I argued that after 1978, or better after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, the development of revisionism had a breakthrough in the CCP. (Read more about my arguing starting here)
As revisionism is the bourgeois line INSIDE the communist party, the objective goal of the revisionists is to PROTECT further existence of capitalism and the capitalist class, reject the possibility of socialist revolution and AFTER an eventually revolution to ABOLISH the dictatorship of the proletariat and
STOP all class struggle that is focused on the further development of socialism to communism.
Of course, I have to prove my statements. I will to this later.
But for the good understanding of my analysis, I will give now an example of how revisionism works and how revisionists ABUSE Marxism or the scientific socialism and spread IDEALISM and METAPHISICS under Marxist phraseology.
I will use the text of the Chinese economists of the CCP, I spoke about in my email (read here) to Boudewijn Deckers, leading cadre of the WPB. The text itself you can read here.
To give (only) an example of the manner of arguing of revisionists I give some quotes out of this text.
The Chinese author in the book “
“In the Manifesto of the Communist Party published in 1848, Marx and Engels analysed the innate contradictions of capitalism and predicted its inevitable doom and its replacement by a communist society free from all class exploitation. Later, in the light of historical experience, they gradually realized that communism would also develop from a lower to a higher stage. After the failure of the Paris Commune in 1871, Marx reviewed the new experience it had provided and, in his 1875 manuscript. Critique of the Gotha Programme advanced for the first time the thesis that "between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other" as well as the theory of the two stages of development of communist society.
According to this theory, at the lower stage of communism, i.e. the stage of socialism, public ownership of the means of production by the whole of society would be established and classes abolished. But the traditions and birthmarks of the old society would have to be retained and the principle of "to each according to his work" followed in the distribution of the means of subsistence.
Marx assumed that such a distribution would be conducted by means of labour certificates issued in direct proportion to the amount of labour provided by the producers and not through the market or the commodity-money relationship. Only at the higher stage of communism could payment for labour be abolished and the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" carried out. Marx lived in times when nobody had any practical experience with socialism. Thus he could not have elaborated on the laws of socialist economic development. Nevertheless, he applied "the theory of development - in its most consistent, complete, considered and pithy form - to modern capitalism. Naturally. Marx was faced with the problem of applying the theory both to the fortltcor7riitr: collapse of capitalism and to the future development of future communism."[1] On the basis of his overall understanding of the law of social development, Marx criticized Lassalle's theory of undiminished, fair distribution of the proceeds of labour and made the above scientific prediction about future socialism and communism. A systematic exposition of these ideas of Marx was provided by Lenin in the State and Revolution. (…)
After the Third Plenary Session of its Eleventh Central Committee, the Party proposed various measures to carry out the principle of "to each according to his work", pointing out that wages should depend not only on the quantity and quality of each person's work labour time, labour intensity and the degrees of labour proficiency and complexity but also on the contribution each person makes to the state, that is, the economic results of his labour.
As the growth level of the productive forces in China is rather low, not only will collective economy exist for a fairly long time but it is necessary to arouse the initiative of those engaged in individual undertakings in the sector under collective economy, it is also necessary for the tens of thousands of small- and medium-sized enterprises under ownership by the whole people to assimilate some of the principles followed by units under collective ownership and lo link. To a certain extent, labour remuneration with the enterprises' profits.
At the higher stage of communism, the laws peculiar to the period of socialism will cease to function. Having accomplished their historical tasks, they will disappear from the scene of history.
But then the law of securing the maximum satisfaction of the ever-growing requirements in the life of the whole people through expanded production on the basis of higher scientific and technological standards will operate on a full scale. The needs of the people will grow with expanded production, never to be fully satisfied. Thus the contradiction between social production and social demand will exist forever and become the motive force of the progress of communist society.”
My comment:
The goal is to restore the commodity character of the workforce of the workers, and give possibility to get surplus value out of the labour of the workers. This for the elements of a future capitalist class who will once own the means of production, meanwhile CONTROLE the means of production long as all dictatorship of the proletariat is not totally abolished and replaced by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
As long as dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has not been restored, the bourgeois elements has to use pseudo-Marxist arguing and try to get total control over the existing communist party and the minds of the workers.
The revisionists have IDEAS over how they see a « development of socialism » To PROVE this IDEA as a real necessary development they search quotes by Marx, Lenin and co that seems to PROVE their IDEAS.
The revisionist are cutting in texts of Marx and Lenin to let Marx and Lenin agree (out of their graves) with the IDEAS as laws of development or agree with their ideas about necessary political line. (PARTS of) concrete conclusions from a concrete analysis of a given concrete problem are for them GENERAL LAWS that fit for (judged as) « analogue » historical situations. « THAT is using scientific socialism » are they preaching to less formed party-members.
« Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other", to conclude with «A systematic exposition of these ideas of Marx was provided by Lenin in the State and Revolution. »
Indeed Lenin gives (in State and Revolution) the SAME quote of Marx but he gives a longer quote:
« Marx continues:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." ….. »
« Marx bases this conclusion on an analysis of the role played by the proletariat in modern capitalist society, on the data concerning the development of this society, and on the irreconcilability of the antagonistic interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Previously the question was put in this way: in order to achieve its emancipation, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship.
Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society -- which is developing towards Communism -- to a communist society is impossible without a "political transition period," and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. »
« Let us take first of all the words "proceeds of labour" in the sense of the product of labour; then the co-operative proceeds of labour are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted:
First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up.
Secondly, additional portion for expansion of production.
Thirdly, reserve or insurance funds against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished proceeds of labour" are an economic necessity and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it:
First, the general costs of administration not directly belonging to production.
This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops.
Secondly, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc.
From the outset this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society and it grows in proportion as the new society develops.
Thirdly, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the programme, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion, namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The "undiminished proceeds of labour" have already surreptitiously become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what is withheld from the producer in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the "undiminished proceeds of labour" has disappeared, so now does the phrase "the proceeds of labour" disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as an objective quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour. The phrase "proceeds of labour," objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another. »
What Marx here describes, is in fact corresponding with the policy that the workers, under leadership of cadres and members of the CCP (working among them and with them), tried to implement in the cooperatives an later in the communes. That was in fact a part of the essence of the campaign « learning from Datchai » (as I will explain later). As Marx says (and that is NOT quoted by the revisionist « quote-pickers » :
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as an objective quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour
[1] V.I. Lenin. The State and Revolution,. FLP. Beijing. 1976. pp. 102-03.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten