"Socialism" of the Soviet Union and China
What is the necessity of its transformation to capitalism?
The 80th Russian revolution anniversary

'Storm Petrel' No.612 Jan 1, 1997

It is the 80th anniversary of the Russian revolution this year, and it will soon be time to commemorate half a century since the Chinese revolution took place. The Soviet Union's Socialism and the Communist party's rule which was the result of the Russian revolution are now compared to a "Dying dog", and Communism itself has now been branded with a very negative image.

Communism failed in the Soviet Union where the state was sinking further and further into bankruptcy, even though it seemed to retain its external strength.

Though China still appears to be a Socialist state, it is not socialism in the true sense of the word, and  certainly not with any traditional historical concept to it. Indeed, it seems that the Bourgeoisie plays an ever increasing role in China's development, and perhaps even accelerates it.

If the Chinese Communist Party restrains the economic development of China its existence will be  threatened, and it will run the risk of being overthrown. During either the 80 years of the Soviet regime or half a century of Chinese Communism, the system of "Socialism" in the Soviet Union and China has been  explained to the worker and has been believed in by the proletariat.

Therefore the reality of the political systems in both the ex-Soviet Union and China represents a  metaphorical tool of socialisms valid attack on the Bourgeoisie. It is clear that both societies are actually at present run as class-based and materialistic/capitalistic socio-economic systems where any actual Socialist principles are virtually non-existent, and this evidence fuels the viewpoint that Socialism is not viable either in the long-term or in todays Globalised economy.

It is necesarry, therefore, for the working-classes of the world to know the truth behind the revolutions which took place in the Soviet Union and China, the systems introduced afterwards, and their historical context:　

The secrets of the Stalinist system -- Evolution and dismantlement of Soviet State Capitalism after the Revolution of 1917.

When the October revolution broke out in Russia 80 years ago, the working-classes of the world rejoiced for it was the first time a true Socialist nation had been formed in the history of the human race. Capitalism was still the basis of European, Asian, and American societies, the working classes were suppressed, overworked and exploited, individual labourers had no rights In short, they were not men. The nation in which the working classes were at last liberated was Russia, and the social upheaval there paved the way to Global Revolution. The workers of the world believed that if they followed the workers of Russia they too could institute social change in their respective countries.

However the capitalists of Europe and the World were able to endure and supress the worker's rights and protests, and the Russian revolution remained isolated. The isolation of Russia led in turn to the creation of the State-capitalism system.

This concept was not novel. Lenin has employed this concept during the conflict with Germany in the First World War. Moreover, the system instigated after the Russian revolution is actually referred to during the revolution itself, and Lenin began to discuss it with greater clarity when the Bolshevik regime adopted the NEP (new economic policy) in the spring of 1921.

Lenin did not think that a true Socialist state could be constructed immediately in Russia. Russia economy was inadquately prepared for Socialism, a fact which Lenin and another Russian Marxist/Socialist, Narohdoniki, understood all too clearly.

When Marxists queried the views of Narohdoniki in relation to the Russian Revolution's aims, Lenin explained how State Capitalism was feasible in a Socialist/Marxist State:

Lenin constructed State Capitalism in Russia around a Socialist material base and in doing so managed to retain the essence of Socialism and also remain faithful to Marxist ideals .

The experiences of those subjected to so-called "War-Communism" during the revolutionary years made it clear that it was nigh on impossible to introduce Socialism in its most basic form into Russia at once. The farmers of Russia who made up a large part of the population would have never accepted the radicalism of direct Socialist principles. If pressured by the Bolsheviks they might have roused themselves into action and instituted counter-revolutionary activity and overthrown Communism.Clearly caution was called for.

NEP was the only viable option for Lenin and the new Socialist leaders of Russia. NEP was a kind of capitalism, but a sort through which Lenin could "manage and control the proletarian nation" and through which wealth could be far more evenly distributed.

The nation proletarian did not mean the system was socialism only by it. Oppositely, the proletarian nation was provided for by this system and was subordinate to it, too, and could do nothing but make it so.

As Lenin also said, the state capitalism in the age of NEP had the characteristic in the point that "the nation was gripping the control high ground of economy", that is, the nation is grasping the point of finance,  circulation, and the trade and finance. However, economy moves basically by the law of the commodity  economy. Therefore, it was NEP. The farmer produced according to the principle of free economy. On the other hand, a national enterprise also produced based on "Commercial calculation".

System of Stalin principle

Stalin completely seized powers from 1928 to 29 years, and he called to "construct socialism" and started an agricultural grouping. The restriction of industry is thoroughly strengthening and "heavy industry making" policy came to be promoted strongly by the name of "socialism".

Of course, organizing to farmer's group agriculture had a definite meaning, because the farmer had the majority of the population still at that time. It was considered to be socialistic construction to deny farmer's existence as the peasant and to organize them in the member in socialistic group farm directly.

Stalin's "state capitalism", that is represented at the opportunity of grouping farmer and reinforcement of industrial restriction, forced construction of heavy industry, price management (Premeditated price reduction of farm products, thorough deprivation of farmer through finance and circulation), what its characteristic was? What characteristic is it distinguished from the state capitalism in Lenin's age?

The plainest is one that Lenin's state capitalism basically rules "Control high ground" of economy, and for an individual unit of economy, there was room of a comparatively "free economic activity". The nation was able to be restricted, put even on every corner of economy for this by management in the state capitalism of the Stalinism. The focus was a price and the price was thoroughly managed. It concentrated the deprivation of agriculture and the deprived social surplus value on the nation and became a definite means which changed to the field capital of industrialization, that is, capital through the nation. The price of farm products was decided low on purpose (it became the income of the nation) and the price when selling it has been raised abnormally high adding "Dealings tax" to it. This became lever of the strong accumulation of the deprivation of the farmer by the nation which had to curve and the capital.

Industrial work became the compulsion work of one, too. The worker was entrusted to the exploitation of the remainder though principle bureaucrat Stalin wanted any democratic right to be deprived.

It can be said that Stalin's economic theory that was "The value law should not be used thoroughly (to the arbitrary target) by the nation and must not be left to a free movement" was a typical ideology of the Stalin principle exactly state capitalism.

The system of principle "fear" despotism of Stalin is "superstructure" of the exploitation system of such a state capitalism and had a historical role and the meaning as these kind of things.

It might be clear that it is the one for such a state power system to contain one inner contradiction at a glance. After having passed the age of enthusiastic initial work reinforcement, it prepared general stagnation of the society because a social power of production cannot be developed. After all, it led to the decline and the bankruptcy of the state capitalism.

A bourgeois nature of the system was actualized.

The contradiction of such a system has been concealed about one in the war preparation and World War II assuming that it is aggressive. Completely actualizing the contradiction had to wait for end of the war and Stalin's deaths.

It is clarified that the system of the Stalinism became a restraint of one for economical development of Russia when the war ends in 1945 and Stalin dies in 1953 -- and, when the time of economy of postwar days ends --.

Furushichof has already mightily exposed Stalin in 1956. However, He only morally criticized Stalin and hardly talked about an economic policy about the system.

However, the change appeared at once and Furushichof began also to adopt the first one of the policy which had been called "an economic liberalization policy" -- capitalistic policy or capitalism introduction policy -- back. For instance, he decided the dismantlement of the tractor station. This system managed the farmer by the nation and was one which was the ruled important tool.

Furushichof was declared that "The Soviet Union has already finished the construction of socialism and the Soviet Union will be able to reach the communism principle by about 1980" in the 22nd time rally of Soviet Communist Party in 1961 and made all over the world frighteningly by it. He emphasized that industrial production develops so that the Soviet Union may reach the communism principle and an not inferior life level to abundant consumer goods and the United States alone is necessary and it is necessary to improve the productivity of Soviet industry for this, strengthen material stimulation to the worker, and advance the development and the introduction of a new, advanced technology thoroughly.

It was said as it was necessary to introduce "Profit concept" as a standard of "efficiency" of industrial production as the commodity production had to be developed more thoroughly to reach the communism principle concurrently to such a boast of Furushichof and a true content of "Communism" of Furushichof was disclosed from the beginning by these. The thesis of Leebellman's "Value the profit" is announced and it is not chance at all that it was this 1961 even year to have gained 'the favorable comment' in the entire 'liberal' world.

A strong insistence which is that it was necessary to decrease the index of goods in had the appearance of "Profit controversy" or said what, valuing an economical index of material stimulation etc. as the index of the management of the enterprise more, putting the encouragement money of worker's pay opportunity, and production appeared when becoming this. It is such a voice, coming, and becoming to both powerful more and more, and it has risen even to the emphasis with a necessary liberalization of the price and free competition, too (though there was a temporary retreat).

After 1960's, a lot of 'liberal' economic reformations were done. However such a partial improvement all exposed the insufficiency of the reformation and inconsistent and clarified the contradiction of an old principle Stalin system further. It only made an economic system of the Soviet Union clear cannot revive more and more, when they lose a more radical reformation.

Such a tendency is an additionally descending of a relative retreat and the pace at the development of industry in the Soviet Union and the position of agriculture and it was a result by itself. The nation was made lever by a national, economical exploitation and the accumulated capital began to demand existence as "Capital". Thus, the age when the shift from the state capitalism, that is, concealed capitalism to open capitalism became a problem came.

Bourgeois power began to grow up internally in the Soviet Union. They began to demand to the loud voice more and more management of economy according to a capitalistic principle. Bourgeois power of the Soviet Union was a wide layer of the bureaucrat layer and the intellectual of a upper layer part and a national enterprise of national powers. They started an intentional correction and the misinterpretation of the Marxism and strengthened the attack to not only the Stalin criticism but also "Lenin and Marx who caused the Stalinism" more and more. The one named Soviet Union "Marxism" after 1930's cannot already have been essentially confided and the one after 60's plainly discloses bourgeois essence. Strong help of "Marxism" of such the Soviet Union is obtained and a plain correction principle etc. of the Marxism -- "Democratic revolution" route of Japan Communist Party or opportunism of structural improvementism -- extend completely.

There will not be mystery even if bourgeois by reach even a constant step power starts eliminating the Stalinism system either. Bourgeois power started eliminating the state capitalism system from the end of 1980's to 90's and they were able to make this revolution succeed in Eastern Europe and Russia.

The world which had been called a socialism system before was completely hesitatingly, either was made to the bourgeois, and shifted to a literal capitalism system -- however, capitalism system national which concentrated extremely monopoly -- by Eastern European revolution and dismantlement of the Soviet Union etc.

However, the Soviet Union etc. did not shift to capitalism for the first time at this time. These systems are bourgeois the basis of the system and have consistently accomplished bourgeois evolution. Therefore, so to speak, the revolution in about 1990 as 'the completion' was able to occur. Essence where the system of Russia and Eastern Europe was concealed was neither exposed it any more. that Vietnam, China, and Cuba also chased subsequent talks about the necessity and the essence of the development of this system to us.

We already consistently expose bourgeois essence of the Stalinism system -- it is a system such as the Soviet Union which have been beautifying it because Japanese Communist Party etc. call "socialism" -- in 1960's and have asked to the overthrow of the Stalinism bureaucrat.

As for a Russian revolution, as the great and class behavior of the proletarian, eternally it is an encouragement for the worker in the world and an infinite lesson is filled. However, it taught that it is the one to make high consideration of working class in existence and the other side assumption though socialism was called "Abundant products of just the overflow" the power of production which develops highly, that is, Marx in one side and means alone powers and the administration, and it not man's is neither will, desire (subjectivity) alone it is nor one lacking the assumption which can be acquired practicing us. Socialism is a historical, realistic existence and not the one at all ideal and 'the will' either.