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. ”
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,
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.”
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.
“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.”
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)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten