TKP/ML: Return to capitalism: Its Reasons and outcomes

After the October Revolution, the socialist relations of production were immediately started to build. Under the leadership of the Comrades Lenin and Stalin, despite all of the obstacles of a backward social structure, the Soviet people accomplished to develop an advanced socialist system thanks to a great altruistic effort, miraculous developments, and well-disciplined struggle. However, following the death of the Comrade Stalin, the Revisionist approach reversed back all the achievements of the socialism by re-constructing the capitalist production relations. Doubtlessly, return to capitalism from socialism and the triumph of bourgeoisie through a counter-revolution are indeed very critical issues on which the Communist movement should pay particular attention, and leap into class struggle by taking lessons from this experience. In fact, today the imperialist-capitalist system is making use of this return and ruin as a means of weakening/disorganizing the working-class and oppressed people/nations against its reactionary barbarian system. The U-turns have ideological and political impacts, leading the Proletariat to retreat from the class struggle. Therefore, clarifying/informing the revolutionary and communist attitude towards it would ideologically affect by leading them to cling to the class struggle in a strong and efficient manner.

Well then, how this historical progression based on the conditions in which the Proletariat seized the power, put an end to the private property of means of production and communized them thanks to a long-term struggle, and the socialist production relations superseded the capitalist ones was turned over. This complicated issue is directly related to an accurate determination of the characteristics of the contradictions embodied within the socialist system and our position against them. In this regard, the answer allowing us to explain these returns was actually given by the Comrade Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong ascertained the existence of the classes and the class struggle in the socialist system by analyzing the contradictions between the socialist production relations and the forces of production, along with the economical base and the superstructure. He formulated the general political line which should be followed over the course of socialist period as follows: “Socialist society covers a very long historical period. Throughout this historical stage, there exist classes, class contradictions, and class struggles along with the struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism. There is also the existence of capitalist restoration and the threat of invasion and subversion by imperialism and social imperialism. These contradictions can only be resolved based on the continual revolution theory under the leadership of proletariat dictatorship and the practical guidance of this theory.” This clear and as far as apparent expression of the Comrade Mao and his general political approach in line with it ease our comprehension on “return to capitalism” issue and make it possible for us to take more drastic lessons.

The perspective presented by the Comrade Mao is certainly nurtured by the lessons taken from the socialist experiences and the philosophical views of his predecessors on socialist process. Indeed, Karl Marx emphasized that socialist society is just the beginning of communist society and gave critical clues regarding the characteristics of a socialist society and its contradictions by saying “… a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”.

In addition, the Comrade Mao stated concerning the foundations of bourgeoisie’s life-style as this; “Lenin said that ’small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continually, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale’. They are also engendered among a part of the working class and of the party membership. Both with the ranks of the proletariat and amongst the personnel of state and other organs there are people who take the bourgeois style of life.”

Also, V. I. Lenin’s emphasis on the characteristics of the contradiction that was experienced throughout the socialist period is particularly important in terms of the essence of the issue; „This transition period cannot but be a period of struggle between moribund capitalism and nascent communism.“

Mao Zedong’s approach on class struggle in socialism was quite new. Lenin and J. Stalin too stressed out the class struggle and partly the impacts of superstructure on economical base. However, it was limited with the “transition period” for both of them. They had presupposition that after an entire socialist transition of agricultural, industry and commerce, the economical reasons of the class struggle would vanish. They associated the class struggle rather ongoing cultural effect of the bourgeoisie who lost its power, the imperialist siege and the intrigues of its agents. The class struggle was considered in the context of death throes of exploitive classes that became relatively less significant and subjected to the superstructure within the ideological-cultural sphere. Besides to acknowledge this aspect, Mao Zedong made a tremendous contribution to theoretical and historical richness of scientific socialism by showing that class-foundations of the class struggle indeed exists within the socialist society and socialism is actually a class-society.

We will briefly mention to the basic objective-foundations of reversing socialism within the allowed time. One of the basic grounds for the existence and re-production of the classes within socialism is to necessarily protect the ‘Rights’ concept of bourgeoisie. In the first stage/first step, communism cannot be completely mature yet and cannot be free from capitalist traditions and traits. In a socialist society, bourgeois rights are eliminated in terms of private property. Moreover, these bourgeois rights are significantly effective among interrelations of people depending on existing basic differences between workers and peasants, urban and rural, mental and physical work, and along with distribution based on commodity production and the work subjected to exchange with money. In the dictatorship of proletariat, “bourgeois right” are only limited and at the same time, the relevant conditions are prepared in order to abolish this right. Socialist property of whole people depends on commodity system, exchange with money and distribution based on work; and in the process of exchange with money and distribution based on work, equal rights of commodity system are still bourgeois rights. Only when socialist property of whole people flourishes more and more, transforming into a communist property of people, the society would free itself from class characteristics and traditions/marks of capitalism. That is to say, “bourgeois right” concept would have material grounds until all classes are abolished throughout transformation from socialism to communism. In the meantime, this “right” would constitute a problem which the proletariat should struggle against and overcome by being aware of it. For the very reason, dictatorship and power apparatus are the things that the Proletariat cannot abandon. In fact, limiting and abolishing this ‘right’ and eliminating the classes are contingent upon political power of the proletariat.

Another economical ground for the existence of new bourgeoisie in socialism is money. Money still has to be used. In his discussion with Dühring, F. Engels addressed the relationship with money as a universal equivalent and commodity. Lenin highlighted money-related problems within a socialist society by saying; “until abolishing money….we should tolerate equality in the Constitution; we should endure practically having the right of exploitation for all who owns money”. Engels and Lenin also warned communists about exploitation ability of money turning into capital at any moment, and its mystification since it does not disclose accumulation process as being objectified dead labor. However, we should not overlook the fact that money obtains this character as being means of exchange and universal equivalent of commodities. This function of money is realized thanks to bourgeois modus operandi of labor-value theory and the bourgeois right established on it. Therefore, use of money functions as a derivative of bourgeois equality of right and a catalyst. It is determined by existence of bourgeois right. It is not the origin of new bourgeoisie on its own. On the other hand, its ongoing existence shows that commodity exchange and dual nature of value theory still persist. This fact can remind communists that socialism is indeed a class-society and the ultimate winner is not certain yet.

Another aspect which determines time span for establishment of socialism and allows expand/deepen class contradictions in socialism is Imperialism. Highlighting the characteristics of the era in 1963 polemics by saying “we are still in an era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions”, Chinese communists were trying to draw attention imperialist siege and continuous attacks to socialism in the international arena. It should be remember that this reality is like a knife put on throat of socialism, an opportunity whetting the appetite of reactionary bourgeoisie and a support for its power will. One of the most important factors for a quick and effective step into communism is to prepare conditions in order to make free international proletariat in all fronts of the world. It shouldn’t be forget; otherwise, socialism would be more oppressed, experience more difficulties and its construction period would take longer. Doubtlessly, even though imperialism is not the basic factor leading u-turns, it is a significant parameter.

By referring these major grounds, Mao Zedong emphasized the class struggle in socialism. He pointed out that the most consolidated and intensified platform of it is the Communist Party. In this context, he concentrated on class struggle within the Communist Party, acknowledging class character of revisionism which feeds capitalist roaders and originates from this fountain. Indeed, the driver of political power is the Party. Capitalist roaders mostly proliferate and find a ground within the party.

Lenin says “…in order to abolish classes completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary also to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the distinction between manual workers and brain workers. This requires a very long period of time.” Actually, all dichotomies such as revolutionary and conservative, true and wrong, or progressive and backward have class characteristics. These are directed, regulated and affected by the main contradiction in the society; bourgeoisie and proletariat. Also, contradictions among people would influence the contradictions between socialist way and capitalist way to a certain extend. Hence, in the last instance relationship among working people is class-relations. In this sense, Socialism is a class-society structure in which class struggle with proletariat as determinant and bourgeoisie as determined, goes on without interruption.

Thus, it is very vital for proletariat to have political power against reversing socialism. Therefore, Comrade Mao organized the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution against these u-turns. The GPCR became a political, ideological, cultural revolution and a class struggle which comprised the party and the society. The primary aim of the GPCR was to transform superstructure and one of its basic elements; the communist party. Loosing the party means, loosing the state, and the power accordingly. Once the political power is loosen, it means that all achievements of socialism would melt away one by one due to bourgeoisified party, and because the bourgeoisie re-seized the State, namely with Lenin’s words the “proletarian State as a bourgeois State, without bourgeoisie”.

At this point, we can ask whether it is possible get rid of this threat by wiping off the capitalist roaders from the party and state organizations. Of course, purging and rectifying movement leaded by communists may take the possibility of loosing political power off the agenda for a while. However, the GPCR is much more than this. Mao Zedong pointed out this reality with his words; ““…struggles against the capitalist roaders in the Party is the principal task, but not the object. The object is to solve the problem of world outlook and eradicate revisionism… If world outlook is not reformed, then although 2,000 capitalist roaders are removed in the current great Cultural Revolution, 4000 others may appear next time.” In this regard, the GPCR cannot be considered as a rectifying movement or a campaign. It is a social and political revolution which carries out a class struggle within socialism in order to seize or strengthen the power on behalf of proletariat.

The GPCR is a product of class character of socialism, thus the class-struggle and it is a power struggle in itself. In other words, socialist forces of production and socialist relations of production are far from perfectly reflecting communal property of means of production for economical base and superstructure and distribution principles originating from it, and various forms of property in socialism does not constitute a complete communal property. Within the conditions in which commodity production and applying theory of value are necessary, bourgeois right exists and the contradictions between mental and physical labor, and the ruler and the ruled are just about to resolve, not only relations of production should be revolutionized but also the superstructure should be kept consistently revolutionary. The GPCR showed how we can do this. It revealed how class struggle would be shaped under socialism, and provided the method and the tool that should be followed and used by proletariat respectively. Therefore, Mao Zedong particularly overstressed that the GPCR is just the beginning.

We would like to mention another important point. While the Soviet experience and other socialism experiences are analyzed, several approaches define bureaucracy as a class by referring its reactionary role. They claim that the returns occurred due to this layer by becoming as a class. In reality, it was not about the bureaucracy which seized the power. The socialist experiences of 20th century, especially Soviet and China instances transform to socialism from state capitalism. In Soviets it was based on NEP, whereas in China the transition from New Democracy to socialism took place. Although these two have several differences pertain to their conditions, both of them made use of state capitalism in order to establish socialist property of means of production and socialist relations of production. Modern revisionists and capitalist roaders actualized the return by walking back the same path. Since they had no power to overtly act against ideological and cultural transformations that were induced by revolutions and socialist transformations on conscious of proletariat and working people, they had to cover up their walk to capitalism by flying red flag for a long time. Explaining the return issue with bureaucratization (an administrative corruption) means to content it with just the surface of the things. Of course, the appearance of the returns is in the form of bureaucratic state capitalism. However, the bureaucratic power was established by the bourgeoisie. The State turned into a bourgeois state. It was no more an apparatus of the Proletarian dictatorship. Indeed, this claim is suffered from not seeing the leadership role of the party. All one-sided perspectives that criticize bourgeoisie by considering proletariat as an opposite side of bureaucracy oppose the centralism aspect of the democratic centralism objectively. Indeed, by condemning this crucial feature of the proletarian dictatorship the proletarian dictatorship would be ignored.

Likewise socialism requires revolutionizing the relations of production and the institutions of superstructure starting with seizing power, establishing proletarian dictatorship and communizing property of means of production; the capitalist restoration is also required to seize political power, transforming communal property of means of production to private property gradually, and aligning relations of production and superstructure with capitalism as well. Transition into state capitalism/being in need of it is not observed only during the Capitalist Restoration in Revisionist governments. It is also valid for many reactionary states that were not socialist. In this sense, defining “bureaucracy” as a class and explaining the returns with this layer lead to overlook the class-character of the issue and its material reason.

Consequently, from the grave diggers of socialism and the architects of the return Khrushchev and Brezhnev to Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, all revisionists and their collaborators promote this doctrine; when socialist public property becomes the only economical base, all exploitive classes would vanish. According to this view, all relations of production containing relations of people would lose its class character in the end, and inter-relations among people allegedly turn into relations between “comrades, fellows, sisters and brothers”. This nonsense is totally what Marxism is not, and does not have a ground within the reality of socialist society. This approach covers the reality of class struggle in socialism, weakens the proletariat, discourages them and impairs their power perspective. During the last century, for the proletariat the most important lesson which should be learnt from socialism experiences is to comprehend socialism as an area of class struggle. And with this awareness, again for the proletariat the need to make continuous revolution under socialism in order to not lose power is just a matter of understanding that class struggle goes on without interruption.

Also eventually, outcomes of the returns had destructive effects on class struggle. We would like to end up our presentation by listing these outcomes and important points briefly.

It is seen that power perspective of the proletariat falls beyond that of bourgeoisie. The one who denied and destroyed socialism is not large masses. In fact, it is the bourgeoisie that builds capitalism by surrounding it and continues its existence under socialism. This class brought political power under control by seizing power within the Communist Party and allowed to return gradually. The most significant conclusion that should be drawn is the importance and determining role of Political power. Today, it is tried to make working class and oppressed masses lose its power perspective through “impotence” fantasies and “democracy” discourse in the name of progressivism.

While organizing revolution and after the revolution; it is required to determine class compositions correctly and properly. Indeed, it is very important to distinguish the bourgeois classes and the proletariat within production relations based on their own objectivity and to continue the struggle between these two without any interruption. Mapping classes on wrong base would blunt the essence of class struggle and its progression ability, thus provide a basis for revisionism. Under the socialist systems and today as well, the “working class” definition is made ambiguous as far as possible, and by defining petit bourgeois classes within the working class, a ground for “class compradors” are created. In this regard, it is very crucial for proletariat to adhere strictly to the science of society and history Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, comprehend and adopt it as a compass.

The returns are mainly a political defeat. This defeat created unfavorable conditions which negatively affect commitments to the struggle of working class and oppressed social layers, and raise doubts on world-view in favor of them. This issue should be also considered as a matter which cannot be coped with by communists and revolutionary parties. Actually, the working class and oppressed fractions of society are aware of exploitation, but they are far from recognizing the need for power. In that vein, this ambiguity towards the proletariat dictatorship, one of the most important apparatus of working class for class struggle is strengthened with reformism. The proletariat dictatorship undergoes an ideological attack against itself. There is a propaganda claiming that socialism was defeated due to this power apparatus. The communists are responsible for enabling working class to understand the need and importance of proletarian dictatorship, and telling that it allows their real emancipation.

Communism and the communist parties are exposed to an extensive isolation within large masses. Along with ideological and political oppressions, it is tried to convince masses of people that it is possible to make the “class struggle” without any need for communist leading force and the party. Indeed this claim is promoted to masses by offering that all social uprisings and changes can be as a revolution without a leadership. With an amorphous perspective, wide masses are besieged by a petit-bourgeois understanding limited in terms of building and gaining emancipation. Concordantly, it is tried to make working class and oppressed classes leaderless by devaluing the leadership role and the historical mission of the communist party. Indeed, the need for communist party and its important role for revolution become more apparent both during reversing period of socialism and while organizing the revolution. A position with an ideological clarity has a vital importance for communists.

Accelerating returns to capitalism, imperialist aggression and national liberation movements lead to discussions claiming that our time is not the age of “proletarian revolutions” anymore. One of the most important tasks for the communists is to reveal that we are still in the “age of imperialism and proletarian revolution”, by analyzing in the light of recent developments and experienced defeats. At this point, we have to put an end to this ambiguity through an accurate and strict principal attitude.