p While the pluralist revisionists lay stress on the thesis that there are radically different and contradicto-. ry kinds, forms and models of socialism, the bourgeois pluralists above all stubbornly deny the basic Marxist thesis that socialism, as the first phase of the formation of communism, overcomes the social and class conflicts of the exploiter society and is gradually moving towards ever greater social and political homogeneity. They strive to convince the people that socialist society, very much like bourgeois society, consists of strata and groups with contradictory interests, and that is why it also has to have a ‘pluralistic’ structure.
p An elementary truth in Marxism as a social science is that the division of the exploiter societies into classes with antagonistic interests, into exploiters and 180 exploited, lies at the basis of the class struggle and of all other social conflicts and evils which typify contemporary capitalism. The existence of classes with antagonistic interests is also the main reason for international and interstate enmities and wars. At the same time Marxism indicates that the division of society into exploiters and exploited depends upon production relations in which the means of production are privately owned.
p Proceeding from the law of correspondence between production relations and productive forces and the degree of development and socialization which production forces had already attained under capitalism, the classics of Marxism-Leninism forecast the theoretical model of the future communist society. In it there will be neither exploitation nor oppression of man by man; it will be socially homogeneous and will develop on the basis of an ever fuller knowledge and mastery of the natural and social laws. The appearance of the socialist society was forecast as a first, lower stage of the communist society, as a period for doing away with all exploitation and a gradual transition period from a class to a classless structure of society.
p In the theoretical model of socialism, the classics predicted that after the elimination of the exploiter qlasses and the oppression of man by man, for a certain period the essential differences between workers’ peasants and intelligentsia, town and country, manual and intellectual workers would be preserved, although they would be gradually ironed out. A certain economic inequality between people, although steadily diminishing, would also be preserved because under socialism the distribution t)f goods is of necessity affected mainly by the quantity and quality of work done, and people’s forces and capacities are not equal. On this basis, the theoretical model characterizes the socialist society as a society in which social homogeneityis steadily growing side by side with its monolithic political and ideological character.
p A sober scientific analysis of the last short historical period traversed by mankind, in which part of it has 181 made successful steps in socialist construction, confirms the scientific forecasts of Marxism-Leninism. In the Soviet Union which has passed on to the construction of communism and in those countries which have embarked on the socialist road and which are in the stage of the construction of a mature socialist society, the theoretical model of socialism has already been implemented in broad outline. The socialist society already constructed, and that which is under construction, gives sufficient proof in support of the predicted theoretical model that socialism is a system which developes towards ever greater economic homogeneity, political and ideological unity in society. Although there are certain differences in the relative percentages between the basic classes and strata as well as in their inner structure—in education, main professions, average salary, etc., in its basic outline the social structure is homogeneous in the Soviet Union, where communism is under construction, and in the other member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which have entered the stage of the construction of a mature or developed socialist society.
p In all these countries the working class now represents more than half of the active population and continues to increase in number. Its educational level, professional qualifications, active and conscious participation in material production and all levels of government continues to increase rapidly. The class of cooperative farmers, who have replaced the petty private owners, as well as that part of society in general, which is employed in agriculture, diminishes relatively, as a result of greater mechanization and use of chemical means in farming and stockbrceding. In their qualifications, method of labour payment, supply of machinery, living and cultural standards and social activity, the cooperative farmers gradually come closer and closer to the level of the working class. The third basic stratum in the socialist society is the people’s intelligentsia, the main detachments of which are the research workers, engineering and technical specialists, the administrative and governing 182 apparatus, the workers in art, culture, education and the health services. Quantitatively, and as regards their qualifications,) the intelligentsia also continues to increase in number. Its development depends upon the needs of socialist and communist construction, and on this basis their interests coincide with the interests of the working class and the cooperative farmers.
p Small commodity economy—rural, artisan or in the sphere of services in the socialist countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, with the exception of Poland, plays an insignificant role. In general, in the socialist society there is no significant social stratum which is not interested in the successful and rapid construction of socialism and communism. That is why under socialism there are no. social groups whose interests enter into irreconcilable contradiction with the interests of the other social groups and of the system itself.
p The bourgeois ideologists, however, are trying most passionately and energetically to deny this great historical process of overcoming social and class antagonisms in society under socialism Talcott Parsons, for instance, declared at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology that the social structure of the Soviet Union was the same as the social structure or ’social stratification’ in the USA and the other developed capitalist countries. The place of the bourgeoisie in the socialist society was occupied by the intelligentsia, but the difference between them was only in their names (36, c. 84). In fact, this is another way of formulating the same accusation as was launched against the Soviet Union and the other CMEA member states by the Trots kyites, Maoists and part of the rightist revisionists like Garaudy—that there, too, there is a ’bureaucratic top crust’ or class exploiting the working people and dominating them.
p There is an intelligentsia in the USA also, but no reasonable man confuses it with the capitalists. However, let us leave aside the name. The difference between the ruling stratum in the socialist society (from the leading cadres in the factory, the cooperative farm and 183 the municipal people’s council to the central state, Party and scientific institutions) and the highest layer of the capitalist class in modern bourgeois society (the multi-millionaires and millionaires) is profound in principle, and if is well-known to T. Parsons, Garaudy and all their colleagues.
p The big capitalist top crust owns the basic sections of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class and obtains big profits, which constitute the unpaid labour of workers. The owners of capital directly or indirectly manage the enterprises, motivated, if not solely, at least mostly, by their endeavour to pocket greater profits.
p The leading cadres (or the ‘intelligentsia’, according to T.Parsons) in socialist society do not own any capital. They receive remuneration for their management on the same principle as do the workers. Insofar as the leading cadres receive greater remuneration than do common workers, this is within the framework of the principle of payment according to the quantity and quality of work done. However, highly qualified workers, inventors, rationalizers and initiators of new methods very often get higher remunerations than their managers.
p In the socialist society there are indeed certain differences in the property, incomes and levels of wellbeing of the different categories of citizens, but the general tendency of development is gradually to diminish the differences in the amounts of remunerations received for work done and in the possibilities for cultural advancement and application of one’s capacities. The planned upward development of society leads to ever closer social and cultural convergence of the different social groups.
The profound changes in the social structure of the Bulgarian people during the period of 1948-69, i.e. the period of socialist construction, is revealed by the following table (47, c. 127).
184 1948 1957 1969 Active population 4,099,141 4,265,621 4,112,817 Workers 380,872 827,185 1,869,460 Employees 250.303 484,020 830,299 Cooperative farmers 116,382 2,035,955 1,228,751 Other social groups: a) Persons employed in auxiliary enterprises for workers, employees and cooperative farmers 150,291 123,051 116,000 b) Private farmers 2,975,122 690,089 14,000 c) Craftsmen, tradesmen, servants of religion 216,921 76,655 54,307p This table shows that workers, who in 1948 constituted merely 9 per cent, in 1969 were already the most numerous group of the active population of country—43 per cent. Employees during the same period grew from a mere 6 per cent to nearly 22.5 per cent. Taken together, workers and employees have grown from 15 per cent in 1948 to nearly 66 per cent of the entire active population in 1969. Cooperative farmers, who in 1948 constituted less than 3 per cent of the active population, in 1969 were 30 per cent. In other words, the three basic categories of working people in Bulgaria: workers, peasants and employees (including the intelligentsia) in 1969 embraced 95.5 per cent of the entire active population of the country. The remaining social groups, which in 1948 had represented nearly 82 per cent of the active population, (most of them being private landowners: 72 per cent), in 1969 formed only about 4.5 per cent. Among them the small landowners constituted only 0.3 per cent.
p An important symptom of the progress in the building up of the social homogeneity of the socialist society in Bulgaria is the fact that a levelling off of the incomes of peasants with those of workers and employees has already virtually been achieved. Thus, in 1970 the average annual pay of workers and employees in the country was 1,460 leva, whereas the 185 incomes of the cooperative farmers in the public and individual farms was 1,450 leva (47, c. 128). There are no great differences in the labour payment of workers engineering and technical staff and employees. Thus, against an average annual pay in industry of 1,470 leva for 1969 the amounts of the remuneration for the respective categories were: workers—1,392 leva, engineering and technical workers—2,036 leva, employees—1,469 leva, manual workers (cleaners, etc.) - 983 leva (36, c. 90)
p The new tasks in the construction of a mature socialist society, which were formulated in the Programme of the Bulgarian Communist Party adopted at its Tenth Congress in 1971, map out a specific path towards the further implementation of social and class homogeneity and towards ever greater political and ideological unity of the Bulgarian people. It is pointed out in the programme: ’In the further construction of the socialist society, there are increased prerequisites for a gradual ironing out of intra-class and inter-class differences and for the creation of social homogeneity in society’ (70, c. 63).
p As the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, pointed out in his report to the Tenth Congress of the Party, the processes of the gradual transformation of the people’s democratic state from a political form of proletarian dictatorship into a state of all the people and the development of the Bulgarian Communist Party which while ’remaining a party of the working class, is gradually becoming a vanguard of the people, a party of the whole people’ will be among the most important laws in the building up of the developed socialist society. Parallel with these two laws, the process of transforming Marxism-Leninism from an ideology of the Party and class into an ideology of the whole people and the whole socialist society will develop still further.
p Inasmuch as there arise temporary and partial incompatibilities and even contradictions between the interests of individual social categories or social units in the socialist society, they are the result of insufficient 186 perspicacity or flexibility of the mechanisms, or of subjective mistakes. Such phenomena, however, are not only untypical of the socialist social system, but its normal functioning also demands that they should be eliminated.
p Precisely for these reasons the socialist society knows no strikes on the part of the working people— one of the major forms through which the antagonism between the working class and the other working people on the one hand, and the capitalist class and its state on the other hand, finds expression in bourgeois society.
p The anti-communist ’ Marxologists’ often try to present the tremendous advantages of the socialist society as its flaws. Thus they try particularly to distort the fact which impresses the uninformed working citizen in the Western countries that in the socialist countries the working class no longer go on strike. The gross falsification perpetrated in this matter by the bourgeois ideologists begins with the lie that in the socialist countries strikes are forbidden, which is absolutely untrue.
p Under socialism the enterprises are owned by all the people and the work^^1^^ forces, as part of the people, have the feeling of being their owners.As such, in one or another form they take part in the management of the enterprise and control the administration; the workers effect this through their two organizations—the trade unions and the Party. Moreover, the administration of the enterprise has the same interests as those of the work force, since it does not appropriate theprofitmade by the enterprise for itself, nor is it acting on behalf of a particular class which is interested in the exploitation of the workers.
p Because of all this, when they are dissatisfied with certain practices, the workers do not see any sense in a strike but rather realize the harm that will be inflicted on society by it. They avail themselves of other channels when the trade union and Party organizations prove insufficient to solve questions which crop up. These channels are: the higher organs in the hierarchy of the Party and trade unions, including their central 187 managements; the leading state bodies which, by virtue of their composition, their education and the tasks with which they are charged are representatives of the working class and the other working people; the special control organs, such as the state control bodies; the information media—radio, television and the press, through which the working people ask for solutions to all economic, social, cultural, day-to-day and general problems that have come to a head.
p The law-governed and lasting trends which characterize the economic, social and political development of the USSR and the other CMEA member states are: steady high development rates of the economy, science and culture, and a steady rise in the living and cultural standards of the three main groups of working people— workers, peasant farmers and people’s intelligentsia. These basic and predominant trends cannot be eclipsed by any secondary, isolated manifestations of bureaucratic distortions by the Party and state apparatus in one or another socialist country, the fact of a greater or lesser loss of confidence in the Party and the socialist state by part of the working people, etc.
p However, if the mechanisms in the socialist society fail to work properly, then what? The situation becomes most difficult when the main leading force, the Party, disrupts its normal links with the working class or fails to fulfil its obligation to persuade it of the correctness of its policy, while listening at the same time to the voice of the working class and to its critical comments. If the Party leadership in a given socialist country disrupts its relations with the working class, or with some of its detachments,manifestations of dissatisfaction may be expected on their part, and in certain instances we may even come to demonstrations and strikes. There were strikes in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968-69. Part of the working class also resorted to demonstrations and strikes in some Baltic towns in the Polish People’s Republic in December 1970. However, these instances are the exceptions which prove the rule that the working class in the 188 socialist society does not generally resort to strikes, because it is itself in power.
p In the capitalist society the working class won the right to strike with bloody battles. Although the bourgeois ideologists proclaim far and wide that in the modern imperialist countries headed by the USA an ’era of general prosperity’ and ’social partnership among all strata has set in, data concerning the development of strike struggles during the period after the Second World War show quite a different picture. In 1958 the number of strikes in the capitalist countries was 26 million, in 1966—44 million and in 1970—over 63 million (34, c. 15). The stronger the strike wave in the capitalist world, the more pathetically the bourgeois propagandists cry about the ’deprivation of rights of the workers’ and the ’ban on strikes’ in the socialist states, always in order to cover up the tremendous difference in the situation of .the workers under the two systems.
p The endeavour of the rightist Czechoslovak revisionists—the authors of the unscientific ’market model’ of socialism—to seek contradictions between the different branches of the economy and social life, and on this basis to justify the necessity of a ’ pluralistic’ structure of the socialist society has been well appreciated by the anti-communist Michael Gamarnikov. As he says, the Czechoslovak revisionists strove for official recognition of the fact ’that there exist groups with contradictory interests, who have to be given a voice in the government’ (114, c. 14).
p The socialist social system not only recognizes but also guarantees the right to a voice in the government of all social groups and individual citizens. But the fact is that the different social groups do not have contradictory interests and that is why their participation in the government is implemented by other mechanisms and not through a competitive struggle. These mechanisms guarantee the initiative of the working people and their control over the leading bodies, but in them there is no struggle for power.
189p — Let us repeat once more: Marxists do not deny the existence of certain social and economic differences— both between workers, cooperative farmers and intelligentsia and between different sectors of the economy and social life, and even between different labour forces from the same branch. However, they do deny two things: firstly, that between the different social strata and groups there exist antagonistic, irreconcilable contradictions, and! secondly that the means of solving the temporary and partial contradictions which do crop up is that of competitive struggle, and that the arena for their solution is the market when the contradictions are in the economic field, and confrontation and political struggle when they are in the general social sphere.
p These simple but very important truths, which the rightist revisionists and pluralizers of the socialist society do not want to-see, have even been seen by the bourgeois ideologist Martin Janicke, who writes: ’The communist teaching does not deny the existence of different social groups. . . what it does deny is the existence of antagonistic contradictions between the groups themselves and between them and the political government’ (128, S. 154, 155).
p Yes, Marxism-Leninism acknowledges and takes into account the existence of different social groups and strata, and their specific interests, but it denies the existence of antagonistic contradictions between the groups and strata themselves, as well as between them and the socialist state—because in fact there are no such contradictions under socialism.
Thus, under socialism there is a trend towards ever greater social homogeneity of society. Marxist monism in this case means, firstly, that common interests predominate over specific interests, and, secondly, that the road to satisfying the specific needs and interests of the different social strata and groups is not the spontaneous demands of the market or the competitive struggle, but, rather, a science-based, planned and regulated cooperation between them.
Notes