The following is the seventh in a series of articles under the title “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalismi” The first six parts appeared in PCDN, Volume 7 Numbers 221, 222, 223, 224, 225 and 226, dated, September 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21, respectively.
* * *
The theoreticians of the “three worlds” make a big fuss about the “contributions” of Mao Tsetung in order to attack Marxism-Leninism exactly in the same manner that they attack Comrade Stalin in order to attack Marxism-Leninism. The theoreticians of “three worlds” allege: “China completed in the main the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production in 1956. From then on, a new question confronted the Chinese revolution – whether contradictions, classes and class struggle still exist in socialist society, whether it remains necessary to continue the socialist revolution and how this revolution is to be carried on. This was also a question for which no correct answer had been found in the International Communist Movement for a long time.” For how long? Until, the theoreticians of “three worlds” claim, Chairman Mao “founded the great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat” and on the basis of this theory, “formulated in 1962 the Party’s basic line for the whole historical period of socialism” and this “theory is already advanced... chiefly in the important writings of 1956 through 1957.” Further the theoreticians of “three worlds” allege that in this theory “Chairman Mao applies to socialist society the Marxist thesis that the contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base are the basic contradictions in society and points out that in socialist society there is correspondence as well as contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces, between the superstructure and the economic base” but Comrade Stalin “did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint of the unity of opposites, but saw it as an integrated whole where there is only identity, but no contradictions.”
Let us examine historical facts – whether it is true that Comrade Stalin “did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint...” etc. The Report of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) to the 19th Party Congress, delivered in October of 1952 has the following to say about the matter:
Comrade Stalin has discovered the objective law of the necessary conformity of production relations to the character of the productive forces and has demonstrated the tremendous role this plays in understanding and changing matters. With penetrating analysis of the processes occuring in our economy, Comrade Stalin has shown the profound error of the allegation that under socialism there is no contradiction between production relations and the society’s productive forces. There definitely are and will be contradictions, in as much as the development of production relations lags behind and will lag behind the development of productive forces. Of course, in socialist society matters do not usually reach the point of conflict between production relations and productive forces, but it would be dangerous to fail to perceive that there are and can be contradictions between them. It is our duty to perceive these contradictions in time and, by pursuing a correct policy, to overcome them in time, so that the production relations may perform their role of the chief decisive force that determines powerful development of the productive forces.
So much for the allegation that Comrade Stalin “did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint... ”
It is a well-known fact that when Khrushchov seized control of the leadership of the Party and state in the USSR, he launched the most vile attacks on Comrade Stalin. One of the accusations he laid against Comrade Stalin was that Comrade Stalin believed that class struggle intensifies with the development of socialist revolution and socialist construction. And now, the theoreticians of “three worlds” allege that Comrade Stalin did not advance this theory! Through this machination they are trying to equate Stalin with Khrushchov and to make Stalin responsible for capitalist restoration in the USSR. Through this method, the theoreticians of “three worlds” attack Marxism-Leninism under the guise of “upholding Mao Tsetung Thought” and to bring about capitalist restoration in the People’s Republic of China. The theoreticians of “three worlds” are causing maximum ideological confusion as it suits their interest of capitulating to and collaborating with imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and restoring capitalism in the People’s Republic of China. The name of Comrade Stalin cannot be separated from those of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Tsetung and Enver Hoxha and it is futile for the theoreticians of “three worlds” to think that they can fool the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties on this important question of principle.
Comrade Stalin not only consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat and carried out socialist revolution and construction, but he also defended Marxism-Leninism as well as developed it on various questions. His famous work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, is an important Marxist-Leninist classic which clearly sets forth the basic economic laws of modern capitalism and of socialism and opposes any revision or distortion of Marxist-Leninist political economy. The theoreticians of “three worlds” have ulterior motives in maligning the name and work of Comrade Stalin and in so doing, they are attacking Marxism-Leninism and revising it to suit their wild restorationist ambitions.
The theoreticians of “three worlds” have made a great deal of fuss about this theory of “continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat” which they allege Mao Tsetung gave birth to and which they consider as “the most important achievement of Marxism in our time”. But when it comes down to explaining what it is, they create maximum ideological confusion on the question. They allege that “socialist society covers a historical period of considerable length and that in this period classes, class contradictions and class struggle, the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road and the danger of capitalist restoration invariably continue to exist...” This sounds very scientific and is presented to deceive the masses that it is Marxism-Leninism, but it tells nothing about the “classes, class contradictions and class struggle” in the People’s Republic of China. Let us take one concrete example. Which classes exist in China at this time? We will have to sift through the reams and reams of demagogy to find out which classes exist in China. Why cannot the theoreticians of “three worlds” say in a straight-forward manner which classes exist in China at the present time? Take the example of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, the only genuinely socialist country on the world scale. Which classes exist in the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania? The Party of Labour of Albania presents a clear answer: the proletariat, the co-operativist peasantry (the two main classes) and the stratum of the people’s intelligentsia. The Party of Labour of Albania presents this analysis clearly and does not hide in all sorts of rhetoric and sophistry. In other words, in the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, the exploiting classes have been overthrown and their social base eliminated. That is, it can be said without any hesitation that there are no exploiting classes in the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. But when one tries to find out which classes exist in the People’s Republic of China, we are presented with a muddle and no clear answer to the question. The theoreticians of “three worlds” hint as to which classes exist in the People’s Republic of China:
“Chairman Mao made a scientific analysis of the classes in Chinese society following the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and put forward the thesis that the contradictions among the people and those between ourselves and the enemy in socialist society must be correctly distinguished and handled.” Did you find out which classes exist in the People’s Republic of China? This paragraph continues: “Speaking of the socialist revolution, Chairman Mao said: ’What classes are involved in this struggle? (It) is a struggle waged by the proletariat at the head of the working people against the bourgeoisie’.” Did you now find out which classes exist in the People’s Republic of China? It could be anywhere between “proletariat”, “working people” and the “bourgeoisie”. This is followed by the most atrocious assertion which any brainless agnostic, thorough-going anarchist on the level of theory and expert on confusion-making on the level of politics, could make. “The working class must closely unite with and rely on its most dependable allies – the poor and lower-middle peasants, unite with and rely on the revolutionary intellectuals, and also win over and unite with the majority of the upper petty-bourgeoisie and of the bourgeois intellectuals, those among the national bourgeoisie who are willing to accept socialist transformation, and other patriotic democrats, so as to enforce dictatorship over the reactionary classes and elements and all those who resist socialist transformation and oppose socialist construction.” Did you get the answer now as to how many classes exist in the People’s Republic of China? One wonders what kind of “basic completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production” – according to the theoreticains “three worlds” – took place in the People’s Republic of China, that all these classes an strata still exist! What is the social-economic base of the national bourgeoisie in the People’s Republic of China after “China completed in the main the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production”?
The theoreticians of “three worlds” state in the latter part of the same document from which we quoted above: “We must adhere to this policy and develop the united front led by the working class and based on worker-peasant alliance, a united front which embraces patriotic democratic parties, patriotic personages, compatriots in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, and our countrymen overseas.” So, in the earlier part of the document the “united front” is of:
– poor and lower-middle peasants
– revolutionary intellectuals
– majority of the upper petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals
– those among the national bourgeoisie who are willing to accept socialist transformation, under the leadership of the working class, of course. The latter part of the document has a different “united front” which includes other elements which are not mentioned before.
The question arises: How come the question of classes in the People’s Republic of China is not clarified by these “dialectical and historical materialists”? The reason why they have not clarified this question and they use sophistry to cover up the issue is that they are representatives of the overthrown exploiting classes and they are using this hoax of “continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat” as a ruse to substitute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in place of dictatorship of the proletariat and bring about capitalist restoration.
Following “the basic completion of the socialist transformation of the means of production”, after socializing the industry and collectivizing the agriculture, there arise in a socialist country two types of social property: socialist property, owned by the whole, people, and socialist collective property owned by the working people. There exist two social classes consistent with the type of social property in existence: the proletariat and the collectivized peasantry. There also exists a stratum of people’s intellegentsia in socialist society. But there exist no exploiting classes as classes since their social base has been eliminated after they have been politically overthrown. However, the social base exists for the emergence of a new bourgeoisie, and capitalist restoration, under socialism. As well, there is the danger of subversion by imperialism. The theoreticians of “three worlds” mystify this question deliberately. Thus they confuse the question of possibility of emergence of new bourgeoisie with the question of actual existence of the old exploiting classes. There are no exploiting classes in such a genuine socialist country but there is a danger of emergence of a new bourgeoisie.
Thus, when the theoreticians of “three worlds” say that the “socialist society covers a historical period of considerable length and that in this period classes, class contradictions and class struggle continue to exist”, what do they mean by it? It is merely a phrase to pull the wool over the eyes of the people and to attack Marxism-Leninism under the hoax that Comrade Stalin “did not look at socialist society from the materialist dialectical viewpoint..”, etc., etc.