The Transformation of Marxism into Stalinism
Why and How Did It Become Inevitable?
Hayashi Hiroyoshi
17 July 1983
Marxist Workers' Alliance
Official Newspaper “Spark” No. 598
The Application of Marxism to ‘Backward Countries’
The transformation of Marxism into ‘Stalinism’—this is a historical phenomenon that is more significant than the transformation of Marxism into opportunism and revisionism at the turn of the century, yet it is also far more complex. Without a proper understanding of this fact, the working class will be unable to wage a consistent and thorough struggle against capital.
The meaning of this transformation is clear. It represents a shift from Marxism to its opposite, namely, a shift toward certain bourgeois positions and ideas. In this sense, it is essentially the same phenomenon as the previous revisionist transformation.
However, the distinction also becomes immediately apparent. In this case, the distinction is also important because, in reality, while emphasising the ‘Socialist Party-Japanese Communist Party united front,’ it is clear that the two parties cannot agree completely and will not merge.
The decline of the Communist Party (its transition to a bourgeois position) is basically manifested in two ways. One is that the task of socialist transformation of capitalism has been replaced by the task of democratic reform. What ‘defending democracy’ means—in modern Japan—is self-evident to Marxists. This signifies nothing other than the fall of revolutionary Marxism into ordinary, mundane bourgeois reformism.
The second aspect is that class coordination and ‘integration’ are emphasised instead of class struggle against capital. This is the so-called Communist Party's ‘theory (tactics) of the democratic united front.’
This tactic is, at its core, a petty-bourgeois illusion. Since the February Revolution of 1848, the idea of a ‘democratic’ united front to counter reactionary forces and the concept of mass unity have repeatedly emerged. However, history has made it clear that the content of such unity is, in fact, collaboration with the bourgeoisie.
The experiences of the Popular Front in France and Spain in the 1930s, the post-World War II ‘National’ Front—the blatant alliance between the Stalinist Communist Party and bourgeois parties in France and Italy— as well as the experience of the socialist-communist government in Chile in the early 1970s and the recent experience of Japan's ‘progressive’ local governments—all of these reveal that the Communist Party's so-called ‘united front’ was ultimately a ‘united front’ with the bourgeoisie, a form of class collaborationism, or that it inevitably led to such a conclusion.
The transformation of Marxism into Stalinism was an inevitable result of the formation of a state capitalist world, and as the revolutions in Russia and China triumphed, Marxism transformed into Stalinism.
In short, these countries had merely entered the era of the ‘democratic’ revolution that was supposed to mark the beginning of capitalist development, and Marxism was introduced only to the extent that it responded to these objective demands, not as a theory of proletarian socialism.
Herein lies the reason why the application of Marxism to Russia by Plekhanov and Lenin served as a precedent and a model. The difficulty of this application itself becomes immediately clear when one considers the twenty years of struggle waged by Plekhanov and his ‘Labour Liberation Group.’ The transition from Narodnikism to Marxism was by no means an easy task for Russia's ‘anti-establishment’ forces.
Learning from Plekhanov, Lenin developed a ‘strategy’ for the Russian Revolution, which was summarised in the slogan ‘the revolutionary, democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.’ Here, Lenin put forward a programme in which the working class (the Workers' Party) would take the lead in the bourgeois democratic revolution. Unlike Trotsky's ‘permanent revolution’ theory, Lenin's ‘strategy’ was not directly linked to the prospects for socialist construction in Russia.
As is well known, Trotsky argued that the Russian bourgeois revolution, which could only triumph as the dictatorship of the proletariat, must ‘permanently’ advance toward socialism through the victory of the proletarian revolution in Europe and its assistance. In this way, he combined the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution and established their ‘structure.’ (If you prefer, you could say that this is the prototype of Stalin’s “theory that the democratic revolution grows and transforms into socialism”’).
This naturally raises a question: if Lenin also advocated ‘democratic revolution’ and, after the October Revolution, expressed his “conviction” that ‘socialist Russia will emerge from NEP Russia,’ then what exactly is the difference between Lenin's argument and Stalin's ‘two-stage revolution theory’? Are they not essentially the same?
In response to such questions, if we assume that Russia and China are socialist states, it is impossible to provide an absolutely correct answer. Recognising the bourgeois nature of the socio-economic systems of the Soviet Union and China, and then summarising Lenin and Stalin's theories based on this recognition—this alone will lead to a scientifically correct conclusion regarding the theories of the two.
The Dilemma of Russian Marxism
The question posed to Russian Marxists was as follows: In a backward country where feudal relations prevail, where the tsar exercises absolute power, where industrial workers are still few in number, and where, objectively speaking, the country is merely facing a bourgeois democratic revolution, how should Marxists and the proletariat act and fight in such a state, without compromising or deviating from their class principles in the slightest?
The answer seems simple, but it is not. Lenin, drawing lessons from the 1848 revolution in Germany, emphasises that the working class must participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution, or take the lead in it, in order to fight it through to the end without leaving it half-finished.
Both Plekhanov and Lenin, indeed all ‘Social Democrats,’ acknowledged the bourgeois character of the Russian Revolution. Lenin's opposition to the Mensheviks was directed against the historical fatalism and hypocritical passivity that claimed, ‘Since it is a bourgeois revolution, it is the task of the bourgeoisie.’ The proletariat must actively participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution, push it forward to the end, and sweep away the old forces and old relations—because the bourgeoisie will become increasingly reluctant to complete the bourgeois revolution as the workers' class struggle develops, and will compromise with the old reactionary forces and abandon the struggle. Therefore, it is necessary for the working class to cooperate with the peasantry to carry out democratic reforms to the end.
Lenin stated the following regarding the relationship between the bourgeois revolution and Marxism.
Marxism does not teach the proletariat to stay away from the bourgeois revolution, to refrain from participating in it, or to hand over leadership to the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, Marxism teaches the proletariat to participate most energetically in the bourgeois revolution, to fight resolutely to carry the revolution through to the end for the sake of thoroughgoing proletarian democracy. We cannot break out of the bourgeois democratic framework of the Russian Revolution, but we can greatly expand this framework. Within this framework, we can and must fight to create the conditions for training the proletariat's forces for the sake of the proletariat's interests, its immediate needs, and in preparation for future complete victory‘ (’Two Tactics in the Democratic Revolution," National Library, p. 53).
The participation of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution was inevitable, because the proletariat had a vested interest in sweeping away feudal relations. The question was how they would participate. Would they do so in a way that did not trust the bourgeoisie and pushed it aside, or would they do so in a way that trusted the bourgeoisie (or, based on the ‘belief’ that the bourgeoisie should take the lead because it was a bourgeois revolution) and promoted it?
It is clear that both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks had their ‘drawbacks.’ The Mensheviks' approach would have made even the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution uncertain. On the other hand, it was unclear what the Bolsheviks' approach would lead to. If the Mensheviks' approach had been followed, it was clear that the bourgeoisie would have come to power after the revolution. However, what would have come of the Bolsheviks' approach? The bourgeoisie would have been sidelined by the revolution and, if they had allied themselves with the old feudal forces, they could have been overthrown by the proletariat. It was said that a dictatorship of the workers and peasants would be organised, but would this regime voluntarily hand over power to the bourgeoisie, or would it adopt some policy towards socialism? Lenin and his comrades did not provide clear answers to these questions, leaving the answers to the course of history itself.
Lenin's slogan was ‘the democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.’ The term “democratic” here is used to describe the historical and class-based nature of this revolution, rather than as a concept opposed to ‘socialist’ dictatorship.
However, was it not, in a sense, a dilemma for the working class to ‘take the lead’ in fighting for a bourgeois democratic revolution? —Although Lenin does not state this explicitly, he implicitly assumed that after the feudal forces were swept away by the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, a constitutional assembly would be convened, and the workers would retreat into the bourgeois order—because he repeatedly argued that the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution should be clearly distinguished and not confused. Furthermore, he emphasised that only after this revolution could there be genuine, rapid capitalist development in Russia.
Does this not mean that the proletariat is actually taking the lead in the revolution for the bourgeoisie? When we talk about capitalism, is it not simply the most highly developed form of slavery for workers?
For workers to fight for the domination of the bourgeoisie, who oppress and exploit them, does this not objectively mean that they are becoming the tools of the bourgeoisie?
There is undoubtedly a difficult problem and a contradiction here—of course, this is a reflection of the contradictions in reality, and the contradictory position of the Russian Marxists was merely a reflection of that.
Lenin understood this difficulty well, which is why he said that the bourgeois revolution is more beneficial to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie. Of course, Lenin added the caveat ‘in a sense.’ In other words, if the bourgeois revolution is carried out to the end, all feudal elements are swept away, a democratic republic is established, capitalism develops rapidly, and the conditions for the proletariat to carry out open socialist class struggle to the end are achieved—if the bourgeois revolution takes place in this way, then it is more beneficial to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie.
How should we evaluate Lenin's ‘positive’ argument? The Mensheviks argued that the bourgeois revolution was the work of the bourgeoisie, so workers had to be careful not to act too revolutionarily and scare off the bourgeoisie, causing them to retreat from the revolutionary struggle. Workers should instead leave political struggle to the bourgeoisie, maintain their class position, and devote their efforts to trade union movements and the struggle for improved economic status."
Thus, the Bolsheviks appeared as a bourgeois party (a party of the whole people), while the Mensheviks appeared as a class-based party of the workers.
However, this was only superficial. What the Bolsheviks actually emphasised was that in order to achieve a bourgeois revolution in reality, it was necessary for the working class itself to rise up, rather than relying on the bourgeoisie, which would betray the revolution. In short, they argued that trusting the bourgeoisie or cooperating with it would be of no use.
On the other hand, the Mensheviks believed that it was essential to trust the bourgeoisie and cooperate with it, arguing that the revolution Russia was facing was a bourgeois revolution and that the bourgeoisie was the main force behind it.
The Bolsheviks firmly maintained their position of class struggle against the bourgeoisie, while also telling the working class to take the lead in the bourgeois revolution. The Mensheviks argued that the bourgeois revolution was the work of the bourgeoisie, and that taking the lead in it was a dilemma for the workers. They claimed that during the bourgeois revolution, the workers could at best encourage the bourgeoisie and push them forward, but that they should not play any other role. Instead, they should remain in their own position as the working class, such as through trade union movements.
I am certain that the workers will oppose the opportunistic Mensheviks and support the revolutionary Bolsheviks.
In fact, even if the Mensheviks claimed to fight for the improvement of workers' economic status, as long as Tsarist autocracy persisted, workers had no rights whatsoever, and thus could not actually fight. For the class struggle of workers—aiming for the improvement of their economic status—and the socialist struggle to develop freely, as Lenin also stated, Tsarist autocracy and feudal relations had to be swept away.
The working class in developing countries had to first resolve feudal or colonial relations before openly engaging in socialist struggles. Resolving these issues paved the way for the rapid development of capitalism, rather than leading directly to socialism.
There was no trace of Stalinist notions such as the ‘transformation of the democratic revolution into socialism’ in Lenin's theory. Rather, Lenin insisted on clearly distinguishing between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution. He insisted on this distinction in order to make it clear that the immediate revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
‘(The immediate liberation of the working class, socialist liberation) is a ridiculous, semi-anarchistic idea.’ "Given the degree of Russia's economic development (objective conditions) and the degree of awareness and organisation among the broad masses of the proletariat (subjective conditions inseparably linked to objective conditions), it is impossible to immediately and completely liberate the working class. Only completely ignorant people can ignore the fact that the democratic reforms currently underway are bourgeois in nature" (p. 22).
Of course, both Lenin and Plekhanov ardently desired to bring the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution closer together, and in ‘Two Tactics,’ they discussed ‘spreading the flames’ of the Russian democratic revolution to Western Europe.
We must not fear the complete victory of the Social Democratic Party in the democratic revolution, that is, the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry (as Martynov fears). For such a victory would give us the possibility of raising Europe to its feet, and the socialist proletariat of Europe, having thrown off the yoke of the bourgeoisie, would in turn help us to carry out the socialist transformation" (ibid., p. 99).
Nevertheless, Lenin firmly rejects the unscientific argument that the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution are two stages of a single revolution.
Furthermore, Lenin states as a matter of course that, just as was the case with the French Revolution, the proletariat will (must) leave an indelible mark on the coming bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia. However, the matter of ‘imposing a mark’ and the historical and class character of the entire process are distinct issues. Even if a profound proletarian mark were to be imposed, Lenin was confident that the impending Russian Revolution would be a bourgeois revolution, one that ‘cannot touch the foundations of capitalism’ and ‘cannot transcend the bourgeois social (economic) framework directly.’
The establishment of state capitalism and Stalinism
The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution can be said to have practically resolved the ‘dilemma’ of the working class.
It has been historically proven that the liberal bourgeoisie was unable to seriously fight against Tsarism and lacked the power to do so. If left to them, the task of overthrowing feudal forces would never have been accomplished. Only the uprising of workers and soldiers, who were ‘peasants in uniform,’ could sweep away the Tsarist regime. In this sense, the Bolsheviks were right and the Mensheviks were wrong.
However, did the revolution really bring about a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’? And did it crush the counter-revolution, convene a ‘constituent assembly,’ and transition to a bourgeois democratic republic?
The fact that the regime established by the October Revolution can be called a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ in a certain sense is clear from Lenin's deliberate emphasis that the Bolshevik regime was ‘not a workers' government, but a government of workers and peasants.’
However, instead of convening a Constituent Assembly and stepping down, this workers' and peasants' regime dissolved it and elevated itself to a new state.
However, this regime could not transition directly to socialism and was forced to shift to the ‘policy’ of the NEP, that is, the ‘introduction’ of state capitalism. The liberal bourgeoisie went bankrupt, and it was exposed that it could not exist in Russia, but the poison of capitalism was not overcome. The only possible system was state capitalism. History “resolved” this ‘dilemma’ in this way.
The fact that this state capitalism system was an inevitability for backward nations was perfectly proven by the fact that the labour-peasant revolutions in China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, and—in short—all backward nations ultimately led to state capitalism. State capitalism had become a historical reality.
Although state capitalism operates within the limits of capitalism, it represents a great historical advance compared to the feudal, semi-colonial Russia and China. Only in this form could ‘backward’ Russia and Asia find a path to ‘catch up’ with the West, and this is precisely what should be called the dialectic of history.
Although the proletariat left a strong proletarian mark on the Russian Revolution and other events, objectively speaking, it fought for the state capitalist system. This conclusion is not surprising. Lenin himself advised workers to take the lead in fighting for the bourgeois democratic revolution. Lenin's ‘democratic republic’ and American-style capitalist development did not materialise as such, but they did appear in the form of state capitalism—which, in a sense, was what Lenin had sought, insofar as it brought about the thorough elimination of the old feudal system and rapid capitalist development on top of that. However, the ‘thorough democracy’ that Lenin had hoped for could not exist under the Stalinist regime (Lenin argued that only under thorough democracy could the workers' open socialist struggle begin and be carried out).
How should we evaluate the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and China in light of Lenin's ‘strategy’ of a bourgeois revolution that would be advantageous not to the big bourgeoisie but to the workers and peasants? Was it really a form that was more advantageous to the workers than a normal bourgeois state? It seems clear that the notion of a bourgeois revolution favourable to workers can only be discussed within certain limits. — Of course, Lenin is not absolutising it, but the fact remains that he emphasises it.
We believe that it is far more important to recognise that state capitalism in the Soviet Union and China was a necessity in underdeveloped countries than to engage in debates about whether it was an ‘advantageous form’—advantageous in some respects but not in others.
Lenin argued that the proletariat must participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution and take the lead because the bourgeoisie is preparing to betray them. If the proletariat does not take the lead, bourgeois development will be distorted and carried out in a manner extremely disadvantageous to the workers, and the conditions for the workers to openly fight for socialism will be curtailed and restricted.
Stalin ‘developed’ Lenin's logic, arguing that the proletariat should participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution (without necessarily taking the lead or drawing a line between itself and the bourgeoisie), and that this bourgeois revolution would ‘grow and transform into socialism’ (though it was completely unclear when or how).
This is the logic of Lenin and Stalin. Both are discussing the bourgeois democratic revolution, but their positions are already fundamentally different. Lenin was faithful to historical materialism and clearly understood the historical and conceptual distinction between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution. On the other hand, Stalin was completely careless and arbitrary on this point. Lenin spoke about the bourgeois revolution in Russia and the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution. This was because the revolution facing Russia at the time was nothing more than a bourgeois democratic revolution. However, unlike Lenin, Stalin spoke of the ‘transformation of the democratic revolution into socialism’ without considering the specific circumstances. This is precisely why Stalin, who appeared to rely on and be faithful to Lenin, was in fact the opposite. From Lenin's ideas, for example, the conclusion that the task of the Japanese working class is to directly overthrow the power of capital and fight for socialism emerges.
However, from Stalinism, as is the case with the Japanese Communist Party, only a pitiful ‘stages theory’ and a dreadful opportunism emerge, such as ‘first democratic reforms, and then socialism through them.’
The Future of Stalinism
Finally, let us discuss the fate and future of Stalinism.
Stalinism's ‘two-stage revolution theory’ has had a significant influence for a long time (and still does—it has an overwhelming, almost metaphysical influence on the minds of Miyamoto and others!).
Its influence stemmed from the myth that the Soviet Union and China were socialist countries, which persisted for decades, and from the fact that Stalin's vulgar theory seemed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon—after all, didn't the revolutions in Russia and China, which began as democratic revolutions and workers' and peasants' dictatorships, give rise to and ‘grow’ into socialist Russia and China?
We can only conclude that the fate of Stalinism depends, on the one hand, on the fate of the Soviet Union, China, and other countries—not only those that have already embarked on the path of state capitalism, but also those that are about to do so—and, on the other hand, on how realistic the revolutionary prospects presented by Miyamoto and Fusa are.
It is clear that we cannot simply say that state capitalism has no future, that it has already completely decayed. The fact that there are by no means few backward countries that will enter this path of development in the future is evident from the contradictions of the global capitalist system being passed on to backward countries and the growing struggles of the working people in those countries.
The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution had a huge impact on workers around the world, and illusions in state capitalism swelled. However, the bourgeois nature of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, the Cultural Revolution in China, and the Deng Xiaoping regime made it inevitable for the masses to abandon their illusions in state capitalism. As the true nature of socialism in the Soviet Union and China becomes clearer, this trend will only accelerate. ‘Stalinism’ has already suffered a major blow as a result.
The social contradictions in the Soviet Union and China are becoming increasingly evident, as Miyamoto and others are forced to resort to evasive arguments such as ‘autonomy and independence’ and ‘the theory of generative socialism’ to avoid responsibility and make excuses.
Of course, no matter how much Miyamoto proclaims ‘autonomy and independence,’ he cannot deny his Stalinist identity. For example, in the Kuril Islands ‘return’ issue, he claims that only they can persuade the Soviet Union, emphasising their special connection with the Soviet state capitalist bourgeoisie. Their criticism of the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and China is opportunistic, not principled or essential. Their ‘autonomy and independence’ is nothing but a sham.
Furthermore, what truth is there in the prospect of ‘democratic transformation to socialism’ in Japan? It is safe to say that there is not a single worker who seriously believes in such a thing today. This is because the idea that socialism will emerge through the ‘stages’ of neutrality and democratic union is essentially nonsense.
In other words, given that the current state of affairs in the world's state capitalist countries—the Soviet Union and China—can no longer arouse the expectations of the masses, and given that Miyamoto's ‘revolutionary outlook’ within Japan is nothing more than a dogma, we can conclude that Stalinism has no future and cannot have one.
In the Upper House election held in June 1983, the Communist Party managed to secure only four million votes. With a membership of several hundred thousand and claiming to have several hundred thousand readers of its newspaper, the Akahata, these figures are indeed meagre and dismal. Each copy of the ‘Red Flag’ represents only one vote. This figure decisively exposes the fact that the Communist Party is a sect and cannot secure the mass support of workers.
Moreover, how many of these four million votes actually come from workers? As evidenced by its defence of private property, the Communist Party's policies are increasingly being ‘evolved’ in a direction that appeals to the petty bourgeoisie. It is clear that the four million votes obtained by the Communist Party are a pitiful achievement, and that the reason this party cannot secure the support of millions or tens of millions of workers is not due to ‘anti-Communist attacks’ or the like, but rather to the true nature of the party and its policies.
There is no future for a Stalinist party; it is, in essence, a petty-bourgeois sectarian party and will remain so.
The transformation of Marxism into Stalinism was linked to the global expansion of state capitalism, which made it appear to be an overwhelming and irresistible force. However, the true nature of Stalinism has now been fully exposed, its collapse has been laid bare everywhere, and the conditions for the development of a new proletarian party and its struggle are expanding.
Just as Lenin once protested against and fought against the revisionist deviation of Marxism, reviving true revolutionary socialism, we too must fight against Stalinism, overthrow it, restore true Marxism, and build a new proletarian socialist movement.
Hayashi Hiroyoshi
17 July 1983
Marxist Workers' Alliance
Official Newspaper “Spark” No. 598
https://wpll-j.org/mcgtext/kokkasihon/kokkasihon2.htm#5
https://wpll-j.org/mcgtext/kokkasihon/kokkasihon.htm
17 July 1983
Marxist Workers' Alliance
Official Newspaper “Spark” No. 598
A hundred years have passed since Marx's death, and 135 years since the publication of The Communist Manifesto. However, the struggle for the liberation of the working class and the revolutionary communist movement have not led to a global victory but, on the contrary, have entered a period of deep crisis over the past half-century. It is clear that this crisis was brought about by the transformation of Marxism into ‘Stalinism.’ We will now discuss why and how this transformation occurred, and what its significance is.
The Application of Marxism to ‘Backward Countries’
The transformation of Marxism into ‘Stalinism’—this is a historical phenomenon that is more significant than the transformation of Marxism into opportunism and revisionism at the turn of the century, yet it is also far more complex. Without a proper understanding of this fact, the working class will be unable to wage a consistent and thorough struggle against capital.
The meaning of this transformation is clear. It represents a shift from Marxism to its opposite, namely, a shift toward certain bourgeois positions and ideas. In this sense, it is essentially the same phenomenon as the previous revisionist transformation.
However, the distinction also becomes immediately apparent. In this case, the distinction is also important because, in reality, while emphasising the ‘Socialist Party-Japanese Communist Party united front,’ it is clear that the two parties cannot agree completely and will not merge.
The decline of the Communist Party (its transition to a bourgeois position) is basically manifested in two ways. One is that the task of socialist transformation of capitalism has been replaced by the task of democratic reform. What ‘defending democracy’ means—in modern Japan—is self-evident to Marxists. This signifies nothing other than the fall of revolutionary Marxism into ordinary, mundane bourgeois reformism.
The second aspect is that class coordination and ‘integration’ are emphasised instead of class struggle against capital. This is the so-called Communist Party's ‘theory (tactics) of the democratic united front.’
This tactic is, at its core, a petty-bourgeois illusion. Since the February Revolution of 1848, the idea of a ‘democratic’ united front to counter reactionary forces and the concept of mass unity have repeatedly emerged. However, history has made it clear that the content of such unity is, in fact, collaboration with the bourgeoisie.
The experiences of the Popular Front in France and Spain in the 1930s, the post-World War II ‘National’ Front—the blatant alliance between the Stalinist Communist Party and bourgeois parties in France and Italy— as well as the experience of the socialist-communist government in Chile in the early 1970s and the recent experience of Japan's ‘progressive’ local governments—all of these reveal that the Communist Party's so-called ‘united front’ was ultimately a ‘united front’ with the bourgeoisie, a form of class collaborationism, or that it inevitably led to such a conclusion.
The transformation of Marxism into Stalinism was an inevitable result of the formation of a state capitalist world, and as the revolutions in Russia and China triumphed, Marxism transformed into Stalinism.
In short, these countries had merely entered the era of the ‘democratic’ revolution that was supposed to mark the beginning of capitalist development, and Marxism was introduced only to the extent that it responded to these objective demands, not as a theory of proletarian socialism.
Herein lies the reason why the application of Marxism to Russia by Plekhanov and Lenin served as a precedent and a model. The difficulty of this application itself becomes immediately clear when one considers the twenty years of struggle waged by Plekhanov and his ‘Labour Liberation Group.’ The transition from Narodnikism to Marxism was by no means an easy task for Russia's ‘anti-establishment’ forces.
Learning from Plekhanov, Lenin developed a ‘strategy’ for the Russian Revolution, which was summarised in the slogan ‘the revolutionary, democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.’ Here, Lenin put forward a programme in which the working class (the Workers' Party) would take the lead in the bourgeois democratic revolution. Unlike Trotsky's ‘permanent revolution’ theory, Lenin's ‘strategy’ was not directly linked to the prospects for socialist construction in Russia.
As is well known, Trotsky argued that the Russian bourgeois revolution, which could only triumph as the dictatorship of the proletariat, must ‘permanently’ advance toward socialism through the victory of the proletarian revolution in Europe and its assistance. In this way, he combined the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution and established their ‘structure.’ (If you prefer, you could say that this is the prototype of Stalin’s “theory that the democratic revolution grows and transforms into socialism”’).
This naturally raises a question: if Lenin also advocated ‘democratic revolution’ and, after the October Revolution, expressed his “conviction” that ‘socialist Russia will emerge from NEP Russia,’ then what exactly is the difference between Lenin's argument and Stalin's ‘two-stage revolution theory’? Are they not essentially the same?
In response to such questions, if we assume that Russia and China are socialist states, it is impossible to provide an absolutely correct answer. Recognising the bourgeois nature of the socio-economic systems of the Soviet Union and China, and then summarising Lenin and Stalin's theories based on this recognition—this alone will lead to a scientifically correct conclusion regarding the theories of the two.
The Dilemma of Russian Marxism
The question posed to Russian Marxists was as follows: In a backward country where feudal relations prevail, where the tsar exercises absolute power, where industrial workers are still few in number, and where, objectively speaking, the country is merely facing a bourgeois democratic revolution, how should Marxists and the proletariat act and fight in such a state, without compromising or deviating from their class principles in the slightest?
The answer seems simple, but it is not. Lenin, drawing lessons from the 1848 revolution in Germany, emphasises that the working class must participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution, or take the lead in it, in order to fight it through to the end without leaving it half-finished.
Both Plekhanov and Lenin, indeed all ‘Social Democrats,’ acknowledged the bourgeois character of the Russian Revolution. Lenin's opposition to the Mensheviks was directed against the historical fatalism and hypocritical passivity that claimed, ‘Since it is a bourgeois revolution, it is the task of the bourgeoisie.’ The proletariat must actively participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution, push it forward to the end, and sweep away the old forces and old relations—because the bourgeoisie will become increasingly reluctant to complete the bourgeois revolution as the workers' class struggle develops, and will compromise with the old reactionary forces and abandon the struggle. Therefore, it is necessary for the working class to cooperate with the peasantry to carry out democratic reforms to the end.
Lenin stated the following regarding the relationship between the bourgeois revolution and Marxism.
Marxism does not teach the proletariat to stay away from the bourgeois revolution, to refrain from participating in it, or to hand over leadership to the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, Marxism teaches the proletariat to participate most energetically in the bourgeois revolution, to fight resolutely to carry the revolution through to the end for the sake of thoroughgoing proletarian democracy. We cannot break out of the bourgeois democratic framework of the Russian Revolution, but we can greatly expand this framework. Within this framework, we can and must fight to create the conditions for training the proletariat's forces for the sake of the proletariat's interests, its immediate needs, and in preparation for future complete victory‘ (’Two Tactics in the Democratic Revolution," National Library, p. 53).
The participation of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution was inevitable, because the proletariat had a vested interest in sweeping away feudal relations. The question was how they would participate. Would they do so in a way that did not trust the bourgeoisie and pushed it aside, or would they do so in a way that trusted the bourgeoisie (or, based on the ‘belief’ that the bourgeoisie should take the lead because it was a bourgeois revolution) and promoted it?
It is clear that both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks had their ‘drawbacks.’ The Mensheviks' approach would have made even the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution uncertain. On the other hand, it was unclear what the Bolsheviks' approach would lead to. If the Mensheviks' approach had been followed, it was clear that the bourgeoisie would have come to power after the revolution. However, what would have come of the Bolsheviks' approach? The bourgeoisie would have been sidelined by the revolution and, if they had allied themselves with the old feudal forces, they could have been overthrown by the proletariat. It was said that a dictatorship of the workers and peasants would be organised, but would this regime voluntarily hand over power to the bourgeoisie, or would it adopt some policy towards socialism? Lenin and his comrades did not provide clear answers to these questions, leaving the answers to the course of history itself.
Lenin's slogan was ‘the democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.’ The term “democratic” here is used to describe the historical and class-based nature of this revolution, rather than as a concept opposed to ‘socialist’ dictatorship.
However, was it not, in a sense, a dilemma for the working class to ‘take the lead’ in fighting for a bourgeois democratic revolution? —Although Lenin does not state this explicitly, he implicitly assumed that after the feudal forces were swept away by the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, a constitutional assembly would be convened, and the workers would retreat into the bourgeois order—because he repeatedly argued that the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution should be clearly distinguished and not confused. Furthermore, he emphasised that only after this revolution could there be genuine, rapid capitalist development in Russia.
Does this not mean that the proletariat is actually taking the lead in the revolution for the bourgeoisie? When we talk about capitalism, is it not simply the most highly developed form of slavery for workers?
For workers to fight for the domination of the bourgeoisie, who oppress and exploit them, does this not objectively mean that they are becoming the tools of the bourgeoisie?
There is undoubtedly a difficult problem and a contradiction here—of course, this is a reflection of the contradictions in reality, and the contradictory position of the Russian Marxists was merely a reflection of that.
Lenin understood this difficulty well, which is why he said that the bourgeois revolution is more beneficial to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie. Of course, Lenin added the caveat ‘in a sense.’ In other words, if the bourgeois revolution is carried out to the end, all feudal elements are swept away, a democratic republic is established, capitalism develops rapidly, and the conditions for the proletariat to carry out open socialist class struggle to the end are achieved—if the bourgeois revolution takes place in this way, then it is more beneficial to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie.
How should we evaluate Lenin's ‘positive’ argument? The Mensheviks argued that the bourgeois revolution was the work of the bourgeoisie, so workers had to be careful not to act too revolutionarily and scare off the bourgeoisie, causing them to retreat from the revolutionary struggle. Workers should instead leave political struggle to the bourgeoisie, maintain their class position, and devote their efforts to trade union movements and the struggle for improved economic status."
Thus, the Bolsheviks appeared as a bourgeois party (a party of the whole people), while the Mensheviks appeared as a class-based party of the workers.
However, this was only superficial. What the Bolsheviks actually emphasised was that in order to achieve a bourgeois revolution in reality, it was necessary for the working class itself to rise up, rather than relying on the bourgeoisie, which would betray the revolution. In short, they argued that trusting the bourgeoisie or cooperating with it would be of no use.
On the other hand, the Mensheviks believed that it was essential to trust the bourgeoisie and cooperate with it, arguing that the revolution Russia was facing was a bourgeois revolution and that the bourgeoisie was the main force behind it.
The Bolsheviks firmly maintained their position of class struggle against the bourgeoisie, while also telling the working class to take the lead in the bourgeois revolution. The Mensheviks argued that the bourgeois revolution was the work of the bourgeoisie, and that taking the lead in it was a dilemma for the workers. They claimed that during the bourgeois revolution, the workers could at best encourage the bourgeoisie and push them forward, but that they should not play any other role. Instead, they should remain in their own position as the working class, such as through trade union movements.
I am certain that the workers will oppose the opportunistic Mensheviks and support the revolutionary Bolsheviks.
In fact, even if the Mensheviks claimed to fight for the improvement of workers' economic status, as long as Tsarist autocracy persisted, workers had no rights whatsoever, and thus could not actually fight. For the class struggle of workers—aiming for the improvement of their economic status—and the socialist struggle to develop freely, as Lenin also stated, Tsarist autocracy and feudal relations had to be swept away.
The working class in developing countries had to first resolve feudal or colonial relations before openly engaging in socialist struggles. Resolving these issues paved the way for the rapid development of capitalism, rather than leading directly to socialism.
There was no trace of Stalinist notions such as the ‘transformation of the democratic revolution into socialism’ in Lenin's theory. Rather, Lenin insisted on clearly distinguishing between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution. He insisted on this distinction in order to make it clear that the immediate revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
‘(The immediate liberation of the working class, socialist liberation) is a ridiculous, semi-anarchistic idea.’ "Given the degree of Russia's economic development (objective conditions) and the degree of awareness and organisation among the broad masses of the proletariat (subjective conditions inseparably linked to objective conditions), it is impossible to immediately and completely liberate the working class. Only completely ignorant people can ignore the fact that the democratic reforms currently underway are bourgeois in nature" (p. 22).
Of course, both Lenin and Plekhanov ardently desired to bring the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution closer together, and in ‘Two Tactics,’ they discussed ‘spreading the flames’ of the Russian democratic revolution to Western Europe.
We must not fear the complete victory of the Social Democratic Party in the democratic revolution, that is, the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry (as Martynov fears). For such a victory would give us the possibility of raising Europe to its feet, and the socialist proletariat of Europe, having thrown off the yoke of the bourgeoisie, would in turn help us to carry out the socialist transformation" (ibid., p. 99).
Nevertheless, Lenin firmly rejects the unscientific argument that the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution are two stages of a single revolution.
Furthermore, Lenin states as a matter of course that, just as was the case with the French Revolution, the proletariat will (must) leave an indelible mark on the coming bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia. However, the matter of ‘imposing a mark’ and the historical and class character of the entire process are distinct issues. Even if a profound proletarian mark were to be imposed, Lenin was confident that the impending Russian Revolution would be a bourgeois revolution, one that ‘cannot touch the foundations of capitalism’ and ‘cannot transcend the bourgeois social (economic) framework directly.’
The establishment of state capitalism and Stalinism
The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution can be said to have practically resolved the ‘dilemma’ of the working class.
It has been historically proven that the liberal bourgeoisie was unable to seriously fight against Tsarism and lacked the power to do so. If left to them, the task of overthrowing feudal forces would never have been accomplished. Only the uprising of workers and soldiers, who were ‘peasants in uniform,’ could sweep away the Tsarist regime. In this sense, the Bolsheviks were right and the Mensheviks were wrong.
However, did the revolution really bring about a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’? And did it crush the counter-revolution, convene a ‘constituent assembly,’ and transition to a bourgeois democratic republic?
The fact that the regime established by the October Revolution can be called a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ in a certain sense is clear from Lenin's deliberate emphasis that the Bolshevik regime was ‘not a workers' government, but a government of workers and peasants.’
However, instead of convening a Constituent Assembly and stepping down, this workers' and peasants' regime dissolved it and elevated itself to a new state.
However, this regime could not transition directly to socialism and was forced to shift to the ‘policy’ of the NEP, that is, the ‘introduction’ of state capitalism. The liberal bourgeoisie went bankrupt, and it was exposed that it could not exist in Russia, but the poison of capitalism was not overcome. The only possible system was state capitalism. History “resolved” this ‘dilemma’ in this way.
The fact that this state capitalism system was an inevitability for backward nations was perfectly proven by the fact that the labour-peasant revolutions in China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, and—in short—all backward nations ultimately led to state capitalism. State capitalism had become a historical reality.
Although state capitalism operates within the limits of capitalism, it represents a great historical advance compared to the feudal, semi-colonial Russia and China. Only in this form could ‘backward’ Russia and Asia find a path to ‘catch up’ with the West, and this is precisely what should be called the dialectic of history.
Although the proletariat left a strong proletarian mark on the Russian Revolution and other events, objectively speaking, it fought for the state capitalist system. This conclusion is not surprising. Lenin himself advised workers to take the lead in fighting for the bourgeois democratic revolution. Lenin's ‘democratic republic’ and American-style capitalist development did not materialise as such, but they did appear in the form of state capitalism—which, in a sense, was what Lenin had sought, insofar as it brought about the thorough elimination of the old feudal system and rapid capitalist development on top of that. However, the ‘thorough democracy’ that Lenin had hoped for could not exist under the Stalinist regime (Lenin argued that only under thorough democracy could the workers' open socialist struggle begin and be carried out).
How should we evaluate the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and China in light of Lenin's ‘strategy’ of a bourgeois revolution that would be advantageous not to the big bourgeoisie but to the workers and peasants? Was it really a form that was more advantageous to the workers than a normal bourgeois state? It seems clear that the notion of a bourgeois revolution favourable to workers can only be discussed within certain limits. — Of course, Lenin is not absolutising it, but the fact remains that he emphasises it.
We believe that it is far more important to recognise that state capitalism in the Soviet Union and China was a necessity in underdeveloped countries than to engage in debates about whether it was an ‘advantageous form’—advantageous in some respects but not in others.
Lenin argued that the proletariat must participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution and take the lead because the bourgeoisie is preparing to betray them. If the proletariat does not take the lead, bourgeois development will be distorted and carried out in a manner extremely disadvantageous to the workers, and the conditions for the workers to openly fight for socialism will be curtailed and restricted.
Stalin ‘developed’ Lenin's logic, arguing that the proletariat should participate in the bourgeois democratic revolution (without necessarily taking the lead or drawing a line between itself and the bourgeoisie), and that this bourgeois revolution would ‘grow and transform into socialism’ (though it was completely unclear when or how).
This is the logic of Lenin and Stalin. Both are discussing the bourgeois democratic revolution, but their positions are already fundamentally different. Lenin was faithful to historical materialism and clearly understood the historical and conceptual distinction between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution. On the other hand, Stalin was completely careless and arbitrary on this point. Lenin spoke about the bourgeois revolution in Russia and the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution. This was because the revolution facing Russia at the time was nothing more than a bourgeois democratic revolution. However, unlike Lenin, Stalin spoke of the ‘transformation of the democratic revolution into socialism’ without considering the specific circumstances. This is precisely why Stalin, who appeared to rely on and be faithful to Lenin, was in fact the opposite. From Lenin's ideas, for example, the conclusion that the task of the Japanese working class is to directly overthrow the power of capital and fight for socialism emerges.
However, from Stalinism, as is the case with the Japanese Communist Party, only a pitiful ‘stages theory’ and a dreadful opportunism emerge, such as ‘first democratic reforms, and then socialism through them.’
The Future of Stalinism
Finally, let us discuss the fate and future of Stalinism.
Stalinism's ‘two-stage revolution theory’ has had a significant influence for a long time (and still does—it has an overwhelming, almost metaphysical influence on the minds of Miyamoto and others!).
Its influence stemmed from the myth that the Soviet Union and China were socialist countries, which persisted for decades, and from the fact that Stalin's vulgar theory seemed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon—after all, didn't the revolutions in Russia and China, which began as democratic revolutions and workers' and peasants' dictatorships, give rise to and ‘grow’ into socialist Russia and China?
We can only conclude that the fate of Stalinism depends, on the one hand, on the fate of the Soviet Union, China, and other countries—not only those that have already embarked on the path of state capitalism, but also those that are about to do so—and, on the other hand, on how realistic the revolutionary prospects presented by Miyamoto and Fusa are.
It is clear that we cannot simply say that state capitalism has no future, that it has already completely decayed. The fact that there are by no means few backward countries that will enter this path of development in the future is evident from the contradictions of the global capitalist system being passed on to backward countries and the growing struggles of the working people in those countries.
The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution had a huge impact on workers around the world, and illusions in state capitalism swelled. However, the bourgeois nature of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, the Cultural Revolution in China, and the Deng Xiaoping regime made it inevitable for the masses to abandon their illusions in state capitalism. As the true nature of socialism in the Soviet Union and China becomes clearer, this trend will only accelerate. ‘Stalinism’ has already suffered a major blow as a result.
The social contradictions in the Soviet Union and China are becoming increasingly evident, as Miyamoto and others are forced to resort to evasive arguments such as ‘autonomy and independence’ and ‘the theory of generative socialism’ to avoid responsibility and make excuses.
Of course, no matter how much Miyamoto proclaims ‘autonomy and independence,’ he cannot deny his Stalinist identity. For example, in the Kuril Islands ‘return’ issue, he claims that only they can persuade the Soviet Union, emphasising their special connection with the Soviet state capitalist bourgeoisie. Their criticism of the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and China is opportunistic, not principled or essential. Their ‘autonomy and independence’ is nothing but a sham.
Furthermore, what truth is there in the prospect of ‘democratic transformation to socialism’ in Japan? It is safe to say that there is not a single worker who seriously believes in such a thing today. This is because the idea that socialism will emerge through the ‘stages’ of neutrality and democratic union is essentially nonsense.
In other words, given that the current state of affairs in the world's state capitalist countries—the Soviet Union and China—can no longer arouse the expectations of the masses, and given that Miyamoto's ‘revolutionary outlook’ within Japan is nothing more than a dogma, we can conclude that Stalinism has no future and cannot have one.
In the Upper House election held in June 1983, the Communist Party managed to secure only four million votes. With a membership of several hundred thousand and claiming to have several hundred thousand readers of its newspaper, the Akahata, these figures are indeed meagre and dismal. Each copy of the ‘Red Flag’ represents only one vote. This figure decisively exposes the fact that the Communist Party is a sect and cannot secure the mass support of workers.
Moreover, how many of these four million votes actually come from workers? As evidenced by its defence of private property, the Communist Party's policies are increasingly being ‘evolved’ in a direction that appeals to the petty bourgeoisie. It is clear that the four million votes obtained by the Communist Party are a pitiful achievement, and that the reason this party cannot secure the support of millions or tens of millions of workers is not due to ‘anti-Communist attacks’ or the like, but rather to the true nature of the party and its policies.
There is no future for a Stalinist party; it is, in essence, a petty-bourgeois sectarian party and will remain so.
The transformation of Marxism into Stalinism was linked to the global expansion of state capitalism, which made it appear to be an overwhelming and irresistible force. However, the true nature of Stalinism has now been fully exposed, its collapse has been laid bare everywhere, and the conditions for the development of a new proletarian party and its struggle are expanding.
Just as Lenin once protested against and fought against the revisionist deviation of Marxism, reviving true revolutionary socialism, we too must fight against Stalinism, overthrow it, restore true Marxism, and build a new proletarian socialist movement.
Hayashi Hiroyoshi
17 July 1983
Marxist Workers' Alliance
Official Newspaper “Spark” No. 598
https://wpll-j.org/mcgtext/kokkasihon/kokkasihon2.htm#5
https://wpll-j.org/mcgtext/kokkasihon/kokkasihon.htm
Marx's Labor Theory of Value:
A Defense
– March 29, 2005
by
Hayashi Hiroyoshi (Author),
Roy West (Translator)
A Defense
– March 29, 2005
by
Hayashi Hiroyoshi (Author),
Roy West (Translator)
コメント
コメントを投稿
感想などお願いします。