THE FOURTH, SOCIALIST, SOCIAL REVOLUTION.
1. The origin of contradictions between society’s productive forces and
The largest contradiction of the second half of XIX century was that between the low degree of centralization of industrial production and the sharply grown level of operational division of labour. This economic contradiction has been resolved at the beginning of XX century by means of transformation of relatively small and medium private-capitalist enterprises to large and first-rate joint-stock companies. However, this growth of centralization was incomplete, middle-of-the-road by nature. Even today, there are a great amount of small and medium private-capitalist enterprises; their number is by far greater than that of joint-stock companies, although the latter manufacture the major part of products owing to their larger size and higher labour productivity. Therefore, in its time, the contradiction between centralization of production and operational division of labour has not been resolved in full but only partially. And it cannot be resolved entirely within the framework of capitalist production relations. Agglomeration of social production led not only to the rapid growth of operational division of labour, productive forces, technical and technological progress, but also to the origin and development, in the depth of capitalist socio-economic structure, of the fourth revolution in the development of productive forces – the scientific and technological revolution.
Development of the scientific and technological revolution within the narrow limits of capitalist socio-productive relations leads to unprecedented, comparing to the XIX century, aggravation of economic contradictions of capitalism. In XX century, these contradictions became so sharp that they grew into a conflict between the productive forces and capitalist socio-production relations. This conflict could be resolved only by means of new social revolution that would replace the capitalist socio-productive relations by socialist relations and supplement the social share-holder and state production with social ownership of the main means of production, thereby eliminating the exploitation of man by man that appeared several thousand years ago and the class society with its antagonistic class contradictions that appeared in the first half of the first millennium BC.
As we have seen in previous chapter, the scientific and technological revolution transforms the productive forces of society in a radical way. The old productive forces are being substituted for new, powerful productive forces. And these new productive forces of society are in need of new socio-productive relations. Qualitative change of productive forces stipulates the natural-historical necessity of a qualitative change of socio-productive relations, change of their form.
Just as, in animate nature, qualitative, radical changes of environment lead to qualitative changes in biological organisms, to substitution of some biological forms for other, more progressive ones, the same way, in society, qualitative changes of social "environment", i.e. productive forces, cause qualitative changes of social organisms, the substitution of old socio-production structures for other, more progressive ones.
In the course of scientific and technological revolution, the pace of development of which is being slackened by the existing capitalist production relations, by capitalist form of ownership of the main means of production, not only the contradiction between the narrow limits of commodity market and extremely high level of social division of labour, further growth of which is hampered by these narrow frameworks of national and regional commodity markets; not only the contradiction between the level of centralization of social production and ever increasing level of operational division of labour; not only the contradiction between the rapidly growing needs of people and the labour productivity the pace of which is by far lower than that of human needs, become more and more acute, but, along with this, the contradiction between the old, capitalist socio-productive relations and new, more and more changing nature, essence of labour of working masses aggravates sharply.
In the course of development of scientific and technological revolution in capitalist society, the number of scientific labourers, whose work is the one of creative nature, grows more and more. The labour of scientists and researchers is saturated with creativity, but the same is the labour of many other categories of mental labourers: teachers, physicians, technologists, designers, etc. Besides, the labour of some categories of workers engaged in maintenance of automatic, calculating, electric, and, especially, electronic and computer technics is becoming more and more imbued with creative element. Not only purely mental labour, but also the mixed one, i.e. the labour that is partly mental and partly physical, can be creative to a great extent. If some categories of mental labour cannot be referred to creative labour (for example, the labour of book-keeper, norm-setter), then many other categories of mainly physical labour can be, on the contrary, attributed to mainly creative labour. Any kind of work is creative to some extent. Any kind of work represents a “mixed” labour, i.e. a combination, a mixture of creative, search labour and non-creative, uniform, monotonous work. However, in different kinds of labour, the ratio of creative and non-creative elements is different. In some kinds of labour, creative element prevails, in other kinds – on the contrary – so does non-creative one. In the former case, the compound, complex or aggregate labour of man is mainly creative, in the latter – mainly non-creative.
If we take several kinds of mainly creative labour, then they would turn out to be imbued with creativity to different extents. In the same way, some kinds of non-creative labour are saturated with creativity to higher degree than other kinds of non-creative work.
If we could determine, measure (more or less exactly) the ratio of creative and routine elements in one or another kind of labour, their actual shares in aggregate, complex labour, then it would become clear that the maximum share of creative element is in the labour of scientists, while the minimum part of it is in agricultural labour based on hand and draught technics. One can very approximately consider that scientific labour contains about 80% of creative element, and non-creative one, respectively – about 20%. On the contrary, in ancient agricultural labour, creative element amounted to 20% and less, while non-creative one – more than 80%. One can approximately consider that the labour of hunter and fisher of ancient society had a creative element of about 60 to 65%, and the industrial labour before the scientific and technological revolution – about 25 to 35%. We can also think (or suppose) that the labour of modern highly-qualified workers, who often have secondary technical or even higher education and whose number becomes more and more in the course of scientific and technological revolution, labour that is connected with application and, at the same time, with creative development, improvement of electro-technics, electronic devices, computer, calculating and automatic technics, as well as nuclear, cosmic and other kinds of technics, is at the level of the labour of ancient hunters and fishers with respect to its creativity content, i.e. the share of creative element in is about 60 to 65%. So, the labour of these highly-qualified workers is predominantly creative labour.
It should be noted that the labour of ancient hunters and fishermen was somewhat more creative than that of modern hunters and fishers equipped with fire-arms and machine technics (for example, trawl nets). On the contrary, the labour of modern farmers is more creative than that of ancient times. In the same way, the labour of modern industrial workers is, in average, more creative than before the scientific and technological revolution, though, of course, the labour of many industrial workers (for example, handlers, machine-operators, inspectors, loaders, maintenance workers, etc.) is mainly non-creative labour as before.
Rapid growth of the number of labourers of mainly creative labour, especially of creative labourers, the main part of which, in capitalist society, enters the exploited class of hired labourers (hired scientific labourers are called intellectual proletariat not in vain – it is quite correct definition) aggravates the economic contradiction between ruling capitalist socio-productive relations based on private ownership of the main means of production, hired labour with economic coercion, enrichment of the minority at the expense of exploited majority, idleness of indolent capitalists-rentiers leading a fast life on the money created by the class of hired labourers, and the creative nature of labour that is incompatible with class, exploiter social structure.
The creative labour, to greater extent than any other kind of labour, needs (to be effective to the maximum) the most humane, just social and political structure based on classless social relations, on communal ownership of the main means of production, on combination of moral and economic stimuli, whereas capitalism is incompatible with moral stimulus, because its only base is pure lucre, self-profit.
For the modern level of development of productive forces in advanced countries of the world, the most suitable are socialist socio-productive relations being not only the most acceptable relations for all categories of labourers, but also the only acceptable relations for mainly creative labourers, the number of which in capitalist society grows from year to year.
2. Scientific and technological and socialist revolutions.
Just as the hunting-technical revolution was the reason of the communal social revolution; the agrarian-technical revolution caused the slave-holding social revolution; and the industrial-technical revolution was the cause of the bourgeois social revolution; in the same way, the scientific and technological revolution is the reason of accomplishment of the socialist social revolution.
Before the origin of just another revolution in the development of productive forces, the accomplishment of corresponding social revolution is either impossible at all, or unlikely, or can take place not as a result of natural-historical development but under the influence of external factors, for example, a neighbouring country. And the socialist revolution is not an exception to this rule. “No one social structure will die before all the productive forces, for which it gives sufficient free space, have developed enough; and new, higher production relations will never appear before the material prerequisites of their existence in the depth of old society are ripe” (K.Marx, F.Engels. Selected works, M., 1979, vol.1, p.536).
Before the origin of scientific and technological revolution at the end of XIX century, the victory of socialist revolution was impossible or very unlikely, since the capitalist socio-productive relations were, up to that time, in line with the level of development and the very nature of productive forces of society. This correspondence between the productive forces of society and the capitalist socio-productive relations was violated only with the origin of scientific and technological revolution.
The socialist revolution not only CAN take place after the origin of the scientific and technological revolution, it simply MUST take place being a necessary consequence of the scientific and technological revolution, the same way as the bourgeois social revolution happened after the beginning of industrial-technical revolution being a necessary consequence of the latter. The accomplishment of scientific and technological revolution, like other revolutions in the development of productive forces, means that the society acquires new productive forces, and “… having obtained new productive forces, people change their mode of production and, together with the mode of production, they change all the economic relations that were necessary only for given, specific mode of production” (K.Marx, F.Engels. Selected works, M., 1979, vol.1, p.551-552).
But though the socialist revolution is in cause-effect relation with scientific and technological revolution being its necessary consequence, it does not mean that it should happen immediately after the origin of scientific and technological revolution. The industrial-technical revolution began in Europe approximately in XI century, while the bourgeois social revolution in Western Europe took place in XIV-XV centuries, and in Eastern Europe – in XIX century. The same way, socialist revolution can occur in some countries sooner, in others – later.
However, the socialist revolution in any country should, without fail, occur in the period from the origin to the completion of scientific and technological revolution. Both the accomplishment of socialist revolution before the origin of scientific and technological revolution, and the retention of capitalist system till its completion are equally improbable.
There was no country in which the bourgeois social revolution took place before the origin of industrial-technical revolution, and, at the same time, there was no country in which the slave-holding - serf socio-productive relations survived till the completion of industrial-technical revolution. The phase of completion of industrial-technical revolution is the natural-historical border, after which the slave-holding society and serf slavery could not exist.
There was no country in which the socialist revolution happened before the origin of scientific and technological revolution. And it is not by chance but quite naturally. Capitalist socio-productive relations cannot survive till the completion of scientific and technological revolution. The phase of completion of scientific and technological revolution is the natural-historical border, after which the capitalist society and hired labour cannot exist.
The dialectics of productive forces and production relations in the modern period of development of society is such that the socialist revolution takes place (begins, is accomplished, completes) after the beginning of scientific and technological revolution, but before its completion. The old socio-productive relations, based on the private ownership of the main means of production, hired labour, economic coercion to labour, exploitation of all labourers by the class of capitalists-rentiers, enrichment of slight minority at the expense of overwhelming majority, hamper the development of scientific and technological revolution and they should inevitably be substituted for new, progressive socio-productive relations that will open a wide space to further development of productive forces of society. The scientific and technological revolution, having arisen in the depth of old, capitalist society, will be completed under new, socialist socio-productive relations that will not only provide the completion of scientific and technological revolution, but will also pick up the speed of its development.
When considering the first three social revolutions, we saw that, unlike the communal social and slave-holding revolutions that took place after the completion of hunting-technical and agrarian-technical revolutions respectively, the bourgeois social revolution occurred not after the completion of industrial-technical revolution but, vice versa, before its completion (but after its beginning). And the socialist revolution is in the same interrelation with scientific and technological revolution, as the bourgeois social revolution is with industrial-technical one, i.e. it occurs not after the completion of scientific and technological revolution, but before this.
It is explained by the fact that the scientific and technological revolution, like the industrial-technical one, is born in class society with its economic contradictions, antagonism and class struggle, that speed up the accomplishment of socialist revolution. In the course of hunting-technical revolution, the role of the main kind of labour was passed on to mainly creative labour of hunter and fisher that could be effective both under total absence of ownership of the main means of production, that took place before the communal social revolution, and on the basis of communal, common ownership of the main means of production and free labour being established in process of communal social revolution. That is why the hunting-technical revolution could be completed both before and after the communal social revolution.
The same picture could be seen during consideration of agrarian-technical and slave-holding revolutions. At the accomplishment of agrarian-technical revolution, the main kind of labour was mainly non-creative, hard and crude labour of peasant with his primitive hand and draught technics. This kind of labour could be effective both being based on communal ownership of communal society, and on the basis of private ownership established in process of slave-holding social revolution; on the basis of both free and compulsory slave labour. And so, the agrarian-technical revolution occurred before the accomplishment of slave-holding social revolution. And what is more, the slave-holding social revolution could not happen before the completion of agrarian-technical revolution, since the labour of hunters and fishers is incompatible with serf slavery. Neither hunting-technical, nor agrarian-technical revolution needed social revolutions for their development and completion, because they could develop in the depth of old social system.
During the industrial-technical revolution, we saw quite a different picture. The industrial labour and any kind of labour with the use of machine technics, especially the industrial labour with the use of machines (and the labour of the majority of workers during the industrial-technical revolution is such) could be more effective being based on hired labour, than in the case when it is based on compulsory labour of serf slaves. That is why the industrial-technical revolution could not be completed in terms of slave-holding - serf society with its non-economic coercion to labour.
In the course of scientific and technological revolution, the matter is the same as during the industrial-technical revolution, unlike the hunting-technical and agrarian-technical revolutions. The scientific and technological revolution turns the labour of the majority of labourers (and it is alike the hunting-technical revolution in this respect) to predominantly creative labour that is the most effective on the basis of communal ownership of the main means of production, free, associated labour and combination of moral and material stimuli, i.e. on the basis of socialist socio-productive relations. But if the same labour is based on private ownership of the main means of production – less humane, less just form of ownership, on hired labour with economic coercion, on social inequality, richness of minority and poverty of majority, on the exploitation of man by man, then it becomes by far less effective. Creative labour needs humane, just socio-productive relations and moral stimulus, that is incompatible with capitalism, but is the very essence of socialism. Therefore, the scientific and technological revolution cannot develop rapidly, even more so – be completed, within the framework of capitalist social system; it is in need of socialist socio-productive relations, socialist revolution for its completion. So, the scientific and technological revolution can only begin in capitalist society, but it can be completed only in new, socialist society with its justice, humanism, and classless morality.
So, the scientific and technological revolution is the cause of socialist revolution, the same way as the hunting-technical revolution caused the communal social revolution, the agrarian-technical revolution caused the slave-holding social revolution, and the industrial-technical revolution caused the bourgeois social revolution.
In process of agrarian-technical revolution, people were enslaved by their productive forces, their production, the result of which was the enslavement of man by man. In the course of industrial-technical revolution, this enslavement, subordination of man to his productive forces has been considerably slackened, and that led to the replacement of serf slavery by capitalist, hired slavery. Only during the scientific and technological revolution, man is being completely released from the enslavement by productive forces, by production, by technics, by labour. And this results or will result in the release of man from enslavement by man, by society, by the ruling class of exploiters-capitalists. It will be done by means of inevitable socialist revolution.
A hired worker of modern capitalist society that took the path of scientific and technological revolution, being, as a rule, an educated, cultured man, feels himself, to some or other degree, as an inferior man due to his social status, the same way as a pauper who feels himself defective begging a handout from passers; or an unemployed obtaining his unemployment benefit, because the society does not need his labour – the labour of a healthy, strong worker who becomes an “odd” man; the same way as a slave who feels himself inferior realizing his slave status. And, sooner or later, the modern hired workers will free themselves from this feeling of inferiority stipulated by their socio-economic status, subordination, enslavement by the class of capitalists that, in XX century, had turned from once progressive class to the reactionary class of parasites-rentiers, the class of modern usurers.
3. Socialist revolution as a consequence of class struggle.
As we saw above, the scientific and technological revolution is the reason of accomplishment of the socialist revolution, since the further progressive development and the completion of scientific and technological revolution; further progressive development of productive forces of society; development of scientific production based on the use of automatic electronic technics; scientific labour and other predominantly creative kinds of labour; are incompatible with the existing capitalist socio-productive relations.
However, like the industrial-technical revolution, the scientific and technological revolution cannot lead to the replacement of outdated capitalist socio-productive relations by new, progressive socialist socio-productive relations automatically, without the action of subjective factor.
Since there are forces in capitalist society that oppose to the social transformation of society, to bringing the production relations into accord with productive forces that have outgrown the former, the new, socialist social relations can only be established by means of class struggle of the class of hired labourers against the ruling class of capitalists-usurers. All the classes, groups, layers and strata of the society unite themselves in the struggle against the class of exploiters-capitalists, that becomes a reactionary class at the last, usurious phase of capitalist society; their joint efforts will result in elimination of domination of this parasitic class.
At that, the revolutionary forces include various classes and layers of capitalist society: industrial workers, agricultural workers, intellectual proletariat, i.e. the hired workers of scientific and other kinds of creative labour, peasants, independent industrial workers having their own workshops, small traders, intellectuals, employees, hired trade labourers: workers and employees. At the modern stage of development of society, the role of the main revolutionary forces is played by industrial, intellectual and agricultural proletariat.
The socialist revolution in one or another country can occur both at the initial stage of scientific and technological revolution, in the middle of its development, and in its second half. It only depends upon the acuteness of class struggle, upon solidarity, unity and the level of organization of revolutionary forces. In the countries, where the acuteness of class struggle was high, where the correlation of class (revolutionary and counter-revolutionary) forces is in favour of the former, the socialist revolution wins early, at the initial stage of scientific and technological revolution. This was the case in 1917 in Russia and in 1940s – in a number of countries.
With the formation of the world socialist system, there appeared the possibility of the victory of socialist revolution also in the countries where the scientific and technological revolution has not even begun owing to the economic backwardness of these countries. Nevertheless, even in such countries, the socialist socio-productive relations are not in contradiction with productive forces, they do not hamper the development of the latter. This fact can be explained by the universal nature of socialist socio-productive relations.
The socialist socio-productive relations are not hindrance to the development of productive forces of society at any level of development of the latter. Under socio-productive relations based on the communal ownership of the main means of production and on free labour, any kind of labour is effective: mainly creative labour, labour with small content of creative element, and entirely non-creative labour. That is why, socio-productive relations based on the communal ownership of the main means of production and on free labour are quite acceptable both for productive forces, the economic basis for which is scientific production; for the society based on industry; for the society based on agriculture (hand or tillage); and, finally, for the society based on hunting, fishing and gathering.
As we know, the leading branch of communal-clan society (and that was the society based on communal ownership of the main means of production, free labour and collective housekeeping) was hunting and fishing. The leading branch of ancient Oriental society, based on the state ownership of the main means of production, free labour and individual household of community members, was irrigation agriculture, and, nevertheless, this society existed for several thousand years without radical changes in socio-productive relations. Nowadays, in some socialist countries, based on state ownership of the main means of production, agriculture is the leading branch, while in other socialist countries this role is played by industry. Thus, the socio-productive relations based on collective ownership of the main means of production, on free labour and collective or / and individual housekeeping and production, are quite acceptable form of socio-productive relations for the development of productive forces of society at any stage of their development, i.e. universal socio-productive relations.
The matters stand in opposite way for class socio-economic structures. For example, capitalist productive relations, as we have seen above, become incompatible with productive forces functioning on the basis of mainly creative labour. In other words, they are incompatible with those productive forces existing before the agrarian-technical revolution, when the leading branch of economy was hunting-fishing business based on predominantly creative labour of hunters and fishers; they are also incompatible with the productive forces that will exist after the scientific and technological revolution, when the leading branch of social production will be scientific production based on the creative labour of scientists. In such a way, capitalist socio-productive relations are limited relations; they can only exist as the dominant or auxiliary, secondary socio-productive relations in the period of historical development of society since the agrarian-technical to the scientific and technological revolution. These two revolutions are the historical time boundaries, beyond which, the capitalist socio-productive relations cannot exist.
Still more confined are the slave-holding - serf socio-productive relations, the historical time boundaries for which are the agrarian-technical and the industrial-technical revolutions, beyond which, the slave-holding - serf society cannot exist.
The modern scientific and technological revolution is the very historical time border that cannot be crossed by capitalism, just as the industrial-technical revolution was the insurmountable border for the slave-holding - serf society. However, depending on the correlation of class forces in class struggle, in some countries, the bourgeois social revolution took place earlier, at the initial stage or in the first half of development of industrial-technical revolution; in other countries – much later, at the final stage or in the second half of development of industrial-technical revolution. It is obvious, that the same picture is for socialist revolution as well. In some countries, it should happen earlier, in other ones – later; this rule is confirmed by historical reality. It depends on the outcome of class struggle of proletariat against capitalists, on the solidarity, unity, discipline and devotion of proletariat to the cause of socialist revolution.
Thus, although the scientific and technological revolution is the first cause of accomplishment of socialist revolution, its direct cause is class struggle. The scientific and technological revolution and class struggle of proletariat against economic and political domination of the class of capitalists, the significant part of which turned to a parasitic caste of modern usurers, are the objective and subjective factors, without which the victory of socialist revolution is impossible. Neither scientific and technological revolution without class struggle of proletariat, nor class struggle before the scientific and technological revolution could result in the complete victory of socialist revolution.
Before the scientific and technological revolution, economic contradictions of capitalist society could not reach the level necessary to the accomplishment of the socialist revolution. The conflict between productive forces and production relations could not appear, and, consequently, the conditions for growth of class self-consciousness and class struggle to the level, necessary for the victory of socialist revolution, will not take place.
Before the scientific and technological revolution, class struggle of proletariat was insufficient for the accomplishment of socialist revolution. But in the course of development of scientific and technological revolution, aggravation of economic contradictions, origin of conflict between production forces and socio-productive relations, class struggle of proletariat becomes more intense and completes with the socialist revolution. It should be noted, that the World Wars of 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945 became the powerful accelerators of socialist revolutions of the first half of XX century.
4. Consequences of socialist social revolution.
After the victory of socialist social revolution, just as previously, after the victories of communal social, slave-holding social and bourgeois social revolutions, the revolutions in all social relations of socialist society: national-ethnic, spiritual-cultural and political – take (or should take) place. In socialist society, like previously in communal, slave-holding - serf and capitalist societies, there happen: the socialist national revolution – the fourth (and the last) revolution in the historical development of national-ethnic relations of society; the socialist cultural revolution being, respectively, the fourth revolution in the historical development of spiritual-cultural relations of society; and the socialist democratic revolution representing the fourth revolution in the historical development of political relations of society.
These revolutions, together with the scientific and technological and socialist social revolutions, will change and transform the modern society radically. The society will be renewed; it will change beyond recognition.
The fourth national (international) revolution will logically complete all the processes in national-ethnic relations that previously took place in the historical development of society.
In the course of the first three revolutions in the development of national-ethnic relations of society, the stepwise process of integration of society and assimilation of communities: ancient groups – to tribes, tribes – to nationalities, nationalities – to nations, took place. Obviously, during the fourth national revolution, nations shall merge to a larger national community and, since the socialist national revolution is the last revolution in the development of national relations, it’s quite obvious that, during its accomplishment, all the nations of the world shall unite to a new national community, and all the countries of the world – to the united world state.
Two stipulations are needed for accomplishment of the fourth national revolution: the formation of the world commodity-economic market and the accomplishment of socialist social revolutions in all countries of the world. In the course of amalgamation of national and regional markets to the united world market, countries, in which the socialist social revolutions take place, will unite, sooner or later, into the single world socialist union state, overcoming the national prejudices that hamper this great global process.
It is curious that Stalin and his successors refused to promote the development of this process. Although Marx, Engels and Lenin – the founders of the concept of state socialism – declared that the socialist revolution shall unite peoples of the world into the single state, but after the victory of socialist revolutions in several dozens of countries, only the Soviet Union was created that included the countries being formerly parts of Russian empire. After the accomplishment of socialist revolutions in Central Europe in 1940s, in China – in 1949, and, later, in other countries of the world: in Asia, Africa and America – the idea of amalgamation of all socialist countries into the single union state has been buried. Internationalists who advocated this idea, began to be abusively named “non-related cosmopolites”, while the communists that shifted to the position of isolationism and nationalism began to call themselves patriots.
Obviously, it can be explained by the fact that the Russian communists were afraid to become a minority. After all, Russian people constituted only one half of population of the USSR, and if the European socialist countries (from Poland to Albania) entered the USSR, Russian population would constitute only one third of population of the Soviet Union, so that the threat to its leading role would appear. In the Communist party, the threat to the leading role of Russian communists would take place.
But if, after the association of European socialist countries, only the menace to the supremacy of Russian nation and Russian communists would appear, then, after the entry of China into the USSR, this threat would inevitably turn into reality. In such a case, two thirds of population of this union state (irrespective of its name) would constitute the Chinese, and the role of the leader of this state would pass on to the Chinese and Chinese communists. And such a fact could not suit Russian communists for whom their leadership in the world was the main point.
The time will pass, the socialist revolution will win, sooner or later, in all countries of the world; and all the countries with renewed, market, cooperative (not state-bureaucratic) socialism will begin to amalgamate into the world socialist union state uniting, in the end, all the nations and peoples of the world into the single world national community that is formed in the great process of economic and state-political integration and national-ethnic assimilation. There will be one state, one nation (of whatever name), one race and one language. And then, wars will cease one and for all; figuratively speaking, they will be deposited to the antiquity museum.
Together with socialist national revolution, after the accomplishment of socialist social revolution, the socialist cultural revolution will also take place, the aim of which is the revolutionary transformations in spiritual-cultural relations of society: ideology, morals, art, literature – in short, in the spiritual and material culture of society as a whole.
New ideology, new morals, new culture are necessary for new society, new social (and political) structure for its consolidation; for overcoming the remnants of old, capitalist exploiter society; for elimination of mass criminality that represents a norm of life in capitalism (and state-bureaucratic socialism) unacceptable for co-operative socialism; for revival of animate nature that was and is being destroyed by capitalists for the sake of profits – their only life aim.
Along with socialist national and socialist cultural revolutions, the socialist democratic revolution should take place in the socialist society; it should replace the despotic state by democratic one, one-party system – by multi-party one, unitary state – by federation or confederation, presidential or parliamentary legislation – by direct people’s legislation.
The socialist democratic revolution is necessary, because, as historical practise testifies, after the victory of socialist social revolution, either restricted democracy, oligarchy, or, finally, tyranny is being established in the country, since the revolutionary forces are in need of limitation of political rights and democratic freedoms of bourgeoisie to retain and strengthen their power. And if the socialism is of state-bureaucratic form, then the state becomes totalitarian one, in which not only bourgeoisie, but also other social layers of socialist society: workers, peasants, intellectuals, employees, small bureaucracy – are deprived of any rights.
The issue of necessity of accomplishment of socialist democratic revolution in socialist society is of so much importance for the destiny of socialism and the world socialist revolution, that the need to illustrate it at the example of the Soviet Union appears.
The Soviet state of the first decade of its existence was, by its social essence, a proletarian state or, as bolsheviks said, the dictatorship of proletariat. Proletarian essence of Soviet state of that period arises from the fact that the October revolution was realized by proletariat with the support of poor peasants under the guidance of the Russian social democratic worker’s party (bolsheviks) for the sake of proletariat.
However, the political development did not follow the way foreseen by bolsheviks before the revolution. The bolsheviks began to restrict democratic freedoms and political rights at once after the violent capture of power; after the general democratic elections to the Constituent Assembly, at which the bolsheviks took only 25% of votes, the democratic freedoms and political rights gained by the people of Russia as a result of the February revolution were utterly eliminated and the Constituent Assembly had been dispersed.
The inner-party opposition was restricted and then, at the X congress of Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) – RKP(B) – in March 1921, it was eliminated altogether. The real political power passed on stepwise from proletariat to its political vanguard – RKP(B), then, from the party – to the party apparatus, and then – to RKP(B) Central Committee. The democratic form of state (in 1917) was replaced by the oligarchic form, since the power passed from the hands of people to the hands of small group of RKP(B) leaders. And people, including proletariat, lost not only power embodied in the Constituent Assembly and Soviets, but also all democratic freedoms and political rights.
In the second half of 1920s, when the Soviet leaders with I.Stalin at the head refused from Lenin’s new economic policy in favour of centralized directive-plan economy, there began a new stage in the evolution of Soviet state – the stage of radical change of its social essence. New, oligarchic form of Soviet state gave birth to a new content. The state of revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat turned to the state of reactionary dictatorship of bureaucracy.
If, previously, the Soviet proletarian state expressed, to some extent, the interests of labourers and was directed mainly against the class of capitalist bourgeoisie, their allies and defenders, then, since the end of 1920s, the Soviet bureaucratic state began to express the interests of new dominant class of bureaucracy and began to be directed mainly against labourers: peasants, intellectuals, employees and even workers.
The third stage of evolution of Soviet state began in the middle of 1930s. New, bureaucratic essence of the state gave birth to its new form, and the oligarchic form of Soviet bureaucratic state was replaced by tyrannical form in its most crude, cruel and terrorist form - the form of totalitarian tyranny.
In order to establish and strengthen the totalitarian-tyrannical dictatorship, I.Stalin and his satraps had to eliminate physically (or to bring to suicide) the whole Leninist Guards, prominent Soviet state and public figures, outstanding independent personalities, who either did not support I.Stalin and his policy, or supported him insufficiently, such as Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinovyev, Pyatakov, Bukharin, Rykov, Rudzutak, Antonov-Ovseyenko, Kosior, Chubar’, Postyshev, Kirov, Kuybyshev, Ordzhonikidze, Yenukidze, Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir, Blucher and many others.
Stalin had also eliminated physically millions of Soviet labourers. Especially great number of Soviet people died in 1929 when the total collectivisation of peasants began; in winter and spring 1932-33 when the artificially produced starvation burst out in the countryside of Ukraine, Kuban and Siberia; in 1937-38 during the Great Terror of N.Yezhov; in 1939-40 during the military and political co-operation of I.Stalin and A.Hitler; in 1942, at the time of World War II; and in 1949, in process of creation of Stalin’s empire.
During the three decades of Stalin’s rule, several dozen million Soviet people were eliminated physically by means of shooting, tortures, hunger, hard exhausting work, suicide. This was a bloody tribute rendered by the long-suffering Soviet people to the cruel Stalin’s dictatorship that turned to totalitarian-tyrannical dictatorship in 1937.
After the death of the red dictator in 1953, the bureaucratic totalitarian-tyrannical state was so much compromised by its bloody crimes that it could exist in the same form no more. As a result, the transformation of bureaucratic state took place: it substituted its tyrannical form for oligarchic one. The state power transferred from the hands of one man – dictator-tyrant – to the hands of small group of people – oligarchy in the person of Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.
The Soviet bureaucratic state remains oligarchic by form even today, although, from time to time, some insignificant changes took place in Soviet oligarchic one-party state: now a palace revolution (1964), now party-governmental crisis (1957), now the state power passed on from Politburo to CPSU CC, now, in some time, returned back to Politburo, now Politburo and CC shared power with one another.
However, irrespective of the changes of the form of Soviet state, was it tyranny or more or less wide oligarchy, the Soviet single-party state remains the same by its social nature. It, even up to the present time, remains a bureaucratic state, a state of reactionary dictatorship of bureaucracy, directed against the labourers, used for subordination of labourers to bureaucracy, for retention of socio-economic dominance of the latter.
And, certainly, the bureaucracy, especially the partocracy, will inevitably oppose to any progressive reforms, to any progressive reconstruction, including the modern Gorbachov’s perestroika (timid and inconsequent), to any expansion of glasnost and, especially, to democratisation (and that is confirmed by dismissal of B.Yeltsin under pressure of party bureaucracy), since they either pose a threat to the dominance of bureaucracy, or significantly restrict it. And the complete, consequent, real, and not pretended, not false democratisation will inevitably put an end to its rule.
Wishing to retain its dominance and preferred position at any price, the bureaucracy and its high-paid learned ideologists-lackeys, who get regularly their “30 silver coins” from the state sinecure, are vainly trying to prove that there exists the socialist democracy in the Soviet society and other socialist countries, since, they say, there is no private capitalist ownership of means of production here and, consequently, there is no exploitation of man by man. At that, they deliberately confuse the forms of political structure and the forms of social structure.
But if we, right after the lackeys-ideologists of bureaucracy, recognize that any socialist, including one-party, state is a democratic state only on the basis of the fact that, in it, there exists not private but state ownership of the main means of production and the latter are in common ownership of labourers and not of bureaucracy, then we should have to admit that not only modern Soviet state, but also the Stalin’s totalitarian state that killed many millions of Soviet people, and Maoistic terrorist state during the notorious cultural revolution in China, and Pol Pot’s state in Cambodia that carried out the policy of genocide against its own people having eliminated physically three of eight million citizens of the country during its bloody rule, are all democratic states.
The fact that the Gorbachov’s leadership has admitted the necessity of democratisation of Soviet society represents the recognition of absence of democracy in the USSR, since a democratic society does not need democracy – it simply has it already. Only non-democratic society needs democracy, the same way as hungry people need food, the unemployed need job and the homeless need dwelling.
Besides, the bureaucracy and its propagandists assert cynically that the labourers are accustomed to the one-party system and they don’t want the other parties to exist in the Soviet society. They are not necessary, they say.
The bureaucracy and its ideological servants are unoriginal concerning this point. Dictators of all times and nations, among them – Mussolini and Hitler, Franco and Salazar, affirmed, in one or another form, the same, i.e. that their peoples were not in need of multi-party democracy.
However, if the Soviet labourers do not want multi-party democracy, do not want any other party but CPSU, why then the bureaucracy told the KGB to arrest those representatives of labourers striving, from time to time, to create some other parties? After all, if the labourers do not want any other party, then they simply would not vote for it during elections to Soviets of people’s deputies, and, instead of that, would vote for the ruling party – the CPSU, while the other, alternative party, standing, for example, for transformation of state-bureaucratic socialism to market co-operative socialism, would drag out a miserable existence and soon would cease to exist by itself – without prohibitions, arrests, tribunals, prisons, concentration camps and mental hospitals.
But this is a cynical lie! In fact, not labourers, but bureaucracy objects the multi-party democracy, since it is afraid that the labourers, under conditions of multi-party democracy, would vote for other parties, rendering the vote of no-confidence to the ruling CPSU and, in this way, depriving it of benefits and dominance.
But if we, nevertheless, suppose that the bureaucracy believes sincerely that the labourers really don’t want the substitution of single-party dictatorship for multi-party democracy, why then doesn’t it want to make a referendum on this question? The reason is the same: the bureaucracy is not sure that the majority of labourers would vote for the retention of single-party dictatorship. And it takes place under conditions of ideological fooling of wide masses of people, under conditions of social and political demagogy! And what would it be, if we first permit the unlimited activity of opposition parties and then, after democratisation, make a referendum concerning the multi-party democracy? Without a doubt, in such a case, not less than 90% of labourers would support the multi-party democracy. Only bureaucracy and the CPSU members would vote against the multi-party democracy.
The reactionary ideologists-propagandists of bureaucracy affirm in a loud voice, that “people and party are in unity”, that the only party in the country is the party of the whole nation, that people trust its party and support it. Indeed, some part of the labourers, being not able, under conditions of lawlessness and repressions, to know the opinion of opponents of the country leaders on some or other question of political and economic life of society, trust bureaucracy, its party and ideologists, being under the influence of their demagogy and one-sided information. But even in Hitler’s Germany (as well as in other fascist countries), a considerable part of labourers supported the fascist party (the only one in the country) and trusted it. But does it mean that Hitler’s nazi party was the party of the whole German people and not the party of the ruling class of Germany? Besides, although the major part of labourers in socialist countries do not support bureaucracy and its party, that is, in particular, proved by the fact that the overwhelming majority of labourers refuses to enter the party of bureaucracy, but they have to support both bureaucracy and its party in public being afraid of repressions. Permanent repressions for dissent, truthful information and expression of their opinions in bureaucratic society have taught and continue to teach labourers to have two opinions: one – official, public and insincere – for bureaucracy, and another – informal, frank and truthful – for other labourers. Labourers are forced to accommodate themselves to bureaucratic society of total lie, duplicity, hypocrisy, being the norm of life for bureaucracy and getting such for some part of labourers.
The bureaucracy does not want its rights to be equalized with those of labourers. It wants, at any price, to preserve its political and economic dominance, its economic benefits, its power over labourers.
To secure its socio-economic domination, the bureaucracy wants to retain its monstrously swollen bureaucratic state standing on guard of its interests. And the bureaucracy will resolutely fight against the transformation of bureaucratic state to socialist democratic state, using any means of its arsenal.
The bureaucracy will resolutely fight against the transformation of state-bureaucratic socialism to market co-operative socialism.
The bureaucracy will desperately struggle against the democratisation of bureaucratic society, i.e. against the replacement of oligarchic form of state by democratic form, of oligarchic single-party state – by socialist democratic multi-party state.
But however strong the resistance of bureaucracy would be, it will not stop the historical process, the progressive development of society with its objective regularities becoming apparent as economic, social, political and spiritual-cultural needs of labourers; the evidence of this are the attempts of labourers of European socialist countries to accomplish the deep social reforms and democratisation of society. These attempts, that cycle in socialist world every 12 years: in 1956 – in Hungary, in 1968 – in Czechoslovakia, in 1980 – in Poland, were violently stopped by the bureaucracy of the USSR; the latter proved to be worthy successor of imperial foreign policy of Russian emperors and tsarist bureaucracy of XIX century, that the same way cruelly suppressed the democratic movement in bourgeois Europe.
The evidence of inevitability of democratisation of Soviet society is a powerful democratic movement that embraced the whole Eastern Europe and overthrew all the totalitarian regimes existing there for 45 years as a result of victorious democratic revolutions. One more proof is the victory of democratic forces at semi-democratic elections in a number of Soviet republics: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia and Georgia. The CRSU “won” only in the places where other parties and movements were not allowed to nominate their candidates. Undoubtedly, the CPSU will be defeated in any place where multi-party democratic elections will take place. The CPSU has no future!
The main democratic freedoms and political rights, that are characteristic of the socialist democracy, include: freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, meetings, demonstrations; free information exchange; right to criticize any citizen of the state, including the highest functionaries: the head of state, the head of government, the head of ruling party, all the leaders of state and leaders of all parties; right to establish independent co-operative publishing houses and typographies, right to publish independent papers and magazines; right to create independent, including opposition, organizations: clubs, societies, trade-unions, movements, political parties; universal suffrage, both active and passive; freedom of conscience, including the propagation of religious literature; freedom of movement in native and foreign countries without any restrictions, abolition of political procedure of passport registration; inviolability of the home and personal immunity, except the persons that committed penal action or are suspected of it. The socialist democracy is also characterized by the right of labourers to participate in the management of their enterprises.
In all the socialist countries (with the exception of the last year in Eastern Europe), all these and other democratic freedoms and political and social rights either are absent altogether, or are being cruelly and cynically violated every day.
The socialist multi-party democracy is necessary both on account of moral considerations, and from the standpoint of economic expediency. It is needed from the moral point of view, since it is in democratic society that people realize themselves as valuable, free citizens, not the lawless subjects of the ruling class, as it is the case in non-democratic, in particular – in the modern Soviet, society. The multi-party democracy is also needed from the standpoint of economic expediency, because the opposition parties will always find out and make public all the negative phenomena that, under the absence of democratic freedoms, are usually being hidden by the bureaucracy responsible for these phenomena. And in democratic society, the ruling party will aim either not to permit negative phenomena at all, preventing them in time, or to eliminate these phenomena at once when they are discovered; the latter is necessary for the ruling party to retain its popularity among electorate and, consequently to hold the power. In such a way, all the parties, both ruling and opposition, will constantly promote the elimination of negative phenomena in socialist society causing a significant speeding-up the social and economic, scientific and technological, political and spiritual-cultural progress of society.
The elections with participation of only one party, as it is the case in the USSR, resemble a sports competition with participation of only one team. This sports team has no need to train, to go in for gymnastics, to prepare for competitions. After all, it will win anyway. The only political party in the country has no need to prepare for elections, to take part in election campaign. In any case, the winner will be it – the only party in the country.
The socialist democracy will take place in the socialist society, if the people are not condemned only for their assertion (as if for slander), that there is no democracy in the country.
The distinction between the multi-party democratic state and the single-party oligarchic and tyrannical socialist states is in the fact that, in the former, opposition sits on parliament bench, while, in the latter, it sits on the dock for the accused.
The distinction between the socialist democratic state and the socialist oligarchic state (for example, the Soviet state under Khruschov or Brezhnev) or the socialist tyrannical state (for example, the Soviet state under Stalin) is the same as the distinction between the bourgeois-democratic state (for example, a modern West European state) and the bourgeois-oligarchic state (for example, one of Latin American states ruled by military-fascist junta or the racist South-African state) or the bourgeois-tyrannical state (for example, Italy under Mussolini or Germany under Hitler).
As the historical science testifies, the period of transition from capitalism to advanced socialism, i.e. the market-cooperative socialism, corresponds to the transition socialist state that can be either oligarchic, or tyrannical one. The social inequality in this transition period, the period of underdeveloped state-bureaucratic socialism, is accompanied by political inequality the expression of which is the consolidation and existence of socialist-bureaucratic state of oligarchic or tyrannical form.
And the advanced cooperative socialism with its social equality of all classes and layers of society corresponds best of all to the socialist multi-party democratic state with political equality of all its citizens, with wide, pluralistic democracy being a reflection of political equality.
Therefore, while there exists the socio-economic inequality between bureaucracy and labourers, the former will always aim at keeping or restoration of political inequality being the precondition of retention of domination of bureaucracy. But if we eliminate the social inequality and retain the political inequality, then the latter will inevitably cause the restoration of social inequality, as it was the case in the USSR after the period of new economic policy (NEP) and in Yugoslavia after the reforms at the end of 1940s.
The prerequisite of retention of social equality under the socialism is the consolidation and retention of political equality, i.e. complete, wide, multi-party, pluralistic socialist democracy – democracy not only for bureaucracy but for all the labourers as well, democracy not only for the majority of labourers supporting the country leadership but also for the minority of labourers that does not support it, constitute the opposition to it. There is no democracy without opposition!
The bureaucratic state, using the repressive apparatus of KGB and militia that stands on guard of socio-economic domination of bureaucracy and the political rule of partocracy, struggles against the reformers, fighters for human rights, democrats, adherents of market cooperative socialism, the otherwise-minded, active believers, nationalists, dissidents; at that, the most immoral, crude, cruel and cynical methods and means are applied: slander, threats, illegal detentions and arrests, false evidence, falsification of documents, coercion (assault and battery, tortures) in process of investigation and serving sentences, prisons, concentration camps, exiles, punishment cells, mental hospitals, unlawful convictions to deprivation of liberty, illegal long-term and even termless keeping in prisons, camps and mental hospitals.
The bureaucracy, unable to get the better of opposition using ideological and political means, struggles with it using police and repressive methods. The modern opposition in the USSR is in the same position as the opposition (including Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, socialists-revolutionaries, anarchists) in Russian empire was. With the only exception: in Russian empire, all the left parties were forbidden, were without the law or subject to restrictions, while in the socialist Soviet Union the same is valid for all parties except one – the ruling one. What a twist of fate of socialism: the bourgeois governments in capitalist countries are not afraid of socialist and communist opposition and permit its unrestricted activity, while the communist governments in socialist countries are afraid of opposition and prohibit or restrict its activity in every way, since the prohibition and restrictions are the signs of fear and weakness of bureaucracy, but not of its force.
But however hard is the rage of servants of bureaucracy, the state-bureaucratic socialism will, sooner of later, be eliminated and replaced by the market cooperative socialism! The rule of bureaucracy will, sooner or later, be abolished and substituted for socialist democracy! The oligarchic state and the power of CPSU will, sooner or later, be overthrown and the socialist multi-party democracy with its great moral principles: political freedom, social equality and national fraternity, will be established in the Soviet society!
The socialist democratic revolution is the same natural phenomenon of social development as the communal-democratic, the slave-holding – democratic and the bourgeois-democratic revolutions. The socialist democratic revolution is the same natural phenomenon of social development as the scientific and technological revolution, as the socialist social, cultural and national revolutions. And the socialist democratic revolution shall, sooner or later, follow the socialist social revolution in every country.
[Table of contents]