of the “service class” had fundamentally changed the class structure of capitalist society. In 1975 Poulantzas to define the boundary between middle class and working class uses two criterion- the distinction between productive and unproductive labor and that between mental and manual labor. Using these criterion he claimed the size of working class as very small in compare to middle class. Wright in 1978 concludes that these writers have thus claimed the bourgeoning of large section of working class posing a problem about the future of working class movement.
In reaction to this, an opposite trend came arguing that middle class is being proletarianized as a result of the mechanization of office work and ‘deskilling” (Braverman 1974). Maller in 1975 came to conclusion that technicians, engineers professional workers in the public services and private industry form part of “new working class” which showed its radical potential in the social movements of the late 1960s, specially in France. It is true that during intense economic crisis, a section of aristocratic labor class may take the side of working class movement. But from this possibility we can not conclude that upper crusts of technicians, engineers and professional workers will lead the revolution as a general rule. In only extreme and exceptional circumstances a very small section of them may join the working class movement. To put it as a “new working class” or “new proletariat” and to assign to it the leading role, as a vehicle of revolution, is to misguide the working class movement and it amounts to liberalize the inclusion of non-proletarian elements of working class in the party. The Draft Program belongs to this political trend which seeks to revise Marxist Leninist concept of proletariat and include non-proletarian elements, aristocrat workers in the concept of proletariat.
Because Draft Program considers the bourgeois element of technical and managerial expert in erstwhile USSR as technical and managerial proletariat on the ground that they were not owning the means of production irrespective of the higher salary they received over and above the general workers, irrespective of their style of life, their position of technical and managerial authority in the organization, their petty bourgeois urge, it was natural that it would revise the concept of proletariat also along this line.
In one paper presented in Anti-Imperialist Seminar in New Delhi which was published in New Proletarian Quarterly Vol.2/12/205, it says:
“Revolution until now have not broken out in the advanced nations of the capitalist citadel. The productive forces in the Soviet State were inferior than those at the disposal of the advance capitalist countries. Realizing this the Soviet proletariat under the leadership of Lenin resorted to state capitalism and Stalin continued this process as outlined in “The Economic Problems of Socialism.”p-6
Thus, according to Draft Program, after 1917, Soviet proletariat resorted to state capitalism and Stalin continued this process till his death. In other way bourgeois as a class was retained by Soviet proletariat up to the end of Stalin period because State capitalism essentially presupposes the existence of bourgeois as a class, as a owner of means of production engaged in capitalist production.
This observation is totally in opposition to CPI, CPM and ML trend which upholds the contribution of Stalin in resorting the process of transition from state capitalism to socialism in USSR. No one can agree that Stalin continued the process of state capitalism. But Draft Program very shamelessly denies the transition to socialism from state capitalism in Soviet Russia during Stalin period.
But if after 1917, Soviet proletariat did not resort to transition to socialism from sate capitalism during the whole Stalin Period, then how Draft Program can conclude that in the erstwhile USSR and China the existence of the bourgeois can not be accepted as a class. We have seen above how Draft Program shamelessly comes in defense of Khrushchev period of so called socialism.
Thus Draft Program reduces the Stalin period of Socialism to state capitalism and post Stalin period of socialism which was, in fact, one of varieties of capitalism as socialism. Needless to say that this approach is not only an un-Marxist distortion of fact of history but it also indicates that the author of Draft Program has neither minimum level of theoretical understanding nor he is aware of Soviet history to deal with these issues. How does it distort the facts, we will refer one more glaring example. About Mao it says : “Summing up the collective experience of Lenin and Marx before his death Mao came round to the conclusion that capitalism had not been revived in the USSR.”
This is absolutely false and Draft Program should not have said so about Mao having made such statement without having an authentic and proper reference. To impute to Mao something which he did not say is, in our considered opinion, a grave offence. Draft Program may consider that it is within its legitimate right to make such type of statement, but the revolutionary tradition of Marxism-Leninism does not allow us to become so liberal. Thus Draft Program speaks in the language of revisionist Khruschev, Brezhnew, Andropov etc and extends full support to them. Its new concept of extended democracy is anti-Marxist and allows opportunism in the working class politics. It sets to achieve through new-proletarian revolution not dictatorship of proletariat but proletarian democracy. It says : The CPI(ML) is the vanguard party of the Indian proletariat which aims at the establishment of proletarian democracy and projects itself as the vehicle of transition to communism.” P-35. Thus it revise the objective of proletarian revolution and sets the task of establishing ‘proletarian democracy’ in place of ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ which is much liberal to the bourgeois element in the party and in the society. It is also in line with Khruschev-Brezhnew revisionist who denounced dictatorship of proletariat.
2) Programmatic issues : Contrary to traditional left, the Draft Program upholds the stage of revolution as proletarian revolution. It says: “The question of Indian revolution is the question of characterization of Indian state and the phage of Indian revolution. We wish to categorically state that India is a capitalist country with Indian bourgeoisie in state power and the stage of revolution is one of the proletarian revolution. The Indian bourgeoisie is a part of the world imperialist bourgeoisie, the Indian capitalist system is a part of world capitalist system……. Primary bourgeoisie democratic revolution was completed when Indian bourgeoisie took over the reigns of state power in 1947.”p-22
We fully agree with the above propositions. However, we do not agree with the Draft Program in as much as it considers proletarian revolution distinguished from that of socialist revolution. It says: “It is not a socialist revolution we aim at because in the present world situation 40% of the world including the USSR and China is not socialist but going through a phage of transition to socialism as it confronts the world capitalist system led by the U.S. A.” p-23
It is strange that still in 2000 Draft Program considers USSR and China in a phage of transition from capitalism to socialism. However, this contradict its own statement when it says : “It is after Andropov that Gorbachov, Yelstin clique finally took to capitalist path.” Page -10
Its attempt to differentiate proletarian revolution with that of socialist revolution is baseless and contrary to Marxism Leninism. In Marxist-Leninist literature both the terms are used for the one and the same meaning.
The Draft Program is also not consistent so far as its views are on the character of India’s independence is concerned. On the one hand it considers that bourgeoisie democratic revolution was completed when Indian bourgeois took over the reigns of state power in 1947, on the other hand it contradicts its own statement by saying that : The big bourgeoisie in India captured power from the top and repeatedly it declares itself to be politically independent. But without economic independence there can be no political independence. The Indian ruling classes are linked with world imperialist system which denies them complete independence to act. At the superstructure and the base both independence of the Indian bourgeoisie is a myth…….”
If there was no political independence, how bourgeois revolution can be said to be completed? Has bourgeois revolution been completed today? Is there economic and political independence in India today? Thus Draft Program is not consistent on the very concept of completion of bourgeois revolution and on the stage of proletarian revolution in India. Secondly, the proposition that without economic independence there can be no political independence is also wrong and contrary to Marxism Leninism.
However, it appears that only to distinguish its political line with that of SUCI , Draft Program uses the word proletarian revolution as distinguished from socialist revolution. But in 2000, as it was bound to openly admit the demise of Soviet socialism, it had no alternative but to coin a new word. And hence it replaces proletarian revolution with that of new proletarian revolution, without dealing with this new concept. Under the heading “Why new proletarian revolution” we come to know only that “the new CPI(ML) New Proletarian has emerged from the womb of capitalism and the social democracy of the Liberation group.” No where the concept of new proletarian revolution as distinguished from the old position of proletarian revolution is elaborated or dealt with in the whole document.
Origin of new proletariat: In post world war II political literature two un-Marxist trend appeared on the concept and future of working class. We are aware of the view of Bernstin who in 1899 opined that middle class does not disappear and advocated this fact as one of the principal grounds for the revision of Marxist theory. Renner, in 1953 argued that a substantial growth of the “service class” had fundamentally changed the class structure of capitalist society. In 1975 Poulantzas to define the boundary between middle class and working class uses two criterion- the distinction between productive and unproductive labor and that between mental and manual labor. Using these criterion he claimed the size of working class as very small in compare to middle class. Wright in 1978 concludes that these writers have thus claimed the bourgeoning of large section of working class posing a problem about the future of working class movement.
In reaction to this, an opposite trend came arguing that middle class is being proletarianized as a result of the mechanization of office work and ‘deskilling” (Braverman 1974). Maller in 1975 came to conclusion that technicians, engineers professional workers in the public services and private industry form part of “new working class” which showed its radical potential in the social movements of the late 1960s, specially in France. It is true that during intense economic crisis, a section of aristocratic labor class may take the side of working class movement. But from this possibility we can not conclude that upper crusts of technicians, engineers and professional workers will lead the revolution as a general rule. In only extreme and exceptional circumstances a very small section of them may join the working class movement. To put it as a “new working class” or “new proletariat” and to assign to it the leading role, as a vehicle of revolution, is to misguide the working class movement and it amounts to liberalize the inclusion of non-proletarian elements of working class in the party. The Draft Program belongs to this political trend which seeks to revise Marxist Leninist concept of proletariat and include non-proletarian elements, aristocrat workers in the concept of proletariat.
Because Draft Program considers the bourgeois element of technical and managerial expert in erstwhile USSR as technical and managerial proletariat on the ground that they were not owning the means of production irrespective of the higher salary they received over and above the general workers, irrespective of their style of life, their position of technical and managerial authority in the organization, their petty bourgeois urge, it was natural that it would revise the concept of proletariat also along this line.
In one paper presented in Anti-Imperialist Seminar in New Delhi which was published in New Proletarian Quarterly Vol.2/12/205, it says:
…जब हम सर्वहारा की परीभासा करते हुए कहते की वे सभी लोग सर्वहारा है जो शोषणकरी उत्पादन के संबंधो पर मालिकाना हक़ नही रखते और न ही शोषण करते है इसीलिए सर्वहारा से नव सर्वहारा तक की पहचान मे हमने नया मापदंड निर्धारित किया है और नयी सर्वहारा क्रांति के लिए इस विस्तार को अंगीकार किया है और इस लिए औपचारिक और अनौपचारिक प्रकार के मजदूरों और प्रोफेशनल को भी हम नव सर्वहारा क्रांति के अन्दर रखते है और नव सर्वहारा क्रांति से उन्हें लैश करने की कोशिस करते है।
This definition again gives much scope to include all types of workers and professionals in the category of new proletariat viz, technical and managerial experts, scientist, advocate doctor, etc irrespective of the fact whether they are engaged in the productive process and produce surplus value or not, irrespective of wage packets they receive and the role they play in the organization। This concept can not be accepted because this would lead to the dilution of the predominance position of proletariat in the party without which a party can not be a revolutionary party of working class but will be converted into a party pre-dominated by non-proletarian bourgeoisie elements। We can not accept this concept of new proletariat because it will cripple the leadership to prevent bourgeois element from openly entering the party and securing predominant position। We can not accept this concept because we want to form a party of proletariat, of working class in the true revolutionary sense of the word। However, we agree at the same time that we should take the science of scientific socialism, the teachings of Marxism – Leninism to all sections of the society including the upper crust of the working class, non-proletarian element of working class and all types of petty bourgeois.
Secondly, this is nothing but revision of Marxist concept of proletariat on the one hand and on the other hand inclusion of borugeiosiefied, upper crust of working class and non-proletarian petty-bourgeois element in the concept of proletariat which has been the social base of all type of reformism and opportunism in the working class movement and which has been identified by Marx, Engels and Lenin from time to time during their life time. We suggest our reader to go through the article “Abhijat Majdoor varga ke bare me” published by CLI in Lal Tara in July 2003 issue in which they have dealt with in length on this issue of labor aristocracy in European Countries as well as in India. We need to make more study of their real objective conditions and to present a scientific analysis of complex and different categories of white caller workers and aristocratic workers in India.
In the modern capitalist world, there is a tendency of growing separation of legal ownership from effective economic control. The propertied class of the multi-nationals corporations and corporate sectors dominates the economy through high paid Directors, CEO, technocrats and managers who put the means of production in operation. These high paid technocrats and managers have vested interest in maintaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie and in practice, they always take the side of propertied class and against the working class in the fight between capital and labor. These bourgeois elements are not objectively in a position to wage struggle against the bourgeois class either on economic or political front for revolutionary transformation of the society. By including these bourgeois elements under the category of “new proletariat” and expecting from them their leading role in the so called “new proletariat revolution”, Draft program has shown its ideological bankruptcy on the revolutionary concept of proletariat.
3. On capitalist restoration in USSR, Draft Program on page 12 puts the question as follows:
“To say that after Stalin, Khruschev replaced the Soviet Proletarian state with a capitalist mode of production is to challenge the very existence of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Had these torchbearers of Marxism-Leninism created so weak a foundation of the proletariat state that one individual Khruschev and the other individual Deng could break up the state single handedly?
We would like to substantiate our view as to how dictatorship of proletariat was replaced by the dictatorship of bourgeois in USSR after the death of Stalin which is based primarily on the book “Restoration of Capitalism in USSR” 1990 reprint.
(i). International circumstances contributing restoration of capitalism in USSR: After middle of thirties and particularly after the rise of Hitler to power in Germany during the thirties, the major forces which have become danger to the whole working class movement and for the humanities, as identified in the 7th Congress of Communist International, was fascism. A new policy was forced upon the working class movement and its leadership to combat this danger. Major task now was to fight fascist forces all over the world. A section of bourgeoisie was accepted in the united front under the thesis of 7th Congress. In the USSR also it was necessary to achieve complete national unity to fight imperialist and fascist attack. The very orientation of the Soviet internal policy during the period from 1935 till the end of second world war and till the defeat of fascist imperialist forces could primarily be to achieve this national unity and simultaneously to pursue the policy of intensifying internal class struggle against the bourgeois elements in the Soviet Society.
It was under these historical conditions that in 1939, during his report to the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B), Stalin made the following statement:
“The feature that distinguishes Soviet Soviet society today from any capitalist society is that it no longer contains antagonistic, hostile classes…. Soviet society, liberated from the yoke of exploitation, knows no such contradictions, is free of class conflicts, and presents a picture of friendly collaboration between workers, peasants and intellectuals.”
This is wrongly considered to be a serious error of Stalin in post Stalin-pro-Maoist Marxist Leninist literature. In the same report Stalin has stated as follows:
“The principal task in this period was to organize socialist economy throughout the country and to eliminate the last remnants of the capitalist elements, to organize a cultural revolution, and to organize a thoroughly modern army for the defense of the country. Ibid
‘In these circumstances ‘the CPSU had to further open membership to people from the non-proletarian groups, in order to continue leading the struggle. As early in 1936, when recruitment was resumed after several years’ suspension, and especially after 1938, when the danger of war increased, large numbers of technical specialists and other intellectuals were welcomed as comrades’ Restoration p-15
‘While no Statistics were released for the Party, recruitment, figures for two of the republics, published at the 18th Congress in 1939, show that new members from the “intelligentsia” and “office worker” categories formed 42.8-44.5 % as compared with 1.7% in 1929. Between 1939 and 1941, available figures indicate that approximately 70% of all recruits came from the technical and managerial strata’. (Restoration –p-15)
But towards the end of the war, major decisions were taken up to control this situation:
a) It was decided to severely limit further recruitment, and emphasis was placed on the education and political consolidation of existing membership.
b) Campaign against “cosmopolitanism” was directed toward combating the many bourgeois influences which had entered the Party and Soviet society from the West during the war.
c) Stalin’s important move was to respond directly to the errors of the new revisionist through his book published in 1952 “Economic Problem of Socialism in USSR.”
(ii) From the very beginning and till the death of Stalin, technical and managerial authority on the one hand and political authority on the other were kept separate. But when 70% of new recruit were made from technical and managerial experts in the party, when most hard core class conscious workers have sacrificed their lives during the second world war and new recruits of technical and managerial experts were not steeled enough in the class struggle and fully equipped with the working class ideology, it diluted to a certain extent the policy of keeping separate technical authority on the one hand and political authority on the other. We find the example of such dilution expressed as revisionist trend during the war period and before the death of Stalin and which was exposed and some time representatives were expelled by Stalin. The exposure and ouster of one or two of them did not discourage the others, it only taught them to be cleverer.
As the hardcore, class conscious party members mostly sacrificed their lives in second world war, non-proletarian technical and managerial experts occupied the position of authority in the leading bodies of party as well as in the state apparatus. These non-proletarian technical and managerial experts were already in the position of authority in various enterprises and collective and state farm under the policy of one man management since the period of Lenin. But at that time they were not having political authority. Political authority was with the working class party. Before the death of Stalin itself, these non-proletarian strata had started raising their heads. But they could not manage their predominance in the party during the life time of Stalin.
It was only the revolutionary and proletarian policy of Stalin with his full supports among the rank and file of the party which prevented the majority of revisionist non-proletarian elements in the CPSU to resorts to non-proletarian policy during his life time. This period was a period of intense suffocation for the revisionist elements in the CPSU who were occupying important position of authority in the party but even though most of them could not dare to come out openly against Stalin fearing his prestige, popularity and wide support in the party and immense mastery of Stalin with his theoretical understanding of Marxism-Leninism in exposing revisionist ideology of bourgeois elements; and who latter on cowardly called it as Stalin’s cult.
After the death of Stalin, the revisionist clique under the leadership of Khruschev managed their victory in the party and came in the power and they fully consolidated themselves before the 20th congress. What does it mean by revisionist takeover of party? Does it mean restoration of capitalism? Let us see what Stalin has to say on this issue:
'A victory of the right deviation in our party would mean an enormous accession of strength to the capitalist elements in our country. And what does an accession of strength to the capitalist elements in our country mean? It means weakening the proletarian dictatorship and multiplying the chances of the restoration of capitalism.
'Hence, a victory of the right deviation in our party would add to the conditions necessary for the restoration of capitalism in our country' (J. Stalin, "Problems of Leninism", F.L.P.H., Moscow, 1954, p. 276.).
From the above it can be concluded that the victory of right deviation in the party will i) weaken the proletarian dictatorship ii) multiply the chances of the capitalist restoration of capitalism. Victory of right deviation in the party in itself does not mean complete destruction of dictatorship and restoration of capitalism; it would add to the conditions necessary for the restoration of capitalism.
Thus before dismantling socialist economy, Khruschev had to take certain measures to convert the party of working class into a party of bourgeois elements of technical and managerial expert without which dictatorship of the proletariat could not be destroyed. How did he do so?
We would again like to draw some of facts and observations from “Restoration of Capitalism in USSR which are as follows :
‘Khruschev, however, set out to destroy completely the system of separation between political and technical authority developed by Lenin and Stalin. Among administrators and Party leaders, technical skill replaced political orientation as the main criterion for membership.’
‘Under Lenin and Stalin only the most advanced workers, those who had distinguished themselves in the class struggle and who showed in practice a grasp of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, became party members. And due to supervision of technical and managerial work by the Party, a great percentage of Party militants-many of them ex-workers-were employed in the Party and Government bureaucracy.’
‘Honest communists at all level were expelled from the party. ‘Nearly 70% of the Central Committee members elected at the 19th Congress in 1952 were out by the 22nd Congress in 1961, while an additional 60% of those elected in 1956 were gone by 1966. This reflected an even greater purge at lower levels particularly in the plants. For example, between 1963 and 1965, 1,00,000 were expelled, and over 62,800 were kicked out in 1966 alone. (From Restoration)
‘The Khruschev years saw a coordinated campaign to replace leading figures with new-type “experts.” It was stipulated in some places that “only a Party member with a technician or engineer’s certificate can be elected secretary of a Party branch.” Elsewhere Pravda noted favorably that “more and more engineers and designers have become secretaries of Party committees.” Whereas in 1956 only 38.9% of all “white collar” recruits were technical specialists, scientists, engineers, educators or doctors, by 1967 58.5 per cent fell into this category.” (From Restoration)
From the above fact it is clear that after the death of Stalin and after revisionist take over of CPSU, CPSU was converted into a Party led by and serving non proletarian bourgeois elements of technical, managerial experts, bureaucrats and Directors, a privileged stratum, an effective political representative of the bourgeoisie elements.
Thus, after the death of Stalin, and after revisionist take over of party, working class was deprived of its most important weapons in its fight against bourgeois element i.e. the party with its all military power under its command; non-proletarian strata of technical and managerial expert had managed to occupy the technical and political authority in the Soviet society; there was no working class party which could oppose and expose steps taken towards restoration of capitalism during Khruschev-Brezhnev period. This is how Soviet Proletarian state was replaced by a state of bourgeois elements who converted themselves as a bourgeois class after robbing the socialist property of working class through various economic and political reforms during Khruschev-Brezhnev period. Lenin had also said:
“The dictatorship of the proletariat would not work except through the communist party.” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p 199.
From the above, it can be concluded as follows:
During the whole period of Socialism, a working class party should remain a party of working class not only in terms of proletarian ideology but also in terms of its social composition and it should take special precaution in recruiting non-proletarian elements in the party as party member in order to prevent possible change of its social composition and emphasis is required to be placed on the education of working class ideology and political consolidation of existing membership.
Further, if a working class party is to remain as a revolutionary working class party to achieve its goal of establishing dictatorship of proletariat and continue the dictatorship of proletariat even after revolution during and after the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism, it should remain a working class party not only in terms of proletarian ideology but also in terms of social composition and it should take utmost care in recruiting non-proletarian element in the party in order to prevent the possible change in its class composition and revisionist takeover of the party and emphasis is required to be placed on the education of proletarian ideology and political consolidation of existing membership.
It is necessary to continue the policy of keeping separate the technical and managerial authority at the one hand and political authority of the working class on the other in order to keep the technical and managerial authority in command of political authority of working class politics.
The possibility of degeneration of working class party in to a revisionist, bourgeois party is increased if its class composition is changed in favor of non-proletarian element and no emphasis is placed against fighting bourgeois elements on the basis of proletarian ideology and continuous political consolidation of its existing membership.
One of reasons for degeneration of most of the traditional communist parties in India is because of increasing predominance of non-proletarian elements in the party and because no emphasis is placed for abolition of wage slavery, on struggle against bourgeois class on the basis of proletarian ideology and no political and ideological consolidation of existing membership in the light of classical Marxist-Leninist literature is carried out.
Hence, to achieve socialism in India, one of the basic pre-conditions is the formation of a party which would be predominated by proletariat in it’s true revolutionary sense of the word fully equipped with proletarian ideology and steeled enough in the class struggle of working class and not by non-proletarian petty-bourgeois element in its social composition and preoccupied with petty bourgeois prejudices.
