The following is the twelfth in a series of articles under the title “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism!” The first eleven parts appeared in PCDN, Volume 7, Numbers 221-230, and 234, dated September 15-26, and September 30, 1977.
* * *
The third comment we will make on this point is that the theoreticians of “three worlds” are quite deliberately and consciously following the revisionist theory of “productive forces”. In a recent article which is supposed to expound “Chairman Mao’s theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat”, the theoreticians of “three worlds” state:
“The ultimate aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the realization of communism. Continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat requires that the proletariat make use of state power to lead the working masses in class struggle so that the proletariat triumphs over the bourgeoisie and socialism over capitalism, and in greatly developing the social productive forces. This creates the necessary conditions for gradually narrowing and gradually eliminating the differences between industry and agriculture, town and country and mental and physical labour, eliminating the bourgeoisie and the other exploiting classes and all class differences and eradicating the possibility of a capitalist restoration.”
“We should pay careful attention to the function of the superstructure and to the revolution in that realm. However, in the final analysis, the economic base is the decisive factor for social progress and the productive forces are the most active and revolutionary factor in the economic base. So in the final analysis the productive forces determine the relations of production. The superstructure can either promote or hinder advances in the economic base. Whether the aspects of the superstructure (including party leadership and political line) promote or hinder social progress depends on what they do to the growth of the productive forces. Society can make significant progress only when there are advances in both the productive forces and the relations of production.”
Thus the assertion that “the productive forces are the most active and revolutionary factor in the economic base” is now taken up as a “law” and a consistent theory has been advanced on the basis of this law. By dishing out this counter-revolutionary theory, the laws of objective processes and the subjective side are both entirely mystified. What are the objective contradictions in socialist society? How does the political party of the proletariat, by basing its strategy and tactics on the theory of Marxism-Leninism, lead the building of the socialist society? So if the “productive forces” grow, then the Party and its political line are correct and if they “hinder social progress” then they are wrong. Thus, the distinction between Marxism and imperialism is eliminated and the counter-revolutionary theory of “white cat, black cat”, is adopted. Denouncing Teng Hsiao-ping, Chairman Mao pointed out: “This person does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link; still this theme of ’white cat, black cat’, making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism.” (We will deal with the international consequences of this counter-revolutionary line of Teng Hsiao-ping later on). Thus, if imperialism can make “productive forces” grow, then imperialism is fine and if Marxism does the trick, then Marxism is fine.
The theoreticians of “three worlds” assert: “Continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat requires that the proletariat make use of state power to lead the working masses in class struggle so that the proletariat triumphs over the bourgeoisie and socialism over capitalism, and in greatly developing the social productive forces.” What does this concept “make use of state power to lead the working masses in class struggle so that the proletariat triumphs” etc. mean in actual practice?
Marx pointed out the general task long ago:
The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
Thus, from the beginning to the end, the task of the newly acquired state power in the hands of the proletariat is the “expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people”. It is carried out step-wise. The dictatorship of the proletariat in China has both the task of “transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour” into socialist property and “the transformation of capitalistic private property” into socialist property. The first act of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China was the expropriation of the property of the imperialists, comprador-bureaucrat capitalists and big landlords and converting the ownership of industry in the cities into socialist ownership by the whole people and beginning the collectivization of agriculture in the countryside.
Comrade Stalin presents the tasks in this manner:
The specific role of Soviet government was due to two circumstances: first, that what Soviet government had to do was not to replace one form of exploitation by another, as was the case in earlier revolutions, but to abolish exploitation altogether; second, that in view of the absence in the country of any ready-made rudiments of a socialist economy, It had to create new, socialist forms of economy, ’starting from scratch’, so to speak.
Thus, Stalin adds the second task, that is “to create new, socialist forms of economy”. In other words, it is the task of the dictatorship of the proletariat “to create new, socialist forms of economy”, that is to “create new” socialist relations of production, which Stalin calls the “economic foundation” of the socialist system.
Chairman Mao pointed out in 1957:
The basic contradictions in socialist society are still those between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base... But our socialist system has only just been set up; it is not yet fully established or fully consolidated... To sum up, socialist relations of production have been established and are in harmony with the growth of the productive forces, but they are still far from perfect, and this imperfection stands in contradiction to the growth of the productive forces. Apart from harmony as well as contradiction between the relations of production and the developing productive forces, there is harmony as well as contradiction between the superstructure and the economic base.
Eighteen years later, Chairman Mao warned the entire nation about the imperfections in the “relations of production”.
Speaking of the socialist system, Chairman Mao said:
In a word, China is a socialist country. Before liberation she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has been changed.
Chairman Mao pointed out:
Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.
Thus, for over twenty-six years after liberation, Chairman Mao presented the line that the relations of production had to be transformed, and this transformation was the leading factor in the building of the socialist system in China.
What the theoreticians of “three worlds” write is merely a phrase in order to mask the revisionist content of their line and to fool the people. Thus their phrase “continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat requires that the proletariat make use of state power to lead the working masses in class struggle so that the proletariat triumphs over the bourgeoisie and socialism over capitalism, and in greatly developing the social productive forces.” One could have dismissed the entire phrase as truism which is applicable to any time and place independent of any concrete conditions but the last part of the phrase “in greatly developing the social productive forces” reveals the fact that their first portion of the sentence is mere sophistry and demagogy and it is the last portion that they are advocating, that is, “continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat requires that the proletariat make use of state power to lead the working masses ... in greatly developing the social productive forces.” And if there is any confusion, the following phrase eliminates it altogether and exposes the ugly features of the theoreticians of “three worlds”: “Whether the aspects of superstructure (including party leadership and political line) promote or hinder social progress depends on what they do to the growth of the productive forces.” Chairman Mao teaches: “Correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything.” Lenin teaches that “Marxism is the theory of the proletarian movement for emancipation.” For the theoreticians of “three worlds” neither the thesis that “Correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything” makes any sense nor do they consider Marxism as “the theory of the proletarian movement for emancipation”. As long as there is “growth of the productive forces”, this is all what matters. It is not the word socialism and the socialist relations of production which determine whether or not “the aspects of superstructure (including party leadership and political line)” is correct or incorrect. On the contrary, it is the “productive forces” which decide everything. Thus a country, even though poor and not industrialized, but which is resolutely socialist and upholds Marxism-Leninism, is of no consequence to the theoreticians of “three worlds”. What impresses them most is the “growth of productive forces”. For them, the “growth of productive forces” is everything but ultimate aims are nothing. It is the same slogan which Bernstein cooked up in order to oppose Marxism that “The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing.”
The theoreticians of “three worlds” strike a revolutionary posture and proclaim to the world: “The utlimate aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the realization of communism”. How can the “ultimate aim” of the dictatorship of the proletariat be the realization of communism? Is the “ultimate aim” of the dictatorship of the proletariat not to be the “necessary transit point”
1: “to the abolition of class distinctions generally,
2..“to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest,
3. “to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production,
4. “to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
The “ultimate aim” of the proletariat, and its political party is “the realization of communism”. What the theoreticians of “three worlds” are presenting here is that while the “ultimate aim” “is the realization of communism”, the immediate aim is “growth of productive forces”. It is opposed to the Marxist-Leninist line that the immediate goal is the establishment and consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to carry out vigorously the establishment and consolidation of the socialist relations of production and to vigorously carry out socialist construction. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of the proletarian revolution and its main task is to carry out proletarian revolution, step-wise, from stage to stage and without any interruption. The theoreticians of “three worlds” raise the issue of “ultimate aim ... is the realization of communism” in order to hide the fact that they are opposing socialist revolution and that they have taken up the counter-revolutionary line of capitalist restoration. Comrade Lenin teaches: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow... ” Comrade Marx says: “This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point...” But for theoreticians of “three worlds” the issue is of “greatly developing the productive forces”, etc.