244

p The communist movement has the extremely valuable experience of socialist and communist construction in 14 different countries. This experience makes it possible to provide the development of socialist society with able 245 leadership. “World socialism,” L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 1969 Meeting, “absorbs all the wealth and diversity of the revolutionary traditions and experience deriving from the creative activity of the working people of different countries. In this connection we should like to say that our Party constantly studies that experience and utilises everything of value that may be applied in the conditions obtaining in the Soviet Union, everything that really helps to strengthen the socialist system and embodies the general laws of socialist construction, which have been tested by international experience.”  [245•* 

p The history of socialism fully bears out the fundamental propositions of Lenin’s theory of the transition period, of the building of socialism. Concrete historical experience is the most conclusive argument against those who, for one reason or another, have no liking for the policy of the socialist states. No experience is “more pure”, “more revolutionary”, “more democratic" and “more humane" than that of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, for underlying it is the teaching of Marxism-Leninism and the concrete practice of building a new society.

p Let us examine how Lenin’s plan of building a socialist society was put into effect in the USSR.

p When the Bolshevik Party came to power it energetically set about consolidating the gains of the revolution and building the foundations of socialism. This work proceeded under incredibly difficult conditions, which are mentioned by Lenin in many works, particularly The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Economics and Politics in the Epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. What sort of conditions were they?

p Russia was the first country where the chain of imperialism was broken and Marxist theoretical propositions on socialism were translated into practical deeds. The Soviet people had to move along unexplored paths and blaze the trail to a society that was known only in general outline, in theory.

p This colossal work had to be accomplished in a technologically and economically backward country, in a country where the peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie 246 comprised the bulk of the population, where there was a shortage of trained cadres and most of the people were illiterate. Lenin noted that there was glaring backwardness in tsarist Russia, that it was “four times worse-off than Britain, five times worse-off than Germany and ten times worse-off than America in terms of modern means of production”.  [246•*  Neither had the party cadres the necessary training. Lenin wrote: “We know about socialism, but knowledge of organisation on a scale of millions, knowledge of the organisation and distribution of goods, etc.—this we do not have. The old Bolshevik leaders did not teach us this. The Bolshevik Party cannot boast of this in its history. We have not done a course on this yet.”  [246•** 

p World War I, the Civil War and the foreign intervention threw the country’s economy still further back. In 1920 the country produced only half as much pig iron as in 1862, somewhat more coal than in 1898, as much oil as in 1890 and roughly the same amount of cotton fabrics as in 1857.

p Initially, because the revolution triumphed in only one country, the Russian bourgeoisie had a number of advantages over the proletariat, the chief of which was that it had world-wide economic links. “If the exploiters are defeated in one country only,” Lenin pointed out, “... they still remain stronger than the exploited, for the international connections of the exploiters are enormous.”  [246•***  Moreover, the bourgeoisie still had a certain position in the economy, the experience of organising and managing production, and ties with engineering personnel, military experts and so on.

p All this, undoubtedly, placed enormous difficulties in the way of reorganising society. Besides, the difficulties were aggravated by the fact that for a long time the Soviet Union was the only country where the workers and peasants were in power. It was like a fortress besieged on all sides by imperialist states. Soon after the October Revolution the imperialists of the whole world together with the capitalists of Russia began a war against the young Soviet state. After the Civil War they went on planning new “crusades” against the USSR, forming various anti-Soviet blocs, setting 247 up so-called axes and signing military pacts. Many capitalist countries refused to recognise the USSR, while some of those that did frequently broke off diplomatic and trade relations with it. The United States of America, for instance, did not recognise the Soviet Union for 16 years, and Britain and France for seven years.

p Taken together, this compelled the Soviet people to be constantly prepared for war, allocate enormous funds for the country’s defence and reduce the funds for the satisfaction of material requirements.

p The intrigues of international reaction were all the more dangerous in view of the fact that a bitter class struggle was raging in the country with the question of “who will win" in the balance. The Russian bourgeoisie refused to reconcile itself with the loss of its dominating position, did not believe the Soviet system was durable and fought furiously to recover the privileges wrested away from it and restore capitalism. At the same time, the Communist Party had to wage an unremitting struggle against the enemies of Leninism—Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Right opportunists and bourgeois nationalists who repudiated Lenin’s theory that socialism could triumph in one country and by their capitulatory tactics provided encouragement and support to the class enemies.

p All this made its mark on the forms of struggle and methods employed by the working masses of the Soviet Union to reorganise society along socialist lines.

p The working class had to resort to a series of extreme political measures against the bourgeoisie: under Soviet law it was deprived of the franchise and its attempts to wage an active political struggle were sternly suppressed. Moreover, the class struggle assumed acute forms, such as a civil war which lasted over three years. The Civil War and the economic dislocation compelled the Soviet power to pursue a policy that became known as “war communism”. The state took over not only the large-scale and medium industry but also a considerable portion of the small-scale industry; a surplus food requisitioning system was instituted under which the peasants had to deliver their food surpluses to the state; private trade in staple foodstuffs was banned; a term of labour conscription was made compulsory for all citizens, and so on. The difficult international and internal 248 situation made it necessary to introduce some restrictions on democracy. For instance, until the Constitution was adopted in 1936 suffrage was unequal (at the Ail-Union Congress of Soviets the urban population was represented by one delegate per 25,000 electors and the rural population by one delegate per 125,000 electors), elections were conducted by stages, voting was by a show of hands, and so forth.

p These and other peculiarities of the policy pursued by the Soviet power were due to the concrete conditions obtaining in the country. Lenin did not consider the denial of the franchise to exploiters, civil war, “war communism" and so on as mandatory during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism in other countries. These measures were forced on the young Soviet state by the imperialists, who started the Civil War and furiously resisted the policies of the Soviet power. Lenin stressed that “the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general”.  [248•* 

p Some determined measures against the exploiting classes were taken by the Soviet power also in the economic sphere. Immediately after the October Revolution the working class, together with the peasants, expropriated all the means of production and other wealth from the landowners and the big capitalists without compensation. The land, big factories, railways, banks, means of communication, the merchant marine and the large river merchant fleet were nationalised and foreign trade was declared a state monopoly. Lenin called these measures the Red Guard assault on capital. However, he considered that such an assault on capital was not appropriate under all circumstances, that the working class had other means of fighting capitalism. The Bolsheviks tried to use these means. As soon as the Brest Peace Treaty was signed and the country won a respite, Lenin mapped out a peace-time programme of action. The party and the Soviet power, he said, had to surmount the petty-bourgeois element, strengthen the socialist economic system, and make it the predominant and then the only and all-embracing system in the country. This could be achieved 249 by peaceful means chiefly as a result of the victory of the working class in October 1917 and the crushing of the first capitalist offensive in October 1917-February 1918. Under these conditions, alongside the relentless measures against the capitalists, there was the possibility of—and, by virtue of the grave economic dislocation, the need for—a compromise or, as Lenin put it, redemption with regard to “the cultured capitalists who agree to ‘state capitalism’, who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises”.  [249•* 

p Lenin suggested granting concessions to foreign capitalists and setting up enterprises of the state-capitalist type. He did not regard state capitalism dangerous to the working class which was in power. However, state capitalism did not become widespread in Soviet Russia, again through the fault of the bourgeoisie, and not of the Bolsheviks. “The bourgeoisie,” Lenin wrote, “sneered at the Bolsheviks and said the Soviet government would scarcely hold out for a fortnight; so they not only shirked co-operation, but wherever they could and with every means in their power put up resistance to the new movement, the new construction which was destroying the old order.”  [249•**  Relative to the exploiting classes, the proletariat therefore had to resort to the most extreme measures not only in politics but also in the economy.

p In our examination of the conditions under which socialism was built in the USSR, a noteworthy point concerns the methods that were used to abolish the kulaks as a class. Enemies have filled many volumes in an effort to prove that in the Soviet Union the kulaks were physically exterminated. This is barefaced slander. In the USSR the kulaks, as a class, were expropriated, the reason for this being that in their blind hatred of socialism and their confidence that collectivisation would fail they waged an uncompromising struggle against the socialist system in the countryside. Their attacks on the Soviet power were particularly furious in the period of nation-wide collectivisation, which led to the abolition of the kulaks as a class. The kulaks refused to 250 sell surplus grain to the state, had recourse to terrorism and incendiarism and engaged in subversion. In this they had the support of Right-wing capitulationists and international imperialism. Kulak actions roused the anger of the peasants, who demanded their expropriation and expulsion from their villages. Hence the determined measures against the kulaks up to and including resettlement in other areas with the confiscation of all means of production and the institution of court action. However, the forcible abolition of the kulaks did not lead to their physical extermination. The overwhelming majority was given every opportunity to work.  [250•* 

p Another feature distinguishing socialist construction was that it had to be accelerated to the utmost and conducted without any economic assistance from without and in such a way as to develop all branches of the economy simultaneously, particularly all the industries. This, of course, gave rise to appalling difficulties. But there was no other way out, for it was a matter either of rapidly creating a largescale industry and a mechanised agriculture and strengthening the country’s political and defensive might, or perishing under pressure from the imperialist powers.

p Lastly, it must be noted that at no time had the Soviet Union sought isolation from the external world, as enemies are wont to allege. True to Lenin’s principles of peaceful coexistence it made every effort to establish relations with all countries. The monopolists, however, fought the Soviet Union overtly and covertly.

p Such were some of the features of socialist construction in the USSR springing from concrete historical conditions and from the logic of the struggle for the new society in a country encircled by capitalist states.

p All the difficulties of the struggle for socialism were surmounted because the people, liberated from oppression and exploitation, tackled the tasks before them with tremendous enthusiasm, energy, boundless devotion to their country and immense resourcefulness and initiative. They were surmounted also thanks to the peerless, democratic form of state power—the Soviets—which was linked directly with 251 the people and carried out their will. The Soviet people owe all their achievements to the leadership of the Communist Party.

p Today the Soviet Union is at the stage of full-scale communist construction. We are witnessing the realisation of Lenin’s forecast in April 1917 that “socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, ’From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ ”.  [251•* 

p At its 20th-24th congresses the CPSU drew up a concrete plan of communist transformations in all spheres of life in line with Lenin’s theoretical propositions. Founded on past achievements in socialist construction, this plan is a natural continuation of the basic policy of the country’s development in the period of transition.

p During the building of socialism in the USSR the CPSU has accumulated rich experience which is used by the fraternal parties of the socialist camp. Take, for instance, the new economic policy in the USSR. It was adopted with the purpose of strengthening the worker-peasant alliance, which is an indispensable condition for successful socialist construction. Its aim was thus to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and promote the building of socialism. Under this policy the surplus food requisitioning system was replaced by a smaller tax in kind (the poorest sections of the peasants had been exempt from many and, in exceptional cases, all forms of the tax in kind), the peasants were allowed to sell their surpluses in the market, the ban on private enterprises was lifted, concessions were allowed, and so on.

p The Communist Party believed these measures would promote the initiative of the peasants and give them the incentive to produce more foodstuffs. In its turn the upsurge in agriculture would help to restore and develop state industry. However, the party did not close its eyes to the fact that the new economic policy might lead to a certain revival of capitalism. But with the key positions in the hands of the proletarian state, this revival did not harbour much danger.

p The new economic policy fully justified itself. It helped to strengthen the socialist system. The experience gained 252 from this is of international significance, a fact borne out by the practice of socialist construction in the People’s Democracies.

p Also of immense international importance is the experience of socialist industrialisation. The conditions under which socialism was built in the USSR left its mark on the way in which industrialisation was achieved. In view of tsarist Russia’s huge backwardness, many industries (heavy engineering, machine-tool, automobile, metallurgical, tractor, and so on) had to be built anew. The rate of industrial development had to be rapid enough to make it possible to surmount the disparity between the world’s most advanced political system and its backward material and technical basis, make the country economically independent of the capitalist states and have the means to repulse an imperialist attack.

p The means for industrialisation were provided in a unique way. The Soviet Union could not, like the bourgeois countries, build a heavy industry by robbing colonies or at the expense of indemnities and the exploitation of the working people. Moreover, it could not count on loans from foreign countries. The Communist Party found the resources in the country itself. These consisted of the profits of the state-run factories, transport, trade and banks, of the taxes paid by the peasants, and so on.

p Moreover, the CPSU has considerable experience of organising the production process at socialist enterprises and training executives for industry and solving other problems posed by industrialisation.

p The forms and methods that have been used in the USSR to build the material and technical basis of socialism are closely studied by the Communist and Workers’ parties of other countries. The practice of other socialist states shows that the following has international significance: industrialisation as a powerful means of strengthening the alliance between workers and peasants; socialist planning and the utilisation of state finances, credits and foreign trade to promote socialist industry; cost accounting and the economic laws of distribution according to work; production training and improvement courses for workers and the training of engineers and technicians; socialist emulation and the promotion of creative activity by the working class.

253

p The Soviet experience of agricultural co-operation is likewise of world-wide importance. In fulfilment of Lenin’s co-operation plan, the CPSU brought nearly 25 million peasant farms into producers’ co-operatives within a short span of time despite the difficulties caused by the internal and international struggle. This was a far-reaching revolution in Soviet agriculture. Principles of co-operation, worked out and applied in the Soviet Union, such as voluntary membership, a differentiated approach to the various socioeconomic groups of peasants during the organisation of cooperatives, the multi-stage process of setting up collective farms (from lower to higher), the provision of personal incentives to co-operative members, the forms and methods of leadership of the co-operative movement by the party, the government and the working class, and so forth, have been and are being successfully applied in the People’s Democracies.

p The creation of history’s first multi-national state founded on friendship, fraternity and equality of all the peoples inhabiting it is a vast treasure-store of experience. Having united the different nations on a voluntary basis, the Communist Party has proved that in its entirety the national problem can only be resolved under the dictatorship of the proletariat, under socialism. Vital importance attaches to the Soviet experience of resolving a problem like the transition of formerly backward peoples to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage of development.

p The CPSU has gained internationally significant experience in areas such as the creation, development and strengthening of the socialist state during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, the abolition of the exploiting classes, the eradication of exploitation of man by man, the consummation of a cultural revolution, the promotion of socialist science, and the education of the new man in the communist spirit.

p The huge scale and novelty of the tasks that had to be fulfilled gave rise to many difficulties, which in some cases led to errors and miscalculations. At certain stages, events were unnecessarily anticipated. A number of errors were due to the personality cult and to a subjectivist approach to the solution of problems. But this cannot eclipse the successes in building socialism and, unquestionably, does not 254 spring from the nature of the Soviet system. It is therefore wrong, both in practice and theory, to strike out (as is sometimes done) entire stages from the history of socialist construction. This is wrong in practice because all the elements of socialist policy are closely inter-related, and each new practical step is founded on the step preceding it. On the theoretical level any repudiation of an analysis of real facts is prejudicial to the process of generalising and developing socialist policy.

p The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union enables the fraternal parties of socialist countries to build socialism with lesser difficulties and to avoid many mistakes in this new, difficult and great cause.

p At the same time, they quite correctly consider that to draw on the experience of the USSR does not mean to copy it blindly. Such copying contravenes the spirit of Leninism and can only inflict considerable harm. Lenin had always been categorically opposed to any mechanical application of the Soviet experience to other countries and enjoined Bolsheviks to refrain from imposing their experience on others. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union strictly abides by this injunction of its great leader and teacher. It does not force its experience on anybody. Each fraternal party contributes towards the elaboration of the forms and methods of the proletariat’s struggle for power and to the forms and methods of building socialism.

p As the experience of the working class of any other country, the Soviet experience of building socialism is available to the entire world working-class and communist movement. The Marxist-Leninist parties draw extensively on this experience and, at the same time, take the specific situation in their own countries into account. This is indispensable as a condition ensuring a correct policy and the triumph of peace and socialism.

p The peculiarity of the historical situation in which the revolutions took place in the Central and Southeast European countries and in which the building of socialism was started determined not only the methods used by the working class in the revolutionary struggle for power but also the character of the political system, the forms and methods of state development, the drive for industrialisation and 255 collectivisation, and so on. Let us briefly examine some of these points.

p Due to its class substance, the people’s democracy, like the Soviets in the USSR, became a form of the proletarian dictatorship after the victory of the socialist revolutions and, as experience shows, successfully fulfils this function. However, while having the same substance as the Soviets, it has some features of its own.

p In the first place, in a number of countries the people’s democracy carries out the functions of the proletarian dictatorship when there are several parties. For instance, in Poland in addition to the Polish United Workers’ Party there are the United Peasants’ Party and the Democratic Party; in Bulgaria, besides the Bulgarian Communist Party there is the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union; in the German Democratic Republic, in addition to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany there are the Christian-Democratic Union, the Liberal-Democratic Party, the National- Democratic Party and the Farmers’ Democratic Party.

p In countries where several parties exist their representatives hold posts in the government and occupy leading positions in the local organs of power. At their meetings, conferences and congresses these parties examine current political issues and questions of economic development. However, they recognise the leading role played by the Communist and Workers’ parties in social and political life.

p The existence of a multi-party system for a certain period under the proletarian dictatorship is not unforeseen by Marxism-Leninism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not against the participation of representatives of other parties in the first Soviet government. ”. .. We wanted a coalition Soviet government,” Lenin wrote. “We did not exclude anyone from the Soviet.”  [255•*  Furthermore, it will be recalled that at the close of 1917 and the beginning of 1918 the Bolsheviks had formed a bloc with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, whose representatives held leading posts in the Council of People’s Commissars, which passed unanimous decisions on most of the issues before it. However, the coalition 256 government was short-lived. The blame for this does not rest with the Bolsheviks. After the Brest Peace was signed, the Socialist-Revolutionaries dissolved their bloc with the Leninist Party, started an armed uprising against the Soviet power and the Bolsheviks, and took part in the Civil War on the side of the enemies of the Soviet power.

p A different situation took shape in the European People’s Democracies. The parties uniting various sections of the peasants, the working intelligentsia and the artisans recognise the leading role of the Marxist parties of the working class and mobilise their members for the building of the new society. In this situation co-operation between the Communist and other parties is not only possible but necessary.

p The experience of this co-operation in the People’s Democracies between the Communist and other parties supporting the- line of socialist construction completely refutes the slander that the Communists cannot be good partners and do not permit the existence of other parties after they come to power.

p A specific of the people’s democracy, intimately related to the feature we have mentioned above, is that the Communist and Workers’ parties exercise their leading role in the state not only through organs of power, the trade unions, the youth organisations, the co-operatives and so forth, as in the USSR, but also through an organisation like the Popular Front, which is a form of alliance between the working class, the peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. The principal object of the Popular Frontcalled the National Front in Czechoslovakia, the Fatherland Front in Bulgaria, and so on—is to concert the people’s effort in the building of socialism. It is not a state but a mass socio-political organisation with a centralised leadership and with committees in the localities. It has its own programme, acts as the medium through which co-operation between the different parties is organised, and puts up its own candidates during elections to the organs of power.

p One of the features distinguishing the people’s democracy is that some of the restrictions imposed in the USSR were not applied. For instance, in the European People’s Democracies suffrage rights were received by all citizens, including exploiting elements (with the exception of war 257 criminals and their accomplices), as soon as the proletarian revolution triumphed.

p Note must be taken of one more feature of the people’s democracy, namely, that in a number of countries use is being made of some forms of the old state system which have now been given a new, socialist content. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, the office of President has been retained. The President is elected by the Federal Assembly for a term of seven years. Under the Constitution he has the right to appoint and -dissolve the government and to convene and dissolve the Federal Assembly.

p Such are some of the specifics distinguishing the people’s democracy from the Soviet system.

p Let us now analyse the basic distinctions between the forms and methods of socialist construction in the European People’s Democracies and in the Soviet Union.

p Take socialist industrialisation. In the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe industrialisation proceeded in a totally different situation than in the USSR. Each of the People’s Democracies could utilise the Soviet experience of socialist construction and draw also on the experience of other countries building socialism. Moreover, it received material and technical assistance from the Soviet Union and also from other People’s Democracies. An exceedingly important factor was the co-operation among the socialist countries in charting the most rational ways of utilising economic resources and production capacities, in specialisation and co-operation of industries, and in the co-ordination of current and long-term plans. This co-operation allowed for a judicious division of labour in the socialist community with the purpose of securing the maximum development of each country in accordance with its natural and economic conditions, national features and the interests of the socialist community as a whole. The socialist countries promoted not all branches of industry but only those for whose development they had the most favourable conditions (raw material resources, equipment, production experience, manpower, and so on). All this greatly facilitated and expedited economic development in the People’s Democracies and allowed them to allocate additional funds to raise the living standard and cultural level of the people. Moreover, through mutual assistance it became possible to 258 bring the economically less developed socialist countries up to the level of the advanced states.

p In the People’s Democracies the socialist reorganisation of agriculture likewise had features of its own. It will be recalled that in the USSR all the land was nationalised in 1917 and that this was a powerful factor promoting collectivisation. In the People’s Democracies this task was not set either during or after the revolution. This was due to the conditions obtaining in these countries, notably, to the fact that the peasants had long ago received the ownership of the land and were attached to their plots. In view of this circumstance and in line with Lenin’s tenet relative to the middle peasants, namely that in “most capitalist countries, however, the proletarian state should not at once completely abolish private property”,  [258•*  the Communist and Workers’ parties nationalised only that part of the land that was earmarked for experiment centres, model state farms, the satisfaction of social requirements, and so forth. Most of the estates confiscated from the landed gentry and big landowners were divided up among farm labourers and landhungry peasants. The agrarian reform was put into effect under the slogan, “Land belongs to those who till it”. In Hungary, for example, the poor and middle peasants received nearly 2,000,000 hectares of land, in Poland— more than 6,000,000 hectares. The existence of private land ownership accounts for a certain development of private proprietor tendencies in the countryside. Besides, this introduced specifics of its own into the peasant co-operatives.

p Alongside features common to the socialist transformations in the People’s Democracies of Central and Southeastern Europe, there are distinctive peculiarities. One of them is the character of socialist industrialisation. For example, in some countries (Rumania, Bulgaria), which were mostly agrarian states prior to the people’s democratic revolution, many industries had to be built from scratch. In industrial countries (Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic) the task in industrial development was to eradicate the disproportion in the industrial pattern inherited from the capitalist relations of production and secure a further considerable expansion and modernisation of all 259 branches of industry. These countries had to build new factories and reorganise industry in such a way as to satisfy the steadily growing material requirements of socialist society and enable industry to develop in accordance with the requirements of modern scientific and technological progress.

p There were distinctive features, too, in the rural cooperatives. For instance, three types of co-operatives were formed in Rumania and only one type in Czechoslovakia. A specific of the co-operative in Czechoslovakia was that its members received not only remuneration for work but also compensation for the livestock, implements, buildings and so on turned over to the co-operative. There were distinctive types of co-operatives also in Poland, Hungary and other countries.

p The rate of the transition of the individual peasant husbandries to collective farms was different in the various countries. Thanks to a number of features peculiar to it, Bulgaria was the first of the European People’s Democracies to complete this extremely difficult task. The Bulgarian Communist Party had sunk very deep roots in the countryside. Even before the people’s revolution in Bulgaria there was hardly a single large village that did not have a Communist Party organisation with several score of members. With the aid of rural Communists the Communist Party skilfully organised the leadership of the co-operative movement, turning it into a mass, nation-wide movement. A major contributing factor was the existence of long- established progressive co-operative traditions. Prior to September 9, 1944 the consumers’, credit and marketing co- operatives in Bulgaria had an aggregate membership of 900,000 peasants. Producers’ co-operatives had been set up in 28 villages. The Communists were active in the co-operative movement. A very important circumstance accelerating cooperation in Bulgaria was that together with and under the leadership of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Agrarian National Union, whose democratic, progressive activities in the pre-war period had won for it the esteem of the peasants, was active in the drive to set up co-operatives. The Bulgarian Communist Party found in the co-operative farms the most suitable way of achieving the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. The peasants saw the advantages of 260 these farms, which combined public interests with the individual interests of their members, and willingly joined them.

p Immense headway in co-operating agriculture was registered in the other European People’s Democracies. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, the socialist sector embraced more than 90 per cent of the cultivated land (1966),  [260•*  and in Rumania 94.1 per cent (29.9 per cent in the state sector and 61.2 per cent in the co-operative sector  [260•** ); in the German Democratic Republic all the peasants who had individual husbandries voluntarily joined producers’ co-operatives by the spring of 1960.  [260•*** 

p In the People’s Democracies there are many distinctive features in the forms of working-class organisation, in the approach to the shopkeeper and the kulak, in the ways of regulating the relations between the people’s democratic power and the church, and so on.  [260•****  However, all this diversity manifests itself within the single process of the advance towards communism, in the course of which the Communist and Workers’ parties strictly abide by the general principles of socialist development.

p The socialist countries of Central and Southeastern Europe have achieved much in the building of socialism. These achievements are striking testimony of the fact that the people’s democratic system has withstood the test of time and proved its viability as a system consistent with the basic interests of the people. Moreover, the experience of these countries shows that to accomplish the socialist revolution and build socialism requires the maximum effort by 261 the working class and all other working people and skilful and flexible leadership by the Marxist parties. As in any other big, new task, it is attended by many difficulties.

p Noting that there may be shortcomings and errors during the transition period, Lenin wrote that the “toiling classes who for centuries have been oppressed, downtrodden and forcibly held in the vice of poverty, brutality and ignorance cannot avoid mistakes when making a revolution”.  [261•*  Lenin saw another reason for errors in the fact that the “corpse of capitalism is decaying and disintegrating in our midst, polluting the air and poisoning our lives, enmeshing that which is new, fresh, young and virile in thousands of threads and bonds of that which is old, moribund and decaying”.  [261•**  He stressed that the new world “does not come into being ready-made, does not spring forth like Minerva from the head of Jupiter”.  [261•*** 

p The lessons of the counter-revolutionary conspiracy in Hungary in the autumn of 1956 were, Janos Kadar said, that the socialist revolution, accomplished by relatively peaceful means, had some deceptive aspects. Although the economic foundation of the power of the Hungarian bourgeoisie had been demolished, the bourgeoisie had managed to preserve many of its cadres and retain an active political role and, in particular, its influence over the state administration and over economic and cultural affairs. The party had failed to take this into account and, after the revolution, relaxed its political vigilance and its struggle against the class enemy. As a result, during the counter-revolutionary conspiracy the Hungarian bourgeoisie had been able, in a matter of days, to organise and come forward as an active political force.

p In Czechoslovakia, too, one of the reasons for the political crisis was that, on the one hand, the Party did not take into account the existence of remnants of the exploiting classes and their counter-revolutionary activity and, on the other, it overestimated the process of the convergence of different strata of society. At a plenary meeting of the CC CPC in September 1969 Gustav Husak noted that there were “subjectivist, opportunist illusions that all antagonistic 262 class contradictions had been surmounted in our society, and voluntaristic notions to the effect that as a result of internal affinity, the gradual knitting of social classes and strata and the emergence of a classless state of the people no class struggle was being waged in our society. From this stemmed the view that in our country the forces hostile to socialism had ceased to exist and that there was class antagonism only on an international scale.”  [262•* 

p In some People’s Democracies there have been individual blunders and errors in the decision of economic problems and in the leadership of the state apparatus; historic and other features of the country concerned and the traditions of the peoples were not always taken into account. Among a certain section of the people this gave rise to discontent which was at once used by class enemies in an effort to stir the masses against the people’s democratic system.

p In Asian countries and in Cuba socialist construction also has some features of its own on account of the specific development of the economic, social and political structure of these countries, where long colonial dependence on imperialism had obstructed national and social emancipation, and also on account of the way in which the socialist revolution was accomplished. It is important to bear in mind that some measures of a socialist character were launched when the revolution in these countries was growing from its democratic into the socialist stage.

p In the Mongolian People’s Republic the democratic stage of the revolution ended in 1940. The 10th Congress of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party, held in 1940, mapped out the main tasks in the building of the foundations of socialism. These tasks were carried out, in the main, by 1960, after which Mongolia entered the stage witnessing the completion of socialist construction.

p The state and co-operative sectors of the economy were further strengthened at the socialist stage of the revolution. “The gradual building of the industrial foundations of the key branches of the economy, the steady growth of socialist industry and the building of new branches, and the development of modern means of transport and communications 263 with decisive economic and technical assistance from the Soviet Union and then with the assistance and co-operation of other socialist countries have helped to turn Mongolia from an agrarian into an agrarian-industrial country,"  [263•*  states the Programme of the MPRP adopted at the 15th Party Congress in 1966. The individual herders’ economies were united in socialist co-operatives, the herders joining these co-operatives en masse at the close of the 1950s. A feature of this process was that co-operatives were set up without dispossessing the kulak elements, who became members of these rural co-operatives voluntarily.

p In the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam socialist changes continue to take place in a specific situation: the working class and working peasants have triumphed in the north of these countries, the south still languishing under the oppression of the exploiting classes and international imperialism. Moreover, after the revolution both these countries had to expend much of their strength on a war against the imperialists: the people of North Korea had to repulse the attack of the Syngman Rhee regime and its United States overlords in 1950-1953, while the people of North Vietnam had to fight an almost ten-years’ war (1945-1954) forced on them by the French colonialists, and since 1965 they have been waging a bitter struggle against US aggression. All this has unquestionably affected the entire character of socialist construction.

p In the northern part of Korea, where the power is in the hands of the people, the revolutionary reforms were, in the main, completed in 1946-1949. The agrarian reform, the decree on which was adopted on March 5, 1946, did much to rally the people. Article 1 of the decree stated that the principal objective was “to abolish Japanese landownership, the estates of the Korean landowners and the rent system. The right to own land shall be enjoyed by those who till it. In North Korea the agrarian system shall consist of peasant farms that are independent and free of landowners and constitute the private property of their owners.”  [263•** 

264

p As a result of the reform, nearly one million hectares of arable land were turned over gratis to 720,000 landless and land-hungry peasants. Simultaneously, the state nationalised large and medium factories that belonged to the Japanese colonialists and traitors to the nation, and also the banks and transport. In 1949 the resultant state sector embraced 85.5 per cent of the industry.

p Economic reconstruction was started in 1953 upon the termination of the war, which had caused immense destruction and loss of life. Fulfilling a three-year plan, the Korean people not only restored the pre-war level of industrial production but went far beyond it.

p Economic construction proceeded with priority for the heavy industry and the parallel expansion of the light industry and agriculture. In 1967 industrial output was 22 times above the 1948 level. In the countryside development is accompanied by an ideological, technological and cultural revolution. Compulsory primary, secondary and general 9- year technical education is being successively introduced.

p In the Democratic Republic of Vietnam the people could start building the new, socialist society on a massive scale only in 1954, when an end was put to the military operations of the colonialists against Vietnam. The major achievement since then has been the agrarian reform. An agrarian reform was started during the war, but it envisaged only a limitation of feudal exploitation. At the close of 1953 a course was set towards the complete abolition of landed proprietorship. This policy has been successfully implemented. Some 8,000,000 peasants received land from the people’s power. Land was confiscated from the landowners differentially. Those who had fought in the war on the side of the people or had not committed crimes against the people received compensation for the land. Gradual co-operation was started after the land reform. The first co-operatives were temporary and permanent labour mutual-aid groups. The first experimental agricultural producers’ co-operatives were set up in 1956. At present most of the peasant farms are united in peasant mutual-aid groups or producers’ cooperatives.

p Fundamental changes have taken place also in the towns of North Vietnam. Under colonial rule there had been practically no national industry in Vietnam. New industrial 265 enterprises have been built or are under construction parallel with the restoration and enlargement of the enterprises confiscated from foreign capitalists.

p A three-year plan of economic reorganisation and cultural development was put into effect in the period from 1958 to 1960, the main target being to enforce socialist reforms in agriculture, handicrafts, trade and industry, build industrial and other projects and promote industry and agriculture. As a result of the fulfilment of this plan, the share of the state sector in the total industrial output increased 43 per cent. Co-operatives, semi-co-operatives and mixed state-private enterprises were set up in most of the private sector.

p Economic development was accompanied by a modification of the social structure, the numerical growth of the working class and an enhancement of its role in the country. The dictatorship of the working class was established in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1960.

p In the DRV socialist construction was disrupted by the war of aggression started by US imperialism. The strong socialist foundation of the republic’s economic and political system and assistance from friendly socialist countries enabled it to put up effective resistance to the invaders.

p In Cuba the people’s democratic revolution was, in the main, consummated and the transition to the socialist revolution was started by mid-1961.

p Phenomena typical of the transition period in other countries were observed in the course of this process. Society’s political structure was strengthened. Of paramount significance was the amalgamation in 1963 of the revolutionary organisations into a United Party of the Socialist Revolution, which in October 1965 was renamed the Communist Party of Cuba.

p The principal organs of state and economic administration, subsequently strengthened and improved, were set up in the early 1960s.

p A specific of the Cuban political system was the broad application of direct democracy (mass rallies and meetings). Committees for the defence of the revolution were formed in Cuba in 1960 with the purpose of organising the masses and forming a closer link between the people and the organs of state. As Fidel Castro noted, these committees were 266 consistent with the style of the Cuban revolution, a style springing not from abstract schemes and diagrams but from reality.

p Socialist reforms have made considerable headway in the Cuban economy.

p The Cuban Government pays particular attention to industrial development. A Ministry for Industry was formed in 1961.

p The industrialisation programme rests on the development of the power engineering, chemical, machine-tool and metallurgical industries.

p The second land reform was put into effect in December 1963. It put a limit on the size of private estates, placed over 70 per cent of the cultivated land in the hands of the state and finally demolished the economic foundation of the big and middle rural bourgeoisie.

p Nation-wide measures were taken to abolish illiteracy and promote culture. All educational institutions were nationalised as early as 1961.

p A feature of socialist construction in Cuba is the planned development of all aspects of social life with emphasis on the solution of the most pressing problems. This finds expression in annual nation-wide campaigns.

p In Cuba socialist changes are taking place under the difficult conditions of a constant struggle against pressure and blackmail from US imperialism, which has repeatedly had recourse to actions of a military character.

p In the People’s Republic of China tasks such as the socialist reorganisation of capitalist industry and trade, agriculture and the artisan industry were carried in a very specific manner.

p During the initial years following the proclamation of a people’s republic a large part of the property in the hands of the foreign imperialists and compradore bourgeoisie was expropriated and nationalised. This made it possible to create a strong socialist sector in the economy.

p A different approach was taken to the property of the national bourgeoisie, which supported the democratic dictatorship of the people, the common programme and the new constitution, approved the agrarian reforms, and so on. This attitude of the bourgeoisie was not due, of course, to any modification of its class outlook. As the bourgeoisie of any other country, it championed private ownership and 267 the exploitation of the labour of others. Various circumstances compelled it to support the people’s power and the earlier democratic revolution. It saw that with the vast majority of the people rallying to the new power any resistance would be futile. Moreover, it remembered the bitter experience of the Russian bourgeoisie in its struggle against the Soviet power.

p In this situation, capitalist property was not confiscated, and capitalist industry and trade underwent a peaceful socialist reorganisation. In view of China’s economic backwardness this helped to extend production, accumulate funds and sustain employment.

p Capitalist industry and trade were reorganised peacefully in China through a policy of utilising, restricting and reforming private capitalist industry and trade. There were two aspects to this political line: the first was the redemption of the means of production from the bourgeoisie, with the result that through various forms of state capitalism capitalist property was gradually converted into public property, the second was the ideological re-education of the bourgeoisie, the conversion of the bourgeois into a wage-earner.

p The peaceful ways of reorganising industry and trade justified themselves. By the close of 1956 some 70,000 private industrial enterprises, which accounted for 99.6 per cent of the gross output (in terms of cost) of all private enterprises, were reorganised into state-private establishments, and 1,990,000 private trade enterprises employing 85 per cent of the total number of the personnel of all private operations became state-private, state or co-operative trade enterprises. Under the first five-year plan (1953-1957) the annual average rate of growth of output was 18 per cent in industry and 4.5 per cent in agriculture, while the national income grew at a rate of 8.9 per cent.  [267•* 

p This was a major achievement in the drive to establish socialist relations of production in industry and trade.

p The socialist reforms in agriculture made it possible to draw the bulk of the individual peasant husbandries into co-operatives by the middle of the 1950s. A total of 120 million (or 96 per cent) peasant households joined the 268 cooperatives by the end of 1954; at the beginning of 1958 this percentage rose to over 98.

p Although there were serious miscalculations, the reorganisation of industry and agriculture could, on the whole, facilitate the establishment of socialist relations in different spheres of social life. Started in those years, the movement to regulate the style of work and the struggle against Rightwing elements should have, as was proclaimed, ensured the further consolidation of the socialist system and secured a large-scale upsurge in production and a radical change of the balance of class forces in favour of socialism.

p Regrettably there was a departure from the creative Marxist-Leninist line. “In its numerous statements on questions of theory,” L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 1969 International Meeting, “the CPC leadership has step by step revised the principled line of the communist movement. In opposition to this it has laid down a special line of its own on all the fundamental questions of our day.”  [268•* 

p This line was particularly striking in the “big leap" policy proclaimed in 1958 and in the “cultural revolution" started in 1966. It led to serious complications in socialist economic construction and had grave consequences. Until 1963 China’s economy showed a steady decline. In 1965 agricultural output drew close to the level of 1957, the year the “big leap" was launched, while industrial output exceeded this level by approximately 30 per cent.  [268•**  At the root of the difficulties that hindered socialist construction was the CPC leadership’s disregard of the laws of the development of socialism, violation of the principles of proletarian internationalism and replacement of Marxism-Leninism by Maoism.

A survey of socialist construction in different countries shows that socialist reforms have been successful only when general laws were observed. The basic propositions of Lenin’s plan of socialist reforms have proved to hold true for all countries. The specifics of socialist development in individual countries do not range beyond the framework of general laws. At the same time, socialist construction has an 269 immense wealth of forms and methods in different spheres of social life and demonstrates that there are unlimited possibilities for revolutionary creativity.