[The Militant, No 2, November 1964]
The successful launching by the Soviet Union of a capsule containing three men into earth orbit astonished the world with its technical and scientific achievement. Two days after this important and spectacular event the world was shaken by the news that Khrushchev had been deposed from a position which seemed all powerful.
These two events reveal the situation in the Soviet Union 47 years after the revolution of October, 1917. On the one side, enormous scientific achievements enabling the USSR to challenge, and, in terms of the more modern branches of science, to outstrip the strongest capitalist power.
On the other side, a political structure which allows the total removal of the seemingly all-powerful head of state whilst the masses, including the rank and file of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union stand by as passive observers.
Forty-seven years ago Russia was a backward country, its economy already devastated by Tsarism and imperialist war. The economic life of the country was almost destroyed by the years of bitter civil war forced upon it by the imperialist powers, lead by Britain.
The Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, had to face the enormous problem of reconstruction in a backward, semi-feudal country encircled by hostile capitalist powers.
Today the Soviet Union stands as the second world power and in terms of rocketry and space techniques consistently demonstrates its leadership. In itself these achievements indicate not only a very high level of scientific knowledge, but also the ability and means to apply it.
The October revolution, in destroying feudalism and capitalism and establishing a society on the basis of the state ownership of the means of production, the monopoly of foreign trade and a planned economy has historically proved itself and, in practice, shown the way, the only way, by which society can go forward to new and undreamed of achievements.
The enormous developments within the USSR since the end of the second world war, despite the crimes of Stalinism, its corruption, nepotism, squandering and inefficiency – all of which was exposed at the 20th and 22nd Congress of the CPSU – took place first of all due to the gains of the October revolution and due to the extension of the revolution to other countries which broke down the isolation of the Soviet Union, and allowed it to draw from the technical and material resources of a whole series of new states.
Of themselves, these events have demonstrated the correctness of Trotsky’s policy and the criminal nature of Stalin’s policies which betrayed the revolution in other countries, especially the advanced countries, in exchange for deals with the capitalists.
What could have been achieved – not only in Russia but in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain – if a truly Marxist policy had been pursued and the Communist parties continued the policy of Lenin and Trotsky and taken advantage of the favourable situations to establish workers’ states.
The planned use of the resources of Europe, Asia and Africa would have allowed enormous achievements on the basis of a soviet system and would have abolished for ever the fear of war.
On the basis of isolation, backwardness and defeats of the revolution it was possible for a bureaucracy to hoist itself to power, and with the use of ghastly terror to suppress Bolshevism and imprison the people.
The development of the productive forces along with the extension of the revolution, even in a deformed way, sharpens still further the contradiction between the productive forces and the state apparatus.
The same contradiction exists today. The zig-zags of Khrushchev’s economic policies, the exposure of Stalinism and the reform of some of the worst features of Stalinism can only be understood in this context, that is, as an endeavour on the part of the bureaucracy to preserve its rule over the masses and against “unruly” elements within the bureaucracy. The hasty removal of Khrushchev, which has been in preparation for some time, arises not out of disagreement among the bureaucracy over the Sino-Russian dispute (though the new leaders may attempt to reach agreement with China) nor over any sharp dispute on foreign policy, but because of the internal developments within the Soviet Union.
Without knowing the precise issues on which Khrushchev was defeated – one side only will present its point of view and this in an entirely garbled form – it is certain that they must have been around the question of economic policy concerning agriculture, the development and organisation of heavy industry and consumer goods.
Whilst the masses of the Soviet Union have no direct way of expressing their opinions it is clear that the raising of the standard of living, and the very limited “liberalisation” has had the effect of building up rather than suppressing enormous pressures.
The statements of the new leadership show how conscious the bureaucracy is of the opinions and pressures of the masses. They suggest that Khrushchev did not take into account the experiences of the masses and that he did not pursue the “policy of increased consumer goods.”
This, along with accusations that he was building a “personality cult” and using “armchair methods” is intended to appeal to the masses and to win their support.
It will not be difficult. As Khrushchev was able to point to the monstrous crimes and misdeeds of Stalin, they, too, will be able to point to the crimes and misdeeds of Khrushchev, the butcher of the Ukraine.
The struggle amongst the bureaucracy is a reflection of the contradictory forces within society. Fundamentally it is the contradiction between socialised and planned production and the stranglehold of a bureaucratic caste.
The new leadership faced with the same problems will give the same answers – zigzagging between the right and the left, concessions and repression.
Only a return to the soviet system, to the rule of the masses, to a policy of Leninism in national and international affairs can overcome the internal problems of the Soviet Union and allow it to lead the way in the development of world socialism.
The 20th and 22nd Congress exposures, the Hungarian and Polish uprising, the Sino-Soviet dispute, have provoked a profound crisis within the ranks of Communist parties throughout the world.
These new events must cause every serious worker to see things clearly; that the October revolution was one of the greatest achievements in man’s history and that it is his task to pursue those policies which will lead to socialism in Britain.
The victory of the Labour movements of Britain and Europe would deal a death blow to the Russian bureaucracy, and permit the free, unfettered development of democratic socialism throughout the world.
Schreibe einen Kommentar