The concept of ”capitalist restoration”, the meaning given it and the use to which it has been put, have been elements in the theory of the New Communist Movement for some time. As usual, this concept was accepted with little concern for its rigor or the questions it gave rise to. For example, if capitalism can be restored in a socialist society then what are the concepts appropriate to a social formation in transition to communism? Can we use the same concepts that we use for a capitalist social formation? What are the specific differences between class relations and antagonistic class relations? Can individuals restore capitalism or is it correct to even pose such a question Can individuals restore capitalism or is it correct to even pose such a question As we can see from this mere handful of questions, the restoration of capitalism is not the kind of cut and dried matter it might appear to be. For this reason, it is necessary to study those sources whose focus is capitalist restoration, and see how they answer and ignore these questions. If we can begin to grasp the dialectical nature of these works and see where they go right and wrong, we will have begun the process whereby new concepts for thinking about capitalist restoration can be developed.
1. How, according to the Chinese, is capitalism restored in a Socialist country? What is its social base?
2. Discuss the alleged manifestations of capitalist restoration in:
a) the economy
b) the Party
c) the state
d) the actions of individuals
What character do these manifestations and causes share with each other? What is adequate and inadequate about this formulation?
3. What is Khrushchev’s supposed role in restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union?
4. Reconstruct the problematic which is presented in this text.
5. Discuss the effects of the capitalist restoration thesis on world and American Marxism.
Editors of People’s Daily and Red Flag, Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU, pp.1-75.