Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(7)

Peter Franssen[1] quoting Lenin:

Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “ We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires. ”^[2] Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”^[3]

Peter Franssen « uses » here the quote of Lenin as a conclusion of his idealist historical conceptions. He claims that in general and in all historical situation, whatever the level of development of capitalism in the world^[4], in a « country where because of the underdevelopment of capitalism in that country, the production forces are not enough developed » to lead a socialist state with a socialist plan economy, there has to be (as Engels and Marx seams to confirm) there has FIRST to be a relatively free development of capitalism with of course « capitalist production relations ».
So the development of the production forces « needs » private property of means of production and capitalist exploitation of the workforces and the owning of the result of that exploitation: the surplus value.
The « socialisation » of « the production relations or the (by class struggle, by economic policy of the socialist state or by discussion, formation and changed mentality) dismantling of what is left of capitalism, the transformation of commodity production and commodity economy in socialist production in function of needs and socialist plan economy, can only be done after an fully capitalist development. This is the « theory » of Peter Franssen, Deng Xiaoping and the actual leaders of the CCP.
A policy of stimulation a cooperative movement and the construction of higher forms of cooperatives and communes is for Peter Franssen (and for Deng Xiaoping and co): « utopian socialism ».
It is in this light that Peter Franssen « proves » that Lenin said this also. He insinuates that Lenin claims that « the work of cooperatives » is based on a free development of capitalism. Where he also insinuated that this free development of capitalism and capitalist production relation is in fact identical to the NEP of Lenin.
Peter Franssen in fact not so clearly in this text but more clearly in a later text^[5] « proves that in fact the texts of Lenin are condemning « utopic socialist » or « ultra-left » mistakes of Mao Zedong. Also Deng Xiaoping claims, on some places more directly than on other places that his economic policy is a « Leninist » correction of the « minor left mistakes » of Mao Zedong.
A study of the integral texts of Lenin and a correct historical materialist analyse of the revolution in China however proves that Mao Zedong was more Leninist than Peter Franssen, Deng Xiaoping.
And with the same arguments that « proved » that Mao Zedong was « left » « utopian » « voluntarist » or « egalitarian » you can in fact « prove » that Lenin, Stalin, and even Marx were « utopians ».
Read here the text of Lenin, « On Co-operation« , Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, where I highlighted in italic-fat the quote chosen by Peter Franssen.
Lenin says here that the cooperative movement is not a result of the NEP, but is a necessity, a condition for the implementation of the NEP. Also he sais that there limits to the NEP and that they went to far in the USSR. At the end Lenin sais (Is he as « left » , « egalitarian » , « utopian » or « voluntarist » as Mao Zedong?)that what the workers and peasants needs now is… a Cultural Revolution.
One can detect general working-methods of revisionism.
There is a IDEA, a CONCEPTION, a POLICY that has to be to « proven » with a « Marxist » analysis that it is a historical fact, a consequent Marxist conception or a socialism stimulating policy. Those IDEAS, CONCEPTION, or POLICY are IN FACT anti-revolutionary, protecting the existence of capitalism and a policy of dismantling al the results of socialism. To give those ideas, conceptions or policies a « Marxist » apology, quotes of Marx, Engels, Lenin and also of Stalin and Mao Zedong are founded where they SEEMS to says exactly what the revisionists propose. General conclusions of Marx and others are for them concrete and specific proves of the correctnes of the policy in an specific situation, totally different of the situation where the GENERAL conlusion is been made. Or a specific policy, to solve specific problems in a specific situation is « proven » to be exactly the same as the in fact antirevolutionary and capitalism protecting policy of the revisionist leaders. Therefore they uses also the anti-Marxist conception of exact analogue situations in historical progress. The goal is mislead party members and condemn, with chosen quotes of Marx and others each policy, each initiative of other partij-cadres with still revolutionary ambitions to take steps towards revolution, ot to strenghten to power of the working class, or to to take steps to further building socialist plan economy and to diminish the still existing influence of capitalist commodity-production as « left », « sectarian » or « utipian socialism ».
To convince other partymemembers, the revisionists made use of existing weakness of knowledge of Marxism, and existing forms of opportunism as dogmatism, emirism. They promote among the militants a spirit of militant ACTIVISM, that results in political suivism.
I will prove this with concrete analysis of the developments in the Workers Party of Belgium. In fact, I did it allready (you can read here more about it -as an example, but in dutch) on this web log…..in dutch. I will translate in English with adaptions for readers unfamiliar with the specific INTERN situation of the WPB, « who is who » in the WPB, or the specific situation in Belgium.

---

[1] Peter Franssen, cadre of the WPB, defends the revisionist line of the CCP since 1978 (read the whole text here), in previous articles (beginning here) I (once member of the WPB, expelled in 2005) analyse his text as an negative example of the actual revisionism in the International Communist Movement.

^[2] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28

^[3] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.

^[4] The « variation » is, that « the specific situation of the Chinese revolution » needs this, as leaders of the CCP after 1978 are saying and writing.

^[5] « The development of socialism in China », Peter Fransen in Marxistische Studies/Etudes Marxistes nr 78, 2007. You can read this tekst (in Dutch here or in French here - or on marx.be) I analysed the revisionism in this text (you can read it - in dutch - here)

Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(6)

Peter Franssen[1] is further quoting Lenin:

Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “ We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires. ”^[2] Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”^[3]
And naturally, just as nowadays, the critics howled: “ The Bolsheviks have reverted to capitalism! ”^[4]Lenin scolded them: “They are not assisting but hindering economic development; … they are not assisting but hindering the proletarian revolution; … they are pursuing not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois aims. ”

Peter Franssen doens’t say it clearly, he only insinuates the following:
In GENERAL, or ALWAYS, will in a given country, where there is a general consensus on the fact that « capitalism » is not very developed, neither the production-forces (he doesn’t speak of the working class as such, they are only a part of the « production forces ») and where the communist party, present in that country judges, even AFTER the (socialist?, national democratic?) revolution, that the production forces ar not «ripe » enough to « replace » capitalist production-relations by « socialist » production relations, there has to be FIRST a development of capitalism (so capitalist-production relations with PRIVATE ownership of means of production and the workforce of the worker as a commodity.
Peter Franssen proves then by chosen quotes that Mao Zedong (before and until 1949) and Lenin (in 1921) came to the same conclusions.
In the former article I (you can read here) wrote already about the CONTRADICTIONS between the conceptions of Peter Franssen (« proved » by QUOTES of Lenin) and the real conceptions of LENIN, himself, in the integral texts.
I will now speak of the following text of Lenin, « New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise« , Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33.(you can read this tekst here, with the by Peter Franssen chosen quotes highlighted) I will show again the eclecticism instead of the marxism in the analysis of Peter Franssen. I will give now bigger quotes out of the text of Lenin, with somewhere in italic-fat the chosen quote of Peter Franssen.
Lenin:

“We have risen to the highest and at the same time the most difficult stage of our historic struggle. Our enemy at the present moment and in the present period is not the same one that faced us yesterday. He is not the hordes of whiteguards commanded by the landowners and supported by all the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, by the whole international bourgeoisie. He is everyday economics in a small-peasant country with a ruined large-scale industry. He is the petty-bourgeois element which surrounds us like the air, and penetrates deep into the ranks of the proletariat. And the proletariat is declassed, i. e., dislodged from its class groove. The factories and mills are idle—the proletariat is weak, scattered, enfeebled. On the other hand, the petty-bourgeois element within the country is backed by the whole international bourgeoisie, which still retains its power throughout the world.
Is this not enough to make people quail, especially heroes like the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, the knights of the Two-and-a-Half International, the helpless anarchists and the lovers of “Left” phrases? “The Bolsheviks are reverting to capitalism; the Bolsheviks are done for. Their revolution, too, has not gone beyond the confines of a bourgeois revolution.” We hear plenty of wails of this sort.
But we have grown accustomed to them.
We do not belittle the danger. We look it straight in the face. We say to the workers and peasants: The danger is great; more solidarity, more staunchness, more coolness; turn the pro-Menshevik and pro-Socialist-Revolutionary panic-mongers and tub-thumpers out with contempt.
The danger is great. The enemy is far stronger than we are economically, just as yesterday he was far stronger than we were militarily. We know that; and in that knowledge lies our strength. We have already done so tremendously much to purge Russia of feudalism, to develop all the forces of the workers and peasants, to promote the world-wide struggle against imperialism and to advance the international proletarian movement, which is freed from the banalities and baseness of the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals, that panicky cries no longer affect us. We have more than fully “justified” our revolutionary activity, we have shown the whole world by our deeds what proletarian revolutionism is capable of in contrast to Menshevik-Socialist Revolutionary “democracy” and cowardly reformism decked with pompous phrases.”

Lenin is not claiming that he makes a GENERAL analyse suitable for EVERY country where a revolution has taken place under every possible situation (national and international). He analyse a CONCRETE revolution in CONCRETE SPECIFIC (conditions). His conclusions fits for that situation.[5]
The development of the working class is to gain forces and have to get enough conscience about their historic tasks. This is a question of formation, propaganda and discussion. Lenin speaks not in terms of free development of capitalist production relations that should be (as Peter Franssen and Deng Xiaoping claim) the engine for the « ripening » of the production forces. It is NOT the free development of capitalism wich will strengthen the confidence of the peasants in the working class.
Lenin:

“After an enormous, unparalleled exertion of effort, the working class in a small-peasant, ruined country, the working class which has very largely become declassed, needs an interval of time in which to allow new forces to grow and be brought to the fore, and in which the old and worn-out forces can “recuperate”.The creation of a military and state machine capable of successfully withstanding the trials of 1917-21 was a great effort, which engaged, absorbed and exhausted real “forces of the working class” (and not such as exist merely in the declamations of the tub-thumpers). One must understand this and reckon with the necessary, or rather, inevitable slackening of the rate of growth of new forces of the working class. …
The slogan “more faith in the forces of the working class” is now being used, in fact, to increase the influence of the Mensheviks and anarchists, as was vividly proved and demonstrated by Kronstadt in the spring of 1921. Every class conscious worker should expose and send packing those who shout about our having “lost faith in the forces of the working class”, because these tub-thumpers are actually the accomplices of the bourgeoisie and the landowners, who seek to weaken the proletariat for their benefit by helping to spread the influence of the Mensheviks and the anarchists….
That is how it can always be proved that, actually, they are not assisting but hindering economic development; that they are not assisting but hindering the proletarian revolution; that they are pursuing not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois aims; and that they are serving an alien class….
The period of unprecedented proletarian achievements in the military, administrative and political fields has given way to a period in which the growth of new forces will be much slower; and that period did not set in by accident, it was inevitable; it was due to the operation not of persons or parties, but of objective causes. In the economic field, development is inevitably more difficult, slower, and more gradual; that arises from the very nature of the activities in this field compared with military, administrative and political activities. It follows from the specific difficulties of this work, from its being more deep-rooted, if one may so express it.
That is why we shall strive to formulate our tasks in this new, higher stage of the struggle with the greatest, with treble caution. We shall formulate them as moderately as possible. We shall make as many concessions as possible within the limits, of course, of what the proletariat can concede and yet remain the ruling class. We shall collect the moderate tax in kind as quickly as possible and allow the greatest possible scope for the development, strengthening and revival of peasant farming. We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires. We need a bloc, or alliance, between the proletarian state and state capitalism against the petty-bourgeois element….
Amidst the colossal ruin of the country and the exhaustion of the forces of the proletariat, by a series of almost superhuman efforts, we are tackling the most difficult job: laying the foundation for a really socialist economy, for the regular exchange of commodities (or, more correctly, exchange of products) between industry and agriculture. The enemy is still far stronger than we are; anarchic, profiteering, individual commodity exchange is undermining our efforts at every step. We clearly see the difficulties and will systematically and perseveringly overcome them. More scope for independent local enterprise; more forces to the localities; more attention to their practical experience. The working class can heal its wounds, its proletarian “class forces” can recuperate, and the confidence of the peasantry in proletarian leadership can be strengthened only as real success is achieved in restoring industry and in bringing about a regular exchange of products through the medium of the state that benefits both the peasant and the worker. And as we achieve this we shall get an influx of new forces, not as quickly as every one of us would like, perhaps, but we shall get it nevertheless.”

Lenin speaks not about a “difference in opinion between scientific socialists and utopian socialists”. He speaks of the danger of the petty-bourgeois element, working IN de working class and IN the circles of organisations who claims to be socialist or even communist. This petty-bourgois element is in fact supported by the international bourgeoisie.
And one condition of this « temporary retreat » (as Lenin sees the NEP) is certain: in no way the working class should give up the power over the socialist state.
In the next article (you can read here) I will write about a third text of Lenin, « abused » in a revisionist way by Peter Franssen.

---

[1] Peter Franssen, cadre of the WPB, defends the revisionist line of the CCP since 1978 (read the whole text here), in previous articles (beginning here) I (once member of the WPB, expelled in 204) analyse his text as an negative example of the actual revisionism in the International Communist Movement.

^[2] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28

^[3] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.

^[4] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pp.21 and 24.

[5] The using of CONCRETE conclusions out a SPECIFIC analyse about a SPECIFIC historical situation as GENERAL LAWS in EVERY (judged as ANALOGUE) situation is a form of DOGMATISM where Mao Zedong is writing about in “On Contradiction” (see my first article in this serie)

Revisionism, the bourgoisie inside the communist movement.(5)

Lets start with the first quoted tekst Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58 (you can read this whole text here)out of wich Peter Franssen (I began with a first article - you can read here - an analysis of his text -you can read here) quotes as follows:

« In 1921 Lenin made a self-criticism concerning the period of the three previous years. He wrote: “We expected… to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. ” ^[1]
I will prove that only by the choice of (the) quote(s) you can make Lenin say contradictionary things.
Lenin:

We have consummated the bourgeois-democratic revolution as nobody had done before. We are advancing towards the socialist revolution consciously, firmly and unswervingly, knowing that it is not separated from the bourgeois-democratic revolution by a Chinese Wall, and knowing too that (in the last analysis) struggle alone will determine how far we shall advance, what part of this immense and lofty task we shall accomplish, and to what extent we shall succeed in consolidating our victories. Time will show. But we see even now that a tremendous amount—tremendous for this ruined, exhausted and backward country—has already been done towards the socialist transformation of society.^[2] (…)
Our proletarian revolution was not afflicted with this accursed “respect” for this thrice-accursed medievalism and for the “sacred right of private property”.
But in order to consolidate the achievements of the bourgeois-democratic revolution for the peoples of Russia, we were obliged to go farther; and we did go farther. We solved the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in passing, as a “by-product” of our main and genuinely proletarian -revolutionary, socialist activities. We have always said that reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle. We said—and proved it by deeds—that bourgeois-democratic reforms are a by-product of the proletarian, i.e., of the socialist revolution. Incidentally, … heroes of “Two and-a-Half” Marxism were incapable of understanding this relation between the bourgeois-democratic and the proletarian-socialist revolutions. The first develops into the second. The second, in passing, solves the problems of the first. The second consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and struggle alone, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first.
The Soviet system is one of the most vivid proofs, or manifestations, of how the one revolution develops into the other. The Soviet system provides the maximum of democracy for the workers and peasants; at the same time, it marks a break with bourgeois democracy and the rise of a new, epoch-making type of democracy, namely, proletarian democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat.^[3] (…)
The question of imperialist wars, of the international policy of finance capital which now dominates the whole world, a policy that must inevitably engender new imperialist wars, that must inevitably cause an extreme intensification of national oppression, pillage, brigandry and the strangulation of weak, backward and small nationalities by a handful of “advanced” powers—that question has been the keystone of all policy in all the countries of the globe since 1914.^[4] (….)
Our last, but most important and most difficult task, the one we have done least about, is economic development, the laying of economic foundations for the new, socialist edifice on the site of the demolished feudal edifice and the semi-demolished capitalist edifice. It is in this most important and most difficult task that we have sustained the greatest number of reverses and have made most mistakes. How could anyone expect that a task so new to the world could be begun without reverses and without mistakes! But we have begun it. We shall continue it. At this very moment we are, by our New Economic Policy, correcting a number of our mistakes. We are learning how to continue erecting the socialist edifice in a small-peasant country without committing such mistakes.^[5] (…)
We expected—or perhaps it would be truer to say that we presumed without having given it adequate consideration—to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary—state capitalism and socialism—in order to prepare—to prepare by many years of effort—for the transition to communism.^[6] (….)
The proletarian state must become a cautious, assiduous and shrewd “businessman”, a punctilious wholesale merchant—otherwise it will never succeed in putting this small-peasant country economically on its feet. Under existing conditions, living as we are side by side with the capitalist (for the time being capitalist) West, there is no other way of progressing to communism. A wholesale merchant seems to be an economic type as remote from communism as heaven from earth. But that is one of the contradictions which, in actual life, lead from a small-peasant economy via state capitalism to socialism. Personal incentive will step up production; we must increase production first and foremost and at all costs. Wholesale trade economically unites millions of small peasants: it gives them a personal incentive, links them up and leads them to the next step, namely, to various forms of association and alliance in the process of production itself.^[7]

Lenin does not speak of an apriori long (several decades….) LONG period of « united front with the bourgeoisie » Nor of another form of a long « consolidation » of the (bourgeois) national democratic revolution. De national democratic revolution was the first goal. The national demcratic revolution had to be developed further than the bourgeoisie would develop her AND much FASTER.
It was a question of several months, and then go farther with the SOCIALIST revolution with (by the dictature of the proletariaat or « the socialist state ») as far as possible, SOCIALIST relations of production.
In the by Peter Franssen chosen quote (in italic-fat) it simply is said that after the revolution COMMUNISM cannot be installed ( as all kinds of petty-bourgeois element suggest). Like Lenin and Marx wrote several times between the socialist revolution and the stade of communism, there is the transition of « the FIRST stade of communism »also called the stade of SOCIALISM (wereby the state can be nothing other than « the dictature of the proletariat ».
By reason of CONCRETE HISTORICAL situations: the menace of a new imperialist war, the fysical but also idelogical weakening of the mass of the workers, there will be the implementation of a concrete economic policy, the NEP. In no way Lenin speaks of RE-privatise of STATE-Enterprises or to DEMANTLE the socialist planeconomie in favor of a (by commodity-economy driven) MARKET-economy.
The NEP is a carefull and step by step tempory retreat ( in no way to give up the dictature of the proletariaat). The NEP has to make possible to enforce the dictature of the proletariaat, to lay the base of a socialist planeconomy under controle of the « socialist state ».
One of the way is that under the NEP there will be a stimulation of developing new « Alliances » and « associations » (so new form of organisations) of the workers (peasants and industryworkers)
For Peter Franssen ( and implemented by Deng Xiaoping) the « NEP » in China means: demanteling of cooperatives and communes and a renewed implementation of « workforce as commodity » (by the « new » politcy of remuneration of Deng Xiaoping)

In the next article, you can read here, we will look after other by Peter Franssen chosen quotes of Lenin.

---

^[1] Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58

^[2] V. I. Lenin "Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution ", Written: 14 October, 1921 First Published: Pravda No. 234,October 18, 1921 Signed: N. Lenin; Published according to the manuscript. Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pages 51-59

^[3] Idem.

^[4] Idem.

^[5] Idem.

^[6] Idem.

^[7] Idem.